Americans are not prescriptive about the tools policymakers use to lower electricity prices.

John,

Welcome back to On the Grid, Third Way’s bi-weekly newsletter, where we’ll recap how we’re working to deploy every clean energy technology as quickly and affordably as possible.

We’re excited to have you join us!

Electricity prices are spiking ([link removed] ) across the country. Those of us in the energy space can spend an endless amount of time dissecting the reasons why, but, for most Americans, that debate is irrelevant. They want to know what policymakers will do to fix it.

They’re not prescriptive about the tools policymakers use to lower prices, and they don’t pledge fealty to specific energy technologies. They’re just looking for some help making ends meet and certainty that the lights will come on when they flip the switch. This shouldn’t be surprising, yet policymakers and activists frequently misread public sentiment on energy. They too often insist that Americans not only strongly prefer one fuel mix or another, but also that they can be persuaded to support specific technologies through moral, rather than practical, arguments.

As Josh Freed, Senior Vice President for Climate and Energy, told Semafor ([link removed] ) this week, “The basic problem with typical energy messaging across the political spectrum is that most Americans simply don’t care about where their energy comes from and aren’t motivated by crusades for or against any particular technologies. They mainly care how much stuff costs.”

Making impassioned floor speeches that call clean energy a moral and ethical imperative, or elevating oil and gas as a patriotic fuel, won’t hold weight with the American public. They want to see a price tag and a plan to keep costs low.

Democratic Governors Are Starting to Adjust: Over the past few weeks, a number of prominent Democrats have recalibrated their energy strategies to put affordability front and center. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul approved the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline ([link removed] ) to increase the natural gas supply downstate, enhance energy reliability, and prevent price spikes. In Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro agreed to withdraw the state ([link removed] ) from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as part of a broader budget deal. He argued that this removes state Republicans’ last excuse for blocking his efforts to bring more clean energy to the state and reduce energy costs.

Our Take: Hochul and Shapiro’s actions reflect a savvy understanding of today’s economic and political energy reality: voters care most about the immediate, rising cost of energy. They’re looking for leaders to take real, pragmatic action. The governors of New York and Pennsylvania are showing how to do that and remain committed to addressing climate change.

Changes in Washington: Senator Ruben Gallego is taking a similar approach, releasing a new energy plan ([link removed] ) that prioritizes affordability, reliability, and an unapologetically all-of-the-above approach. Gallego proposes using every credible tool we have–more clean energy, more firm power, more infrastructure, faster permitting, and continued use of oil and gas–to lower prices and keep the grid stable.

The plan marks a decisive shift for Washington Democrats away from the influence of environmental advocates, towards a more pragmatic approach. For too long, Democrats have treated energy policy as a litmus test on climate. Gallego’s plan could help refocus the party on treating energy as what it is: an essential industry that needs to be more affordable, predictable, and reliable.

What We’re Doing: Long-time readers will know that Third Way has long pushed for a bold, pragmatic all-of-the-above energy and climate policy, and a shift away from unrealistic, limited technology approaches. We’re heartened that a growing number of leading Democrats are making that shift–and we’re in their corner should they face pushback from activists.

Fringe environmental groups in New York have ramped up the backlash ([link removed] ) on Governor Hochul’s NESE decision. We’re cautioning national organizations: do not follow them down this path. Adopting the same rigid posturing that treats any infrastructure decision as a moral referendum rather than a practical necessity will only push mainstream groups farther out of step with the public and ultimately undermine the energy transition we’re all trying to advance.

Last week, the British government released its 2025 Nuclear Regulatory Review ([link removed] ) , a set of recommendations to modernize nuclear assessment, licensing, and deployment in the UK. You can read the full report here ([link removed] ) , but here’s a snapshot:

- Clearer Top-Down Direction: The UK government needs, and the Prime Minister recently delivered, a clear strategic mandate from government to help align the system around more timely, lower-cost delivery while still maintaining safety. This will support the government’s goal of deploying more nuclear power, and address its inability, to date, of translating this ambition into concrete priorities or measurable goals for the system to organize around. Without a shared sense of what needs to be built, on what timelines, or what expectations to work toward, regulators, agencies, and developers default to caution and process rather than deliver.
- Consolidating Overlapping Regulators: A major source of complexity in the UK is that multiple regulators are responsible for evaluating the same nuclear projects on safety, security, and environmental impact, often simultaneously and on the same site, and each with its own criteria and processes. Developers end up dealing with multiple agencies reviewing the same work through slightly different mandates. This results in conflicting standards and redundant documentation. By consolidating these functions under a single, unified decision-making body that can act as a final one-stop arbiter on major regulatory decisions, government can give developers one accountable decision-maker to coordinate, resolve disputes, and actually keep projects on track.

Why This Matters: The UK is modernizing a regulatory system designed for the mid-twentieth century. The strategic importance goes well beyond domestic deployment. The US and the UK are two of the only democracies with the institutions, talent, and industrial base to actually build and export nuclear technologies at scale. What the UK is proposing, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer fully endorsed, would reduce or eliminate much of the red tape and dangerous risk aversion that delays and adds costs to needed clean energy projects. Fundamental to this is the proposed establishment of a Commission for Nuclear Regulation that is more closely aligned with the US regulatory model. While the US system comes with its own challenges, creating a single, accountable regulator provides a clearer path to decisions and fewer opportunities for projects to become stuck in procedural deadlock.

That alignment matters. Right now, bringing a US reactor design to the UK means navigating an entirely different regulatory system, adding time, cost, and uncertainty for developers. When the UK’s process is clearer and less fragmented, it becomes significantly easier for US reactor designs to get licensed, sited, and built there. It also creates a regulatory model that emerging nuclear markets can emulate.

With Russia and China currently dominating the global nuclear market ([link removed] ) , a more unified US-UK regulatory environment can help create a credible democratic alternative for other countries with an interest in advanced nuclear technologies. For the US, this means access to a key market and more opportunities to secure valuable order books and grow key supply chains. For the UK, it brings investment and a pathway to shared safety standards. Furthermore, this strengthens our ability to compete ([link removed] ) with adversaries who use nuclear technology as a strategic geopolitical tool.

What We’re Doing: This review sets the stage for meaningful reform. Our team is working to ensure it translates into real progress for transatlantic nuclear deployment and American nuclear developers. We’re engaging with policymakers to underscore the value of regulatory reform and aligned standards ([link removed] ) . Our work has already helped shape the conversation. The US-UK nuclear commitments ([link removed] ) announced this past September explicitly embraced the kind of coordinated licensing, regulatory alignment, and joint deployment pathways we’ve been calling for. ([link removed] )

- David Chen ([link removed] ) , in the New York Times, spotlights growing opposition to data centers across the country and how the rising cost of electricity is shaping local politics.
- Tom Fairless and Max Colchester, ([link removed] ) in the Wall Street Journal, argue that Europe’s rapid pivot to renewables reduced emissions but came with significant economic and social costs, cautioning against the US following a similar restrictive path.
- Jerusalem Demsas ([link removed] ) , on The Argument podcast, sits down with Robinson Meyer to unpack the politics of climate and assess the current trajectory of the climate movement.

Let’s keep the conversation going,

Mary Sagatelova

Senior Advisor | Third Way

216.394.7615 :: @MarySagatelova ([link removed] )

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up to receive The Grid in your inbox HERE ([link removed] ) .

Copyright © 2025 Third Way. All rights reserved.

Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your subscription preferences. ([link removed] )

Third Way, 1025 Connecticut Ave,Washington,DC