With less than three weeks until the midterm elections, affordability continues to rank as the most important issue for Americans. According to a new RealClearEnergy poll, 37% of likely voters say a candidate’s stance on affordability is most likely to influence their vote for Congress – more than double the 15% who cited immigration as a factor. It was the top issue for Democrats (43%), Republicans (32%), and independents (36%) alike.
The poll, taken nationally Oct. 1-3 with 1,000 likely voters, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
A few demographic splits stand out. Affordability was the top concern for 45% of voters in their 30s and 44% of those in their 40s, but only 29% of voters under 30. The youngest voters were instead far more focused on health care (24%) than any other age group, while just 4% of voters in their 60s said the same. Those with postgraduate degrees were more than seven times as likely as voters with a high school education or less to pick “democratic norms” as their top issue (17% to 2%).
Energy costs hit home
Energy is a major part of that affordability concern. Sixty-one percent of voters said energy costs, including gasoline, natural gas, and electric utility bills, are a “major problem” for them, and another 30% called them a “minor problem.” Democrats were the most likely to feel the pinch; 74% percent of Democrats called energy costs a major problem, compared to 59% of independents and 52% of Republicans.
There is also broad consensus that increasing domestic energy production would lower consumers’ costs. Respondents were asked to assess the accuracy of the following statement: “The cost of energy affects the price of nearly everything consumers buy, so increasing American energy production can help make everyday life more affordable.” Four out of five voters answered affirmatively, while nearly three of four agreed that more abundant U.S.-produced energy would help lower costs “from gas at the pump to electricity bills.” In addition, 71% agreed that permitting reform could help address America’s affordability crisis by lowering energy costs for consumers and businesses.
Although Democrats were less enthusiastic about increasing home production of energy than Republicans, solid majorities of rank-and-file Democratic voters still agreed with each statement: 69%, 62%, and 61%, respectively.
Those concerns come as gasoline and diesel fuel prices sit at record highs for this time of year. The national average for gas at the pump stood at $4.33 a gallon on Oct. 15, up from $3.07 a year earlier, and this is the first year the national average has topped $4 in October, according to AAA.
The latest Consumer Price Index report, released this week, shows how much energy costs are driving inflation. Gasoline prices rose 34.2% over the past 12 months and accounted for more than half of September’s overall price increase. The broader energy index was up 20.4%, compared to 3.7% for all items. Electricity and natural gas prices have risen more slowly, but still faster than core inflation: Electricity was up 4.4% over the year and natural gas 5.0%, compared to 2.6% for prices excluding food and energy.
Voters also view government regulation as a barrier to increasing domestic energy consumption. Fifty-four percent of voters said difficulties in getting permits to for drill and natural gas – and build pipelines, refineries, and other energy infrastructure – were a “major” factor or “the most significant.” Only 14% said they were barely a factor or not a factor at all.
How long should a permit take?
Voters want permits approved far faster than the system has historically delivered them. Sixty-seven percent said environmental reviews for energy projects like pipelines and power infrastructure should be completed within a year, including 37% who said within six months. Only 5% said three years or more was reasonable. Majorities of Republicans (75%), independents (69%), and Democrats (58%) all said reviews should take a year or less.
Federal reviews have typically taken far longer. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies must study a project’s environmental effects before approving, funding, or permitting it, a requirement that applies to everything from pipelines and transmission lines to highways and mines. Projects expected to significantly affect the environment require an environmental impact statement, the most intensive type of review.
According to the most recent Council on Environmental Quality report, released in January 2025, the median environmental impact statement took 2.8 years to complete from 2019 to 2024, though that figure fell to 2.2 years in 2024. Of the 1,903 statements CEQ examined from 2010 to 2024, just 118, about 6%, were finished within a year. Congress set new deadlines in the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act, requiring agencies to finish environmental impact statements within two years and less intensive environmental assessments within one, the timeline most voters in the poll considered reasonable.
State regulations can matter just as much as federal policy, as illustrated by the sharp contrast between Texas and California. Texas law requires its Public Utility Commission to approve or deny an application for a new transmission line within 180 days. In California, a 2023 analysis by the Clean Air Task Force, a climate-focused environmental group, found that environmental reviews for the transmission projects it examined lasted between 16 months and four years, and that major transmission projects in the state frequently take “a decade or more” to complete.
Gasoline prices in the two states are just as far apart. As of Oct. 15, Californians were paying more at the pump than residents of any state – $6.23 per gallon, according to AAA – while Texas had the third cheapest at $3.83.
Such disparities translate into support for streamlining the process, at least on a national basis. Sixty-seven percent of voters in the RealClearEnergy survey said they would support “updating federal permitting laws to reduce delays and lower costs by allowing energy projects like pipelines and power infrastructure to be built more quickly,” while just 23% were opposed. Eighty-five percent of Republicans and 63% of independents supported the idea, along with a majority of Democrats (54%).
Reforms could also pay off at the ballot box, at least theoretically. Fifty-nine percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who supported making permitting decisions for energy infrastructure take “considerably less time and be more predictable, leading to lower energy prices,” while 24% said they would be less likely.
Affordability is shaping up as a liability for Republicans heading into the midterms. Inflation is President Trump’s worst-rated issue in the RealClearPolitics Polling Average, with just 27.2% approving of his handling of it and 69.8% disapproving. Before the 2024 election, voters trusted Republicans more than Democrats on inflation and affordability, while recent polling shows Democrats now have the advantage.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
