WARMINSTER, PENNSYLVANIA – MAY 19: Governor Josh Shapiro speaks during a Primary Election night event at The Fuge on May 19, 2026 in Warminster, Pennsylvania. Governor Shapiro is running unopposed in the Democratic midterm primary election. (Photo by Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Blair contended that his non‑traditional stance provided him with a strategic edge, enabling him to push the Labour Party beyond its low‑growth, socialist roots, since his outlook diverged from conventional Labour thinking.
Some Democrats see Governor Josh Shapiro as a figure who may differ from typical party orthodoxy, though the validity of this perception remains uncertain.
Assessing Shapiro’s performance on energy policy offers a straightforward metric. Given that economic concerns dominate political discourse, energy availability directly influences economic outcomes; thus, Shapiro’s energy positions appear underwhelming.
Following PECO’s recent announcement of a 12.5% rate increase for Philadelphia and surrounding areas, Shapiro did not note that such price adjustments could eventually lead to lower costs if policymakers adopt sensible measures. Instead, he labeled the utility’s actions as “pure greed.”
In the same month, Shapiro mailed a letter to utility executives requesting justification for their equity returns, and two months earlier he had voiced support for capping utility profits.
Whenever simplistic economic arguments are presented, it is typical to label them as characteristic of politicians. This reflects the reality that public officials sometimes express views they would not hold privately. Consequently, Shapiro’s conduct as governor must be viewed within the context of his daily balancing act, which involves representing a diverse electorate.
The narrative portrays Shapiro as a distinct kind of Democrat, yet his confrontational stance toward Pennsylvania’s utilities undermines any attempt at bipartisan dialogue. He has dismissed collaborative solutions, branding the utilities as driven by greed, questioning their equity performance, and advocating for price‑control measures—an approach that does not reflect a genuinely new Democratic vision.
Price controls, widely understood to generate scarcity rather than lower prices, illustrate why a forward‑looking Democrat would focus on removing barriers to increased, affordable energy supply rather than attacking utility profits.
Shapiro does not embody this pragmatic approach; instead, he relies on rhetoric that is neither novel nor constructive, and the situation appears to deteriorate further.
Current Pennsylvania law prohibits utilities from owning or operating electric generation facilities, leaving them constrained in developing new supply and reliant on external producers for energy.
Thus, Shapiro appears to target the messenger and the pricing mechanism rather than seeking solutions that would eliminate high costs. Emphasizing price controls and coercive tactics may be politically expedient, but they fall short of the innovative leadership a governor with national aspirations should demonstrate in a country yearning for fresh solutions.
