Americans are anxious about their utility bills – and with good reason. Three quarters of U.S. residents are concerned about their electricity and gas bills rising this year, and 80% feel powerless over how much they are charged for utilities. For nearly two-thirds of U.S. billpayers, simply keeping the lights on has become a growing source of financial stress.
Those concerns are grounded in reality. U.S. electricity prices rose 27% during the Biden administration and another 11% between January and September 2025. Yet despite a national narrative eager to blame President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the real drivers of high electricity prices are far closer to home.
Electricity affordability is shaped primarily by state policy choices, and states choosing the most expensive path are overwhelmingly blue. So, blue-state residents are experiencing the pain much more than those in red states.
A new report from Always On Energy Research and the Institute for Energy Research finds that 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average voted for Democratic presidential candidates in 2020 and 2024. In contrast, 80% of the 10 states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red. That’s not a coincidence. Those high prices reflect a consistent pattern of state-level energy policies that dictate emissions reduction targets at the expense of affordability, reliability, and physics.
States have the exclusive power to decide which resources supply their grids under the Federal Power Act. Governors, legislatures, and public utility commissions – not the White House – decide whether to impose renewable portfolio standards (RPS), enforce Net-Zero mandates, or prematurely retire reliable power plants. Those decisions directly determine how much families and businesses pay for electricity.
Today, 28 states enforce an RPS, requiring a certain percentage of retail electricity sales to come from renewable sources, and 16 states have 100% clean energy standards (CES) or carbon-free mandates. Many of these policies compel utilities to overbuild intermittent generation, such as wind and solar, thereby requiring significant investments in transmission, grid-scale storage, and backup generation to maintain reliability. The result is a higher total system cost, which is passed onto ratepayers in the form of higher electricity rates.
Consider that the U.S. average electricity price between January 2025 and August 2025 was 13.54 cents per kilowatt-hour. Each of the five most expensive states mandates 100% of their electricity come from renewable or carbon-free sources in the coming decades. Eight of the 10 states with the lowest electricity prices voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2020 and 2024, and seven of the 10 don’t have renewable or carbon-free mandates.
New York is a prime blue state example, where electricity prices were 58% higher than the national average during the same period. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) found that New York experienced the second-fastest increase in electricity prices nationwide, with residential customers suffering a 36% increase between 2019 and 2024. PPI points to “the immense capital investment required to transform the grid and specific policy choices that increase the cost of energy production,” as well as the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant.
It’s clear that Governor Kathy Hochul knows exactly which policy choices are driving up electricity costs — because she’s scrambling to roll them back. Ms. Hochul has delayed implementation of the state’s cap-and-tax mandates under the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which includes a substantial renewable energy mandate requiring 70% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% carbon-free energy by 2040.
The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation defended the delay, arguing in court that the regulations would impose “extraordinary and damaging costs upon New Yorkers.” Ms. Hochul has approved two major natural gas pipelines and delayed implementation of the state’s ban on gas stoves in new buildings – a tacit admission that reliability and affordability still matter in New York.
California, however, remains committed to the most expensive path in the country with the fastest rate increase, now double the national average. For years, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California legislature have imposed on ratepayers a carbon-emissions reduction mandate, renewable mandates, solar cost-shifting through net metering, nuclear reactor closures, and EV charging subsidies.
For all of his climate-friendly posturing, Mr. Newsom signed a bill to ramp up oil drilling in Kern County, and his Energy Commission has delayed its plan to penalize refinery profits for five years. These reversals underscore a central truth: ideology will take a back seat to cost and reliability.
There’s a silver lining, however. While states can choose to raise electricity costs for their residents through bad policies, they can also choose to lower costs through good policies. For instance, Florida is the second-largest electricity producer in the country, behind only Texas. Residents require air conditioning for its hot, humid summers and heating in its mild winters. However, Florida delivers electricity at prices 2% below the U.S. average—mainly because it generates 75% of its power from imported natural gas. It has avoided aggressive climate mandates and delivers below-average electricity prices despite frequent hurricanes that require ongoing investment in the grid.
Louisiana and Kentucky have also invested in wise policies. Louisiana posted the third-lowest electricity rates in the U.S. in 2025, and Kentucky had the lowest rates east of the Mississippi River. Nearly three-quarters of Louisiana’s electricity is generated from natural gas, leveraging its abundant natural gas production and robust pipeline network. Kentucky, similarly, leverages its coal resources to generate 67% of the state’s electricity, with another 26% by natural gas. Neither has pursued aggressive carbon emissions reduction or renewable energy mandates.
Pinning the blame on the federal government and President Trump, as Democrats have been eager to do, ignores the vital role that states play in delivering affordable, reliable electricity. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recognizes the same, stating on Fox News that “Electricity prices have risen very fast in blue states with restrictive renewable portfolio standards.”
The Department of Energy and President Trump can set the tone, but they don’t dictate the composition of state grids or the bills consumers receive each month. Those decisions rest squarely with governors, legislators, and regulators. Ultimately, it’s up to the states to prioritize reliable, affordable, dispatchable generation and drive down electricity prices.
High electricity rates aren’t an unavoidable consequence of modern life or federal policy. They are the predictable outcome of state-level choices that ignore reliability, undervalue dispatchable generation, and impose rigid mandates regardless of cost. Americans deserve leaders who recognize that keeping the lights on at a modest price isn’t optional. The states keeping electricity affordable today offer a roadmap for those willing to learn.
Isaac Orr is vice president of research at Always On Energy Research, a nonprofit energy modeling firm.
Tom Pyle is President of the Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit energy research organization.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
The true source of the problem is that a majority of the voters in each of those blue states with higher than average prices strongly support the green energy policies which are driving costs up. They’ve drunk the renewable energy Kool Aid in large-volume quantities.
I can talk to my progressive relatives in New York state and in the Bay Area of California until I’m blue in the face. They refuse to recognize what factors are driving up the cost of energy in their states, or even to acknowledge that energy costs are rising.
And in addition, refiners are still being driven out.
You will find the true problem is communism – often under a new name like social justice. Those with the authority of government no longer serve the electorate. The non-government sector is taxed to pay for the whims of the government. Any State that embraces strong government is bound to head down the path of communism.
How many times do you hear the communists making programs to keep you safe. More money in government pockets all on the pretence that society will be safer. And a lot of people are willing to give up freedom for safety so buy in to the communist ethic without even realising it.
Oh, come now – they know that their high energy prices are because of corporate greed and the billionaires. I live in Southern California, and I long ago gave up discussing energy policies, AGW or CC with the True Believers. It was pointless.
TV adds describing the “Clean Energy” costs are needed leading up the midterms, Billboards would help as well.
They’re into the good oil not the yukky black stuff-
San Francisco mayor sneaks through reparations bill that could give each black resident $5 million
I read a piece on that.
He’s been pretty cagey, saying “yes you can have some reparations if you qualify, but the City has no dough, $1billion in debt, so ya gotta hit up the charity sector for your $$$$s.”
“Next item on the Agena Mr/ Ms Secretary, if you please . . “
Reality bites….if you are Kathy Hochul. Then again if the drive by media fails to inform the consumer is it really reality?
Texas was seduced by the prospect of subsidy mining with wind, and is now rather expensively building capacity to offset that stupid decision.
Story tip:
Grim future for Australia’s coal miners?
South Korea Quitting Coal Will Hurt US LNG and Australian Coal Exports
China will just take up the slack as South Korea de-industrialises.
Reducing carbon intensity is synonymous with de-industrialisation. It all goes really well as long as China keeps manufacturing for the rest of the world. So far only USA has made any effort to reverse its de-industrialisation. Australia is really getting into stride in eliminating filthy heavy industry. UK no longer produces steel and Germany is getting into stride in eliminating its heavy industry.
Australia enjoys a trade surplus with China due to the minerals export. So as China makes more for the world, Australia rides along hanging on.
South Korea is facing a demographic cliff – median age 45.6yrs. Their focus will be on robots to change diapers in aged care as Japan (49.9yrs) is now focused. China is still a bit younger (40.1yrs) than Japan and South Korea but are already heavily invested in AI for farm work and factory work.
Not really. In the last 12 months, South Korea only took 4.5% of Australia’s coal exports. And coal isn’t Australia’s main export.
Iron ore?
S. Korea plans to retire 40 coal plants by 2040.
Indonesia is actively building new coal plants, especially “captive” plants for mining/smelting, despite national pledges to phase out coal by 2040; reports from 2024-2025 show hundreds of new plants (over 130) being built or in development, adding significant capacity (around 26.7 GW planned) to serve its nickel processing industry.
So that would be a net 90 new coal plants (130-40) by 2040 from those two countries. Now would you next like to discuss the new coal plants under construction in SE Asia to power AI data-centers?
Indonesia is currently a coal exporter. So when we talk about the market for Australian coal you have to show me a bit more how they will matter.
Chinas coal imports have fallen. Same seem to be true for absolute and relative numbners in electricity generation. But we will see when we get the numbers in a few month.
Steel is moving to electric arc furnaces, as the share of virgin steel gets lower. Some are moving to hydrogen. There won’t be much of a growth merket too.
Southeast Asia faces high stranded asset risk from coal power investments
I guess we ignore chinas clean energy exports to asian and african countries? How the The UAE is aggressively diversifying its economy away from oil because they see the writing on the wall for fossil fuels. How many other countries also phase-out coal.
Australia’s coal exports have seen a significant increase, driven by strong global demand and the country’s robust coal production.
The 2025 Energy Statistics report indicates that black coal output rose 3% in 2023–24 to 427 Mt (11,398 PJ), with 88% of black coal production exported.
This growth is a result of Australia’s strong ongoing coal demand from Asia and the country’s ability to capitalize on its abundant coal resources.
Hydrogen has proven basically a NON-STARTER.. a fancy fad, an expensive failed experiment
‘Hydrogen has proven basically a NON-STARTER.. a fancy fad, an expensive failed experiment.’
Correct. Anyone with any knowledge of Gibb’s free energy knows that the so-called hydrogen economy is a cropper.
Australian coal production rebounds as exports surge amid global demand | The Coal Hub
That’s nice. but we are talking about the coming 5 / 10 / 15 years. Let’s see if you can post such articles then.
Agreed so long as you are also agreed to speak against altering society through either legislation or litigation controlling CO2 emissions until those same 15 years have passed to SEE if “Such Articles” hold their salt on the subject.
Oh dear.. why didn’t you mention they were going NUCLEAR !!!
Australia also is a major supplier of nuclear fuel.
And there will be PLENTY of other markets for Australian coal.
Wind and solar.. they aren’t that stupid !!!
I believe your story tip will eventually support the premise of this article, unless there’s a significant technological advance in the next few years. South Korea phasing out coal definitely has upstream impacts, but ultimately it will likely be the South Korean electricity rate payers who are hurt most by this policy. Again, unless there’s is a significant technological advance.
From the article: “A new policy direction came with the election of a more liberal president in June, Lee Jae Myung, who campaigned for stronger climate commitments than his conservative predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol.”
Lee Jae Myung was installed as president of South Korea through massive election fraud perpetrated with the direct assistance of the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP.
His job description as the CCP-controlled president includes ending South Korea’s role as a political and industrial competitor to Chinese regional aspirations.
So it’s perfectly reasonable to believe it is China which is behind South Korea’s decision to shut down SK’s coal-fired power plants.
“Those concerns are grounded in reality. U.S. electricity prices rose 27% during the Biden administration and another 11% between January and September 2025.”
And, of course, before Jan 2025 it was all Biden, and after that, the states.
Thanks Obama /s
It is going to take more than a year to fix the ABSOLUTE MESS left by Mr Otto Pen. !
But as you can see, progress is being made, despite all the far-leftist judges getting in the way or rational policy.
The extensive new federal environmental regulations applying to coal plants under Biden had something to do with that. Those regulations are being rolled back, but who knows for how long.
Fun facts for Australia’s transition.
Through 2025, grid scale solar increased output from 15.9TWh in 2024 to 18.1TWh in 2025 but the price collapsed resulting in reduced overall income from $864M to $629M. Proof it is a dead asset. It is passed peak income. Adding more just reduces the income for existing solar farms.
Grid wind also increased strongly from 28.2TWh to 34.6TWh but the overall income only increased from $2169M to $2238M. So it is also being impacted by rooftop solar. And likely to pass peak income in 2026.
Rooftop solar increased from 26.2TWh to 29.3TWh. It will get a big boost in 2026 with household batteries going in at 600MWh per month; meaning rooftop curtailment will gradually end giving a big boost to demand served by rooftops. I have not seen m own rooftop solar curtailed by over voltage since I installed my battery.
There was a slight increase in the wholesale market volume from 187.8TWh to 188.5TWh but that is still well below the 2010 peak of 208.6TWh.
So Australia’s de-industrialisation is getting into stride. A country devoid of any filthy heavy industry and being run off rooftops and household batteries. Leave the filthy stuff to China!!!
Australia does not count carbon embodied in imports in its carbon accounting. In any case the only real reduction in carbon is through changes in land management because the carbon lost to the atmosphere during wild fires is also not accounted for.
The road back for Australia is becoming very difficult. Rooftop solar and batteries are now an economic proposition without subsidies against ever rising grid prices. No other country has the abundance of sunlight and sprawling suburbia to match what Australia can do with rooftops.
But at the current rate of rooftop solar & battery installs, one day in the not too distant future the realities will bite, and essential utility- grid scale 24×365 electricity supply to ALL households & businesses will be a luxury, and priced accordingly.
So stock up on Vaseline, punters, you’ll be taking it up the jaxie every time you need to switch on those reverse-cycle aircons to heat the joint.
Here is a map colored by electricity post, from a WUWT post from last month. Superimposed are the percentages of wind in the generation mix, for the top 10 actual wind users. These states mostly vote Republican, and have low electricity prices. They know wind is free.
Rarely have I seen a more idiotic statement. And yet you keep doubling down on it!
Can you really ignore the cost of:
> buying components from China,
> massive installation costs,
> massive transport and infrastructure costs to provide access,
> massive infrastructure costs to occasionally deliver energy to the grid whether wanted or not),
> massive costs of keeping fossil fuel generators idling for when the wind stops,
> massive decommissioning costs kthat are needed all too soon).
In fact, everything is ‘massive’ in wind generation, except the usable output!
Your credibility matches your statement, at least.
Wind is free. You have to buy coal or gas, but not wind or sun. That is a big cost removed.
and here I was thinking you were a smart numbers guy, Nick.
You can count, but you seem to have trouble figuring out WHAT you’re counting.
The WHAT is always far more important than HOW you count things.
(there’s my early working experience coming out again in auditing of production at a 1,400-employee manufacturing behemoth complex)
Coal, and gas are free. It’s just laying there. It costs absolutely no more than wind. Indeed, gas actually pumps itself out!
Now, capturing that coal and gas, and making use of it costs money, that’s true. But still significantly less than the cost of capturing wind and sunlight, and delivering it when needed.
You are demonstrating an incredible lack of integrity, or possibly intelligence. I can’t work out which, but it does not really matter. Whichever it is, it matches your credibility.
Credibility… less than ZERO !!
Rationality and ideology cannot function in the same mind space at the same time.
As observation of this hypothesis, I (sadly) have to nominate old mate Nick Stokes
Coal and gas are actual energy sources. If by wind you mean a moving mass of air that has kinetic energy, then that energy must come from somewhere. Probably solar, so definitely intermittent. Free but not when you want it.
Wind is free. That explains why the World uses sailing ships nowadays instead of expensive diesel power.
(This is sarcasm in case Stokes thinks I’m being serious)
Only the fuel is free…
But using its ultra low density and only available when nature decides to provide it. If wind generation falls off, you can’t add more wind and make more.Electricity.
Only Tue fuel is free…
But harvesting it is…
Ultra expensive
Mineral intensive
Acreage extensive
And only available Part Time.
And massive replacement costs as Wind Generation lasts about 20 years while Gas lasts upwards of 60 years.
And Wind produces nothing if the wind speed is either below 9mph or above 55mph.
Also those Massive Subsidies that Wind receives whether they produce or not.
As well as Take or Pay where Wind must be given preference or paid anyway.
Then the aspect of Paying other states to take any over production.
Wind is paid for again and again and again and again…even when it produces nothing.
At most, in Texas, if wind were operating at systemwide capacity at the moment of peak demand, wind might theoretically supply 50% of peak demand. However, to maintain system reliability, Texas has total generating capacity of 2.2 times peak demand. So wind could go away entirely and Texas would still have capacity over 1.7 times peak demand. Put another way, windfarms in Texas must have duplicate fossil generation reserve capacity to ensure reliability and prevent blackouts.
Not only is wind not “free,” it is a burden on the system, an unnecessary added cost.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tease accurate numbers out of Internet sources that are heavily tainted with a renewables bias. Even the system manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), hides the facts beneath jargon, incomplete summaries, and apparent renewables bias.
Recognizing the inadequacy and exorbitant costs of renewables, Texas has embarked on aggressive development and deployment of advanced nuclear technology (Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group ) as well as legislatively requiring expansion of dispatchable generation (I.e., not wind, solar or batteries) to shore up system reliability.
“They know wind is free.”
Others have already responded to this but it is worth repeating.
Using your “logical reasoning” coal, (natural) gas and uranium are also “free”.
Converting any of those “free” resources into electricity and then distributing it reliably to end-users, however, is most definitely not “free”.
.
Following an exchange with you a month or so (?) ago I updated a plot of “Wind percentages vs. Residential prices” graph using data from the November 2024 presidential race to distinguish between “Red”, “Blue” and “Purple” (using the completely arbitrary threshold of “Trump – Harris vote difference” < 6.5%) states.
You have a point when articles like the ATL one above loosely pontificate about what (all ?) “Blue states” (or “Red states”) are doing wrong.
“Blue states” do tend toward higher electricity prices, especially if the non-CONUS states (Hawaii and Alaska) are excluded from consideration.
The relationship between “Wind percentages” and prices, however, is as you imply indeed more nuanced than an overly simplistic “Red state / Blue state” division.
‘Using your “logical reasoning” coal, (natural) gas and uranium are also “free”.’
A silly argument. First, they are finite, unlike wind and sun. But mainly, the fact is that generators do have to pay for them, and it is a big cost. Wind and sun do not have that cost. Sure, they also have to pay for machinery and wires etc, but absence of fuel cost makes a huge difference.
Test post
The above graph has a bit too much “white space” … maybe ?
How does changing the aspect ratio of my Excel-clone “graph” function change the end-result as rendered on WUWT ?
Just change the “frame size” from 500x200mm to 300x200mm, and keep the text font “point” sizes the same …
It’s a common problem with images stored on wordpress. Here is how it looks from amazon storage, and conversion to png format:
Nick Stokes has been schooled on these fake numbers pushed by the wind lobby before, so he’s choosing to be dishonest.
For example, look at Iowa, the State with the highest fraction of wind. The part of Iowa served by the Associated Electric Cooperative had an average carbon intensity of 670 gm CO2 per kWh over the last year. That’s the highest in the U.S. The other parts of Iowa served by MISO and SPP have carbon intensity of about 535 – well worse than the national average of 420.
Why is Iowa so high? It’s because they still have high coal usage. 47% of the power generated by AEC comes from coal. 27% of MISO and SPP power comes from coal. But it’s WAAY worse than that – it takes 12 hours to start and stop a coal plant so when Iowa uses coal to back up their unreliable wind and reliably bad solar, they are keeping their coal plants running on hot standby.
Wind and solar generators get priority to put their electricity on the grid, but much of that electricity could have been provided by the coal plants on hot standby. So their statistic of 60% wind and solar is bogus.
The only reason that electricity is as cheap as it is in Iowa is because of their use of coal for both primary production and as back-up to wind and solar. Look up the electricitymaps website.
Yes, you made that argument before, and I can’t see the point of it. Yes, Iowa uses about 60% (now 63%) wind, and the rest is coal. Coal is bad for emissions, but we’re talking about saving money. And that is what they do, and why they do it.
Nick is choosing to parrot false information.
1) Iowa is grossly exaggerating their wind fraction. Wind has a capacity factor of only ~0.35 – 0.4. They’re obviously counting other sources in their wind fraction.
2) Louisiana has much cheaper electricity than Iowa; 12.19c / kWh to 14.8c according to the latest EIA data from 2025. Louisiana gets very little electricity from W – essentially zero. Their mix is – 72% Natural Gas, 18% nuclear, 5% Coal, and all renewables including wood, hydro, and Solar is less than 5%. The remainder is petroleum.
3) Wyoming coal is significantly cheaper than Nat Gas.
Nick can’t even pretend that he doesn’t understand what this means. Iowa’s wind isn’t saving them money – it’s costing them a significant amount more.
“Iowa is grossly exaggerating their wind fraction”
Evidence? Says the IEA:
“In 2024, wind turbines generated 63% of Iowa’s electricity, the highest wind power share for any state.”
I see that North Dakota and Nebraska have lower energy prices and lower percentage of wind generation than South Dakota.
…and their courts
It couldn’t be more clear take away government control of energy production and transmission and our problems go away. All they do is screw things up.