Which box will you check – protect your financial security, or pay higher taxes and costs?
September 14, 2026
By Gary Abernathy
The actions of government, big business and other powerful institutions often leave people feeling overwhelmed with financial obligations that occur through no fault of their own. That’s why it’s confounding to know that many of these same Americans will march to the polls this fall and willingly vote for even higher costs, more regulations and additional constraints on family budgets and general liberties.
Polls show that in multiple states, U.S. House and Senate races will be decided by razor-thin
margins, even though most of the contests feature clear choices between keeping more of our own
money or handing additional portions of our income to the government.
On one side are Republicans who are mostly conservative, in favor of fewer government regulations and supportive of energy policies that protect our most affordable, reliable and abundant
resources. On the other side are Democrats – an increasing number of whom are not merely
progressives but brazenly socialists – favoring more government control and advocating for taxpayer subsidies of “alternative” energy.
Despite the variety of issues highlighted in TV and digital advertising bombarding voters right
now, when Americans cast their ballots this November there will be one stark choice on the ballot –
higher costs for energy (costs that carry over to almost all goods and services) versus lower costs.
Voting for candidates who support going back to Biden-era subsidies and regulations will be like checking a box that says, “Raise My Taxes and Increase My Costs On Almost Everything,” despite another choice that essentially says, “Let Me Keep More of My Money.”
A refresher: In 2022, every Democrat in the U.S. Senate, without exception, voted for Joe
Biden’s misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which greatly expanded tax credits for “renewable” energy – at a tremendous cost to taxpayers. Calculating the impact of two of those credits – the Investment Tax Credit and the Production Tax Credit – the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that “the ITC and PTC together increase projected deficits from 2026 to 2035 by about $300 billion.”
Divided among the roughly 133 million U.S. households, that’s more than $200 per year per
household, and more than $2,000 over the total decade included in the CBO calculation. That’s what you’re voting for if you cast a ballot for candidates who thinks Biden-era tax credits and subsidies for “renewables” were good things and should be maintained and/or expanded.
But that’s just the beginning, and it’s very possibly a low estimate. Many advocates for renewables also support forcing the retirement of existing reliable power plants in favor of replacement by renewables. Those costs are even more eye opening.
PJM, a grid operator serving much of the eastern U.S., warned in 2023 that existing plants were
being shut down faster than replacements were coming online. PJM found that “40 GW of existing
generation are at risk of retirement by 2030. … this represents 21% of PJM’s current installed capacity.” The analysis warned that “the current pace of new entry would be insufficient to keep up with expected retirements and demand growth by 2030.”
It’s important to remember that all power generation is not equal. PJM noted that multiple megawatts of renewable resources might be needed to replace just one megawatt of retiring thermal
generation. That means spending more money on generation, battery storage, transmission, upgrades, etc., etc. – all at a cost eventually borne by ratepayers.
Based on figures from a 2024 transition study by PJM, replacement generation by the target
year 2035 could – based on scenario-based projections – represent anywhere from a conservative
estimate of $3,000 to a possible high of $6,000 hitting every household in PJM’s customer footprint.
Those are just the costs directly associated with energy. The indirect costs are even more
alarming. When energy costs rise, groceries become more expensive, as do manufactured goods (steel, plastic, paper, furniture), along with travel costs, health care, refrigeration, heating and cooling, you name it. Those additional costs can climb into the thousands annually.
President Trump and the GOP Congress tried to roll back as much of the Biden-era credits and
subsidies as possible, but many of them were too far down the road – and even those that were derailed can be brought back if Democrats regain control of Congress.
Again: Voting for a candidate who supports more government intervention to replace reliable
and affordable energy with “renewables” is like checking a box that says, “Raise My Taxes and Increase My Costs On Almost Everything.”
Also at stake this election is the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES),
introduced by U.S. Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), which would protect Americans from the political whims of the climate crusaders and guarantee that our most abundant and cost-effective energy resources will always remain a crucial part of the mix. If Democrats win either the House or Senate, say goodbye to any chance of codifying affordable energy into law, as Americans deserve.
When you prepare to cast your ballot in your U.S. Senate or House race, carefully examine the
candidates’ positions on energy and then vote to keep more of your own money. This fall, we have a
chance to take control of our financial security and protect America’s energy future – for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. Let’s rise to the occasion and, race by race, make the smart choice.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing
columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.