Solar on the Ballot? What Pennsylvania's 2026 Midterms Could Mean for Your Electricity Bill

The federal homeowner solar tax credit is gone. Electricity costs remain a major concern. And Pennsylvania voters are about to choose leaders with sharply different ideas about the state’s energy future.

On November 3, Americans will head to the polls for the 2026 midterm elections. For the solar industry, the stakes extend beyond which political party controls Congress.

The election could influence how Pennsylvania generates electricity, whether clean-energy incentives are reconsidered, how quickly new power plants and solar installations receive approval, and what consumers ultimately pay for energy.

But separating campaign promises from actual policy matters.

Here is where several prominent Pennsylvania candidates stand on energy, what their records show, and what homeowners should watch after Election Day.

First, What Happened to the 30% Federal Solar Tax Credit?

Before examining the candidates, there is one important fact homeowners should understand.

The federal Residential Clean Energy Credit, previously worth 30% of qualifying homeowner solar expenditures, ended for expenditures made after December 31, 2025, under legislation signed July 4, 2025.

That change affects the economics of homeowner-owned solar systems purchased in 2026.

Commercial and utility-scale projects operate under different federal incentives and eligibility requirements, including provisions for clean-electricity production and investment.

Not every solar incentive has disappeared. Pennsylvania also maintains solar renewable energy certificate and net-metering programs, subject to applicable rules.

The 2026 election will not automatically restore the homeowner tax credit. Congress would need to enact new legislation, and that legislation would need to become law.

Read Tower Solar’s guide: Does Solar Still Make Sense Without the Federal Tax Credit?

Pennsylvania Governor: Three Candidates, Different Energy Priorities

Pennsylvania’s governor can influence energy development through budgets, regulatory administration, executive actions, and legislation.

Three candidates are on the gubernatorial ballot: Democratic incumbent Josh Shapiro, Republican challenger Stacy Garrity, and Libertarian Ken Krawchuk.

Josh Shapiro — Democrat

Governor Josh Shapiro favors a diversified energy strategy combining natural gas, nuclear power, solar, wind, and energy storage.

His proposed Lightning Plan seeks to expand electricity generation, accelerate development, and encourage investment in new energy infrastructure.

Shapiro also has a measurable solar policy record.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the state’s Solar for Schools program had invested approximately $27.2 million across 84 schools by August 25, 2026. More than 40 schools had already converted some of their electricity consumption to solar.

The state’s 2026–27 budget also included another $25 million for the program.

However, several of Shapiro’s broader energy proposals have faced legislative obstacles. His support for renewables does not mean he opposes natural gas development.

What it means for solar: His record and proposals indicate continued support for renewable-energy programs alongside conventional energy development. Further policy changes would depend on legislative cooperation and implementation.

Stacy Garrity — Republican

Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity has made energy affordability and natural gas development central parts of her campaign.

Her Turn Around PA strategy emphasizes expanding domestic energy production, accelerating permits, reducing regulations, and reconsidering renewable-energy requirements.

Garrity also supports reducing utility-related taxes as a way to lower household electricity bills.

Her campaign has projected substantial savings and economic benefits from these proposals, although independent evidence supporting the precise estimates remains limited.

Her approach differs from Shapiro’s by placing greater emphasis on natural gas production and reducing government intervention in energy markets.

What it means for solar: Garrity’s proposals suggest less emphasis on renewable-energy mandates and greater reliance on market competition and natural gas. That should not be confused with a proposal to prohibit residential solar installations.

Ken Krawchuk — Libertarian

Libertarian candidate Ken Krawchuk offers a third approach.

His platform emphasizes property rights, lower taxes, reduced government intervention, and increased consumer choice.

On energy, Krawchuk has supported greater electricity-market competition and ending government-created utility monopolies. He also supports natural gas development while holding companies responsible for environmental damage.

His energy proposals place greater emphasis on market structure and private-property protections than on government-directed investment.

A detailed solar-specific tax-credit or subsidy program was not established in the public sources reviewed for this article.

What it means for solar: His broader philosophy favors competition and less government intervention, but its precise effect on solar incentives cannot be determined from those principles alone.

Bucks County’s Congressional Race: Brian Fitzpatrick vs. Bob Harvie

Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District covers Bucks County and part of Montgomery County.

The contest between Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick and Democratic Bucks County Commissioner Bob Harvie is particularly relevant to local renewable-energy development.

Brian Fitzpatrick — Republican

Fitzpatrick’s voting and legislative history demonstrates why energy positions cannot always be predicted by party affiliation.

He voted for the House’s May 2025 version of the sweeping federal budget legislation, then voted against the final version in July.

In April 2026, Fitzpatrick introduced the American Energy Dominance Act, H.R. 8477.

The proposed legislation seeks to extend or restore several energy and efficiency incentives, including measures related to clean-electricity production and investment under Sections 45Y and 48E.

These provisions can be important to solar development and other qualifying clean-electricity projects.

The bill does not, however, automatically restore the former Section 25D homeowner credit. Nor had its introduction made its proposals law.

What it means for solar: Fitzpatrick has demonstrated legislative support for extending certain clean-energy incentives, including measures relevant to commercial-scale projects.

Bob Harvie — Democrat

Bob Harvie’s renewable-energy record comes primarily from county government.

According to Bucks County’s official progress report, Harvie initiated a sustainability task force to evaluate county energy consumption and improve efficiency.

The county adopted a commitment toward 100% clean energy by 2035 and entered into a regional solar power purchase agreement.

These actions provide evidence of support for renewable-energy purchasing and institutional sustainability.

However, support for county-level clean-energy projects should not automatically be interpreted as a detailed position on every federal energy tax credit.

What it means for solar: Harvie has supported renewable-energy initiatives locally. His precise approach to federal solar incentives would require additional, specific legislative commitments.

What About Northeast Philadelphia?

In Pennsylvania’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Northeast Philadelphia, Democratic incumbent Brendan Boyle faces Republican Jessica Arriaga.

Boyle voted against the final July 2025 federal legislation that accelerated the expiration of several clean-energy incentives. That vote is relevant to his record, although the legislation addressed many issues besides energy.

Arriaga’s published campaign priorities emphasize affordability, economic opportunity, public safety, and reducing costs for Philadelphia families. A detailed federal solar incentive proposal was not identified in the sources reviewed.

For voters assessing either candidate specifically on solar, more explicit answers about renewable-energy tax incentives, electricity infrastructure, and permitting would be useful.

The Bigger Problem: Pennsylvania Needs More Electricity

The policy debate is taking place against a difficult backdrop.

Pennsylvania participates in the PJM regional electricity market, where rising demand, generation constraints, and higher capacity-market prices have raised concerns about future electricity costs.

Data centers and other expanding electricity users add pressure to the system.

The central disagreement is not simply whether Pennsylvania needs more energy. Major candidates generally agree that additional generation is necessary.

The disagreement is over how that electricity should be produced, how projects should be financed, and how much government should intervene.

Natural gas plants provide dispatchable generation but introduce fuel-price and emissions considerations.

Nuclear plants supply substantial low-carbon electricity but can involve high construction costs and long development timelines.

Solar projects can produce electricity without purchasing fuel, although their output depends on sunlight and they may require storage, other generation, and grid upgrades to support system reliability.

No technology eliminates every economic or technical challenge.

For homeowners, the important question is whether a particular solar system can deliver worthwhile value under their actual utility rates, equipment costs, and financing terms. Our Pennsylvania solar guide explains the state-specific factors to verify.

Can the Midterms Change Solar’s Future?

Yes, but the effects may be gradual rather than immediate.

A different Congress could reconsider federal clean-energy incentives.

Pennsylvania’s governor and legislature could alter renewable-energy requirements, funding priorities, and permitting processes.

Utility regulators and regional electricity-market institutions will also continue influencing customer costs, regardless of the election outcome.

Homeowners should pay particular attention to the future of federal incentives, Pennsylvania’s net-metering rules, solar renewable energy credits, and electricity-rate changes.

Those are the policies that can materially affect the financial value of a solar installation.

Tower Solar’s Perspective: Evaluate the Results, Not the Party

Energy policy should withstand the same scrutiny as a solar sales proposal.

What does it cost? What does it produce? Who pays? Who benefits? And what assumptions support the promised savings?

An energy plan should not receive automatic approval simply because it promises cheaper electricity. Claims about future costs, job creation, and generation capacity deserve evidence.

At Tower Solar, we support informed energy choices, transparent pricing, and access to reliable electricity.

We also believe homeowners should be able to evaluate solar without pressure or misleading financial assumptions.

The most important solar question after November 3 will not be which party won. It will be whether the policies that follow actually deliver more affordable, reliable energy.

Until then, consumers should judge solar projects using current law and current financial assumptions—not election promises.

Understand Your Solar Options

Wondering whether solar makes financial sense for your property without the old federal homeowner credit?

Start with Tower Solar’s free solar estimate. No name, phone number, or email is required to generate an initial estimate. You decide whether to request further assistance. You can also review an existing proposal or consult our official solar resources.

Editorial disclosure: Tower Solar LLC does not endorse candidates in this article. Candidate records, proposals, and policy claims are distinguished from enacted law. Information is current through October 27, 2026.