Something is missing from the Democratic Party’s 2026 message, and its absence speaks louder than any speech. Climate change, the issue party leaders once called an existential emergency, has gone quiet. Journalists even have a name for it: climate hushing.
An analysis of congressional press releases by Inside Climate News found that Democratic mentions of climate change have plummeted since 2025, while talk of energy affordability has surged. Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, once a green energy champion, now sells herself as a fighter against high utility bills, and her pivot is being called a blueprint for the party.
Behind closed doors, the shift is even starker. At a recent Senate Democratic strategy retreat, the polling presentation did not ask a single question about climate change. One attendee, Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Whitehouse, called it a massive blind spot.
Give the strategists credit. They read the same election returns everyone else did. The party’s own review of the 2024 loss reportedly found that green transition messaging frightened workers in traditional industries who feared for their jobs. Voters punished Democrats for the high cost of living, and nothing raised that cost more visibly than energy.
But notice what the party retreated toward. They did not change the subject to something safe and unrelated. They ran straight at affordability, the exact ground where their climate record is weakest. You do not flee toward your own weakness. You flee toward it only when you have no choice, because the voters are already holding their ever-increasing electric bills.
And those bills tell the story. The average American residential electricity rate has climbed about 25% in four years, from just over 15 cents per kilowatt hour in 2022 to nearly 19 cents this spring. In the last year alone, rates jumped more than 7%.
Federal forecasters expect another increase in 2026, with the sharpest pain along the East Coast, where climate mandates are most aggressive. These are not acts of nature. They are the predictable result of policies that shut down reliable power plants and force expensive, weather-dependent replacements onto the grid. Like adding an undependable car to your family’s budget. It just increases your costs if you want reliability.
The price tag reaches well beyond the monthly bill. When Congress passed the ill-named Inflation Reduction Act, budget scorekeepers pegged its energy subsidies at around 370 billion dollars over ten years. The real number keeps climbing.
The Congressional Budget Office now estimates the clean energy tax credits alone will add 825 billion dollars to the deficit, and the Cato Institute puts the full range as high as nearly 2 trillion dollars over the same window. That is a wealth transfer from ordinary ratepayers and taxpayers to well-connected developers, and it buys higher prices, not lower ones.
Here is the admission hiding inside the silence. If the green transition were actually making energy cheaper, climate and affordability would be the same message, and there would be nothing to hush. The party could brag about both in the same breath. The fact that its own strategists had to choose between them, and chose to bury climate, is a confession that the two pull in opposite directions.
Some Democrats insist this is a recast, not a retreat. They argue that cheap solar and wind are the affordability answer, and that voters can be won by promising climate policy will lower bills.
But that claim collapses on contact with its own logic. If renewables were truly the cheapest power, they would not need mandates, subsidies, and regulatory waivers to force utilities to buy them. You do not have to compel people to choose the cheaper option. The mandates exist precisely because the market, left alone, would choose otherwise.
The honest lesson is one conservatives have argued for years. Reliable, affordable energy and heavy-handed climate central planning cannot coexist. Americans want to keep the lights on and the bills low, and they have figured out which policies deliver that and which do not.
Democratic strategists have figured it out too. That is why they have stopped talking. The quiet is not a change of heart. It is a change of subject, and it amounts to an admission that the policies were too expensive and too restrictive to defend out loud. The rest of us should say plainly that we do not want less reliable and more expensive electricity.
Andrew Costanzo, a Republican candidate for the 7th legislative district, still believes public education is key to Arizona’s future. But Costanzo says Arizona has serious need for reform — and that’s why public schools continue to decline.
Costanzo has proposed remedying low student proficiency rates by increasing school choice competition, mirroring Mississippi law, and implementing merit-based bonuses for educators.
He has also proposed growing the state’s universal school choice program by allowing property taxes to follow the child rather than according to the geographical predeterminations that fund school districts.
Costanzo is also very much against the proposed ballot initiative to end universal school choice. He said opportunity for educational freedom should be afforded to all, regardless of economic status. He also said educators would benefit from greater competition because they would be marketable on merit.
“How will these children reach their full potential as adults if they can’t read? We’re causing them a lifetime of pain,” said Costanzo in an interview last month. “The schools need something that benefits all businesses, and that’s competition.”
Costanzo also proposed enacting legislation similar to Mississippi’s Literacy-Based Promotion Act in Arizona, which policy experts have credited with a dramatic turnaround in student outcomes.
The lifelong Republican, who operates a family business near Payson, views freedom as the result of individuals taking on personal responsibilities and risks.
“Security, which is typically imagined, requires minimal personal responsibility and risk,” stated Costanzo’s website. “The alleged security is always provided at the loss of freedom.”
Beyond those philosophical takes on political matters, Costanzo presented a platform heavy on reducing government regulations through serious bureaucratic downsizing and greater deference to local governments, while increasing election security measures, resisting increased gun restrictions and abortion freedoms, retaining protections for law enforcement, and rolling back renewable energies.
Costanzo said in an interview last month that the legislature must “economically strangle” cartels and further scrutinize state agencies to recover what he says are sizable amounts of taxpayer funds being lost.
“It is so evident that there is waste, fraud, and abuse [in Arizona],” said Costanzo.
Costanzo’s platform also addressed at length the ongoing consequences of mass illegal immigration.
He described opposition to the present government handling of the illegal immigration crisis. According to Costanzo, the status quo victimizes both the illegal aliens and Americans. Illegal aliens face exploitation due to their vulnerable status as noncitizens, while Americans face the burdens of increased crime and strained public resources.
“Illegal aliens are often exploited financially, physically, or sexually. These people become part of an underclass of humans, a new form of slavery,” said Costanzo. “Whomever the victim, law enforcement resources must be implemented, the legal system is burdened, and incarcerations are applied. All paid for by the American taxpayer. […] [And t]he children of illegal aliens only put more pressure on an already failing [public school] system. Children who do not speak English must receive additional attention and resources, depriving the same from American students.”
Costanzo has been involved with the Arizona Republican Party, Gila County Republican Committee, Maricopa County Republican Committee, and Arizona Law Enforcement Emerald Society. He served as a precinct committeeman as well as a chairman, first vice chairman, and secretary for his legislative district.
This year marks Costanzo’s second time running for this office. He failed to secure the nomination in the 2024 Republican primary, which proved to be more crowded than this year’s primary: six candidates fought for two seats.
The 7th legislative district has fewer contenders in the Republican primary this time around.
State Rep. Walt Blackman is running to retain his seat, the other vacated by the April resignation of former lawmaker David Marshall. Three candidates are fighting for that spot vacated by a would-be incumbent: Costanzo and fellow 2024 primary candidate, Barby Ingle, and former state representative David Cook.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
This November, Tucson voters are being asked (again) to approve a 25-year franchise agreement between Tucson and Tucson Electric Power (TEP). Franchise agreements are generally standard arrangements that allow utilities to use public rights-of-way for poles, wires, and infrastructure. But there is nothing standard about this deal. Bundled with it is an “Energy Collaboration Agreement” that will quietly embed climate policy into Tucson’s governance for the next quarter century. Voters should read the fine print (and the price tag) before checking the box.
If Tucson voters are having déjà vu reading this proposal, it’s because it is awfully similar to what they have already said no to. In May 2023, Proposition 412 put a nearly identical TEP franchise agreement before the public, and voters rejected it by a 55-45 margin. That deal included a new 0.75% “community resilience fee” on top of the existing 2.25% franchise fee, with proceeds earmarked for undergrounding utility lines as well as funding the city’s Climate Action Plan. Despite voters already telling the city they don’t want it, city leaders and TEP have assumed residents really just want a more expensive version of the same thing – rebranding and trying to ream through for a second time the same agenda but at a cost of $64 million instead of $56 million.
What the franchise agreement really does is help TEP maintain infrastructure, expedite permitting, and improve outage response. But TEP can still operate without a franchise agreement, meaning this vote is not about whether Tucson continues receiving electricity. Instead, it creates the legal foundation for a broader political partnership between the city and the utility…
Last year, Katie Hobbs, by executive order, established a “task force” headed by her Office of “Sustainability” to develop a report on energy affordability and reliability. This month, her task force submitted their plan which would do the opposite of that: make energy more expensive and less reliable. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the “task force” called by Hobbs is made up of solar special interests, environmental activists, her own agencies, and utilities that have all committed to going Net Zero anyway.
Instead of reading 81 pages that brings nothing new to the table, the only questions that need to be asked (and answered) about the report are below.
Does it call for new natural gas generation? Not really.
Does it call on utilities to keep our coal plants open? No, they want to shut them down and “repower” them to “clean” energy.
Does it pave the way for new nuclear? Not until the mid-2040s, at the earliest.
What, then, does it advocate doing? Subsize special interests by blanketing state trust land and government buildings with even more solar, wind, and battery storage. The very thing causing utility rates to increase and leading to blackouts…
Arizona House Republicans are raising concerns about Governor Katie Hobbs’ recently released state energy plan, arguing it prioritizes solar development and government programs over housing availability and energy affordability.
In a press release, the Arizona House Republican Caucus said the plan advances policies that emphasize utility-scale solar projects, expanded renewable energy deployment, and the use of state-owned land for energy infrastructure.
The criticism follows the rollout of the governor’s broader energy strategy, which includes 31 recommendations developed by the Arizona Energy Promise Task Force to address rising energy demand, data center growth, and utility costs across the state.
According to House Republicans, the plan promotes solar development on state land, including areas near existing communities, rooftop solar installations on government buildings, and participation in virtual power plant programs.
Republican lawmakers cautioned that these proposals could affect the availability of land for residential development. Citing data from the Common Sense Institute, they noted that the Hobbs administration has “identified land closest to existing residential areas as ‘best’ for solar development,” adding that approximately 276,000 acres of state land within 10 miles of incorporated cities and towns could support up to 200,000 housing units.
House Majority Leader Michael Carbone (R-LD25) said the administration’s plan emphasizes renewable energy projects and related investments while raising concerns about impacts on housing supply and costs to taxpayers.
He explained in a statement, “Hobbs is calling this an all-of-the-above energy plan. It’s not. It’s a solar-heavy political plan that puts green industry insiders ahead of taxpayers, pushes utility-scale solar onto state land that could support badly needed housing, and says nothing about lowering gas prices for Arizona families. When Hobbs says ‘all of the above,’ what she means is more wind and solar.”
The governor’s office has described the energy plan as part of a broader effort to address affordability and reliability while bringing together stakeholders from utilities, industry, and government.
In separate announcements, the Hobbs administration has highlighted programs focused on lowering energy costs, including efficiency upgrades and rebate initiatives designed to reduce utility bills for Arizona households.
Carbone criticized Hobbs’ energy plan, stating, “You cannot claim to have an energy plan for Arizona while ignoring gasoline prices, fuel supply, and the infrastructure needed to keep this state moving. This report does not confront boutique fuel problems, does not address refinery or pipeline capacity, and does not even include the industry that supplies the fuel Arizona families and businesses rely on every day. That is not all of the above. That is selective politics dressed up as policy.”
He added, “Her report is long on politics and short on answers. It does not lower costs. It does not increase housing supply. It does not put taxpayers first. House Republicans are focused on affordability, reliability, and policies that serve Arizona families, not a narrow political agenda.”
