We Didn’t Just Get Expensive Electricity. We Built a System That Makes It Inevitable.

By William Murray

Most Americans don’t think about electricity until the monthly bill arrives.

It comes once a month, often quietly, but lately it’s landed like a thud. Heating your home now costs hundreds more a month than it did just a few years ago. You use the same appliances. You flip the same switches. Nothing in your daily life has changed – except the price.

Why would that be?

When one looks inside the electricity system, the experience is less like analyzing an immense machine than being fed into one, resembling the immortal scene in “Modern Times” where Charlie Chaplin’s factory worker is swallowed by the equipment he’s working on.

The American electricity market is not guided by an “invisible hand” of supply and demand, but an accumulation of misaligned rules laid down over decades. Layer upon layer of regulation, subsidy, mandate, and accounting rules to a point where the system became fixed in an upward, inflationary tilt, impervious to efforts to change.

There are at least a half-dozen federal environmental regulations that have more to do with rising electricity prices than tariffs or the data-center buildout, and a good example to start with is called Construction Work in Progress (CWIP).

As a new issue brief makes clear, it helped change who pays for America’s infrastructure.

Chief among these contrivances was the quiet transfer of financial risk from investors to the public. Before the 1970s, utilities had to finish building a power plant before they could charge customers for it. If a company wanted to build something, it had to take the risk. Investors would put up the money. If the project succeeded, they earned a return. If it failed, they paid the price.

But during the inflation crisis of the 1970s, power plants — especially nuclear plants —became vastly more expensive to build. Utilities argued they couldn’t afford to wait years to recover their costs. During a moment of civic weakness, state regulators started allowing utilities to charge customers while the plants were still under construction.

CWIP permanently shifted investment risk away from investors and onto ordinary people. Today, you can open your electric bill and pay for projects that don’t exist yet and may be cancelled in the future.

No banker in his right mind would accept such terms voluntarily. Yet millions of Americans are compelled to do so every month if they’re served by an investor-owned electric company.

This system could have operated below the waterline indefinitely, had it not collided with the renewable energy revolution of the last 15 years. Wind and solar generation increased fourfold between 2011 and 2020, reaching record output by 2024.

These sources have advantages. But they also have a basic limitation: they don’t produce power all the time.

So utilities must build backup systems. Extra transmission lines. Extra capacity.

None of this redundancy is free. Every mile of wire, every idle backup turbine, every overpriced and underutilized battery storage unit will eventually, without fail, appear on a customer’s bill.

And thanks to rules like CWIP, they can charge you while you wait.

Many of these policies came from a sincere place. Beginning in the 1970s and accelerating in the decades that followed, a network of public-interest law firms and environmental advocacy groups gained enormous influence over how infrastructure gets approved.

Their goal was to protect the public.

But over time, something else happened.

They built a system where stopping projects became easier than building them. Where delay became a strategy. Where lawsuits became routine.

Each delay added to costs. Each cost increase justifies charging customers sooner. Each increase made the next one easier to accept.

Even writers like the New York Times’ Ezra Klein — hardly a critic of environmental goals — have begun to acknowledge the problem. He has argued that well-intentioned rules have made it far too hard to build the infrastructure society needs.

People think this is an important admission by Klein and his ilk, but it is not.

These ‘well-intentioned rules’ were simply created by an earlier generation of Ezra Klein “Abundance” types who set up the public interest lawfare firms and NGO indulgences system in the first place.

Klein’s autopsy revealed only that the Left promotes things that make themselves feel better while making the world worse, yet their slobbering idealism protects them from feeling the shame of failed responsibility. There is a Kafkaesque process at work, filled with Orwellian word games that stymie everything. It’s a dirty, soiled, can’t-do spirit masquerading as something more noble and dignified.

Because the issue isn’t whether the goals were noble. Noble intentions don’t matter.

It’s that the results are what matter, and the results are failures.

There is, however, a remedy — not a technological breakthrough, but something far better (albeit rarer) in Washington: legislative clarity.

One promising approach is legislation such as Representative Troy Balderson’s “Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act.” The bill seeks to establish clearer definitions of key terms like “affordable,” “reliable,” and “clean,” ensuring that investment risks are limited to cost-effective infrastructure projects only.

By recognizing the role of dispatchable resources such as natural gas and nuclear power, the legislation would also help ensure the grid maintains the reliability necessary to support modern life, all while meeting the standards of the Clean Air Act.

These reforms would not eliminate electricity price increases overnight. But they would begin to address one of the root causes: a system in which incentives increasingly misalign diverge from the interests of customers.

Electricity is not a luxury. It is a necessity that underpins economic growth, public safety, and household stability. Ensuring its affordability requires more than promises. It requires policies that encourage efficient investment, allocate risk appropriately, and maintain reliability.

Most of all, it comes from remembering a basic principle that once guided American growth:

You should pay for things when they work.

Not before.

Until that principle returns, electricity bills will continue their quiet climb upward, and Americans will continue to wonder why modern life feels harder to afford than it used to.

William Murray is a former speechwriter for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the past editor of RealClearEnergy from 2015-2017, and currently the chief speechwriter for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 9 votes
Article Rating
59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tmitsss
February 27, 2026 6:07 am

What we want:
I wash and dry your clothes, play your radios, I can heat your coffee pot. I am always there, with lots of power to spare, ‘cause I’m Reddy Kilowatt.”

Coach Springer
February 27, 2026 6:16 am

That would be some of the mechanics of human squabbling. Also ironic that a lot of the delays are caused directly and indirectly by environmentalists themselves.

Captain Obvious suggests that the struggle for control becomes more subdued when reason instead of emotion dominates.

February 27, 2026 6:24 am

Wind and solar without adequate storage are redundant generation. Redundancy costs. Wind and solar with adequate storage to achieve dispatchability would be extremely expensive and are currently non-existent.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Ed Reid
February 27, 2026 6:36 am

The project in the Spanish Canary islands demonstrated wind and storage didn’t work.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 27, 2026 6:42 am

Not enough wind and not enough storage. Reliability would require storage equal to ~25% of annual intermittent generator output. That doesn’t happen with 4 hour batteries or inadequate pumped storage.

strativarius
Reply to  Ed Reid
February 27, 2026 6:47 am

Socialism failed….

It wasn’t done right or enough.

J Boles
Reply to  strativarius
February 27, 2026 7:56 am

OH! but the new breed of socialists will do it right this time, don’t ya know, they will learn from past mistakes and then make them again because it is always soak the rich and burn it all down.

Reply to  Ed Reid
February 27, 2026 7:23 am

but… but… the Electric Viking on his YouTube channel tells us almost every day that new batteries are being developed that will last for ages, can be recharged forever, that will be almost free and are extremely safe. He’s talking about EV batteries of course but if all that were true then the same only larger batteries should soon be available for power storage. I can only wonder who is paying him to preach such nonsense.

DonK31
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 27, 2026 9:30 am

I’m not from Missouri, but I am close enough. Show me!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Ed Reid
February 28, 2026 8:36 am

4 hour batteries? The average duration of BESS here in the UK is currently under 2 hours. The plan is to hope to get it to 3-4 hours by 2030!

Denis
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 27, 2026 11:46 am

Renewables provide about half of the power on El Hierro and the balance by diesels. It is expensive. Reports of cost differ, one said $.80 /KwH US the other $1.26 but the Spanish government pays most of it.

Petey Bird
Reply to  Ed Reid
February 27, 2026 6:41 am

What is adequate storage? Can you define it or provide design parameters? And how would such storage be managed?

KevinM
Reply to  Petey Bird
February 27, 2026 9:13 am

For the right price, sure.

D Sandberg
Reply to  Ed Reid
February 27, 2026 6:57 pm

Battery storage will always be too expensive, if the batteries were free battery storage would still be too expensive. The associated switchgear, fire suppression, over current protection, connecting circuitry, devices, labor and more cost >$200/kWh.

strativarius
February 27, 2026 6:45 am

Most UK citizens – think Miliband etc – think about the electricity bill most of the time. It is still winter.

Our energy bills have been subjected to a bit of “creative accounting”; moving notional money around changing nothing…

Labour says it will drive down energy bills by shifting green policy costs off household tariffs and into general taxation from 2026.Energy Live News

Which at this stage of the game probably means more borrowing. But the energy hasn’t become any cheaper and it won’t and we all know why.

As gas and nuclear generating plants near end of life nothing, but nothing [sensible] is being done.

DonK31
Reply to  strativarius
February 27, 2026 7:52 am

Taking the cost of electricity from the consumer’s right pocket instead of his left (+ enough money to pay the bureaucrat) does not make the cost of electricity cheaper.

strativarius
Reply to  DonK31
February 27, 2026 7:56 am

That’s creative accounting…

Reply to  strativarius
February 27, 2026 8:05 am

I would call it fraud.

strativarius
Reply to  Oldseadog
February 27, 2026 9:19 am

You are not a creature of Westminster

Reply to  strativarius
February 27, 2026 10:11 am

Not Holyrood either.

Reply to  Oldseadog
February 27, 2026 9:45 am

As the revelations of DOGE have shown in the US in the last year, government is synonymous with fraud.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  strativarius
February 27, 2026 9:07 am

“As gas and nuclear generating plants near end of life nothing, but nothing [sensible] is being done.”

You need to hit the streets and protest for snap elections there in Britain Strativarius. Snap elections are the last thing PM Starmer wants right now, but political pressure needs to be applied to the point where he doesn’t have a choice. I don’t know if there is enough will in Britain to do this right now, but is something to think about.

By the way, can King Charles call snap elections?

strativarius
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 27, 2026 9:22 am

Charles, and any other monarch – is a front for an elected dictatorship aka Parliament.

Given the direction of travel and polarisation I can only see bad stuff up ahead.

KevinM
Reply to  strativarius
February 27, 2026 9:19 am

Are gas plants nearing end of life in UK?

In USA, nuclear plants are mostly past _original_ EOL
“The average age of U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors operating as of early 2024 is approximately 42 years. While most reactors were originally designed for a 40-year lifespan, many have received license extensions to operate for 60 years, with some planning for up to 80 years”

Our gas plants (again USA) are younger by about half:
“The capacity-weighted average age of U.S. natural gas power plants is approximately 22 years. This fleet is significantly younger than coal (39+ years), nuclear (36+ years), and hydro (64+ years) plants.”

I don’t know enough about non-USA power, are nat gas plants in UK older?

strativarius
Reply to  KevinM
February 27, 2026 9:36 am

They are, they’re around thirty years old or more

Britain will need gas plants as ‘back-up’ for wind in 2030, says grid operator Report says ‘urgent action’ needed to meet government’s clean power target
https://www.ft.com/content/2b3aff38-570c-4718-b26d-3fa346110b14

KevinM
Reply to  strativarius
February 27, 2026 10:32 am

Thanks. I could/should have googled British gas plants but it’s better to hear from someone who “has a sense of the situation”.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  strativarius
March 2, 2026 7:22 am

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is what it was once called.

February 27, 2026 6:56 am

“These sources have advantages”

What exactly are the advantages?

None, if the goal is abundant reliable, affordable energy.

KevinM
Reply to  David Pentland
February 27, 2026 9:23 am

I drove all the way across New Mexico on Rt 40 a few years ago. This is an admittedly ignorant statement, but it looked to me like no one was using most of it anyway. Solar. Terrible power-per-unit-land-area tradeoff is one of its biggest problems, but… I mean if we’re talking New Mexico… um…

February 27, 2026 7:19 am

The Top 10 Inconvenient Facts About Climate Change
 
In this “Fact Check” video from the Climate Discussion Nexus, Dr. John Robson examines 10 crucial facts about climate change, from the Earth being in an Ice Age right now to the lack of evidence of a crisis to computer models not working, that activists, politicians and journalists wouldn’t like to talk about even if they knew about them. (Error correction: at 14:52 we said “orange means there’s an upward trend and blue means a downward trend” but the reverse is true; orange is downward and blue is upward. White still means no signal in data.)
 


strativarius
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 27, 2026 7:39 am

#1 inconvenient fact


No climate disasters to report.

February 27, 2026 8:18 am

Electricity is not an energy source, it is an energy carrier. It is also extremely inefficient. Between generation and final use losses amount to 99%. Any storage solution acts like a sieve: it empties itself.

But the real problem is that oil, gas and coal are goods but electricity is a service. People can trade, even barter, goods between themselves, no third party needed and these goods can be stored, building up a buffer is quite easy.
Services cannot be stored, generation and consumption is simultaneous. Even worse is that the service supplier, the electricity company, can turn it off whenever it (or the government) wants to. For whatever reason.
You really do not want to be that dependent for anything important in your life.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  huls
February 27, 2026 8:35 am

What is the alternative for those many millions of people who can’t find a way to go off grid because they live in a place where solar doesn’t work; or else more likely, because they don’t have the money needed to pay for an off-grid solution?

Reply to  Beta Blocker
February 27, 2026 11:47 am

I don’t know. I am merely pointing out a problem. I never stated or even intended to present a solution.
Pointing out a problem does in no way means that I need to formulate a solution, despite popular belief.

KevinM
Reply to  huls
February 27, 2026 2:44 pm

Standup comedian Doug Stanhope in “Beer Hall Putsch” had great words to describe what protesters contribute.

John Hultquist
Reply to  huls
February 27, 2026 9:43 am

“…  losses amount to 99%
A look on the web [and it is always right :)] suggests you have the digits up-side-down.
Anyway, when humans eat food a lot of the energy is given off as heat. Is there a problem with humans and machines dissipating heat? Maybe it’s a benefit.

Reply to  John Hultquist
February 27, 2026 11:45 am

Ok no sources and a false equivalence, you win the “how not to partake in a discussion” award !!

But if you really want to know: there are no known ways to produce electricity from any source with an efficiency better than 35%. Photovoltaic cells are even way below that ranging from 10-22%.
Looking at the other end of the cable where the electricity is used to perform work there are similar figures. About 35% efficiency as well.
Using only those two woeful inefficiencies the number is 35% of 35% equals 12%.
Yikes!!
And that doesn’t include all the waste of conversion and transport. Total number is about 99% loss. Wow!

Who ever thought this was a good idea?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  huls
February 27, 2026 12:13 pm

If one wants to go deep into the weeds, we have a much larger problem for the very long term future to deal with. It’s called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The universe is winding down. Entropy is increasing. And if we wait long enough — I think the figure is 10**31 years — all matter will have decayed into the ultimate nuclear dust. All of it except iron, possibly.

In the meantime, I am only concerned that there is enough gasoline available to power my beloved 2010 Mazda 6 from my home to my place of work and back.

KevinM
Reply to  Beta Blocker
February 27, 2026 3:01 pm

“You’re thinking of Manifold: Time (1999) by Stephen Baxter.”

IF the amount of energy in the universe is a (LARGE) constant determined at a Big Bang event
AND the universe expands infinitely
THEN available energy per area of universe becomes dimminishingly small.

KevinM
Reply to  huls
February 27, 2026 2:53 pm

The efficiency of electric power generation, distribution and use depends on how you count it – you can find a way to get 1 percent or 99 percent and you can find a case where that answer is true. Except photovoltaic, all of the commercial sources are based on magnets spinning in a nests of wires. I think a lot of post-modernists resent that their favorite new iToys are based on 200 year-old science, while their favorite newer science is philosophy discredited 200 years ago dressed in pink feather boas.

D Sandberg
Reply to  huls
February 27, 2026 7:15 pm

New CCGT has a combustion/conversion efficiency of 68%, a capacity factor >85% if not required to operate intermittently to accommodate wind/solar/demand changes, and line losses of <15% if located reasonably near the load.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  huls
March 2, 2026 7:27 am

I know that when my toaster coils heat up, no work is performed, but the heat makes my bread toasty, so I contest your 99%. It is high, but not quite that high.

Beta Blocker
February 27, 2026 8:51 am

The outcome of the upcoming 2026 mid-terms will hinge in large part on the Affordability Crisis.

For one prominent example, Democrats are having good success in convincing the voting public that the prices they pay for electricity are a direct consequence of the power grid’s reliability on fossil fuels and nuclear.

Wind and solar backed by batteries is the Democrat’s solution to the ever-rising price of electricity. It’s a solution which is easily sold to those many millions of voters who have little or no understanding of the power grid and what actually drives its costs.

The Republicans, especially those in the GOP Establishment, have done next to nothing to counter the affordability crisis propaganda. Not only for energy affordability issues, but for every other affordability issue which faces the Republicans in the upcoming 2026 mid-terms.

As things are shaping up today, the upcoming 2026 mid-terms will be a blowout victory for the Democrats — with the consequence that promotion of wind and solar will move back into high gear, with little or no pushback from the GOP Establishment.

D Sandberg
Reply to  Beta Blocker
February 27, 2026 9:23 pm

We better not be that stupid, the dems would need to override Trump’s veto, not likely. Try to imagine where we would be if not for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking these past 15 years.

KevinM
February 27, 2026 9:10 am

Tangental/non-critical
I wondered for a moment about “underpin”.
Fun word, used correctly, word origin is from building construction.
“Literal Meaning: The term originated in construction, referring to placing solid materials (props, girders, masonry) underneath a structure to strengthen it.”

John Hultquist
Reply to  KevinM
February 27, 2026 9:48 am

More word fun: dunnage in forestry

Reply to  John Hultquist
February 27, 2026 10:21 am

Every day a school day.
At sea, dunnage is bits of timber used to prop up open cargo faces or seperate different parcels.
And an American piece of two-by-faw dunnage turns into a three-be-three piece when it reaches Austrailia, or at least it did in the 1960s before containers took over.

February 27, 2026 10:06 am

“By recognizing the role of dispatchable resources such as natural gas and nuclear power, …”
.
Wait.
.
What?
.
Since when has nuclear power been dispatchable? How quickly can one power up or power down a nuclear power plant?

KevinM
Reply to  MaroonedMaroon
February 27, 2026 10:40 am

Yep, you’re right:
“Common Sources: Primarily natural gas turbines, coal-fired plants, large hydro, and battery energy storage systems.”
Nuclear energy has many positives – “dispatchable” has not been one of them (historically)

If you’re not providing electricity, you’re running a fantastically expensive heater for ungrateful fish and algae.

February 27, 2026 10:06 am

“By recognizing the role of dispatchable resources such as natural gas and nuclear power, …”
.
Wait.
.
What?
.
Since when has nuclear power been dispatchable? How quickly can one power up or power down a nuclear power plant?

February 27, 2026 11:33 am

‘CWIP permanently shifted investment risk away from investors and onto ordinary people. Today, you can open your electric bill and pay for projects that don’t exist yet and may be cancelled in the future.’

I have some concerns with this article. Both WIP (work in progress) and CWIP (construction work in progress) are valid accounting conventions that allow entities (most of which are not regulated utilities) to accurately account for expenditures that have occurred prior to placing short and long term assets into service. So the idea of just getting rid of ‘CWIP’ sounds like a meaningless gesture.

The real problem with CWIP arises primarily in the realm of publicly regulated companies, i.e., utilities, where the regulators may allow utilities to earn a return on their CWIP balances prior to their becoming ‘used and useful’ fixed assets.

While there may be very valid reasons for this to happen, e.g., Misanthropic Marxist Malthusians (MMM) may make investments in even in the most useful assets too risky to undertake, the real problem today is that these same MMM are actually mandating investments in infrastructure that is harmful to modern economies

The problem, given that regulated utilities don’t do anything without the approval of their regulators, isn’t ‘CWIP’, nor even allowing utilities to earn a return on their CWIP balances, but the willful destruction of power grids by regulatory commissions effectively dominated by MMM.

D Sandberg
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 27, 2026 9:30 pm

CCGT’s are back ordered for years. Manufacturer’s are reluctant to add capacity because when the MMM gets back in power, and it’s inevitable that they will given our woke culture, the industry could be taxed and or regulated out of business.

Bob
February 27, 2026 1:34 pm

Excellent article. It is past time to stop disrespecting and cheating the American tax payer and rate payer. If the government can’t bring itself to smooth the way for safe, clean, reliable and affordable electricity for all Americans then get the hell out of the way, we can do it ourselves if you stop interfering.

February 27, 2026 2:41 pm

You should pay for things when they work.”

Wish we could apply this concept to the education system.

not you
February 27, 2026 4:51 pm

“we” built…

BS, ‘we’ didnt have anything to do with it

John the Econ
February 28, 2026 6:50 am

The biggest problem is the fundamental misunderstanding of what the public and most of our leaders think they are buying when they pay for energy, be it electricity, gasoline, diesel, etc. They’re not really paying for the energy itself. Most of it came free from the sun. They’re really paying for the labor, infrastructure, and financing required to deliver it to them in a useful form where and when they need it.

February 28, 2026 7:19 am

In the U.S., there were two “natural monopolies”, telephone and electricity. They were regulated by the state and federal government. Investors allowed a specified rate of return and the companies were monitored for expenses such as labor and depreciation, and for service levels. As a result, consumer prices were kept to a minimum while investors could count on a return.

This mechanism broke apart for electricity with unregulated wind and solar providers who received subsidies, guaranteed payment for generation, and received payment for reducing output when necessary, and did not have service levels that were required. None of this occurred under the regulated scheme. As a result, consumer prices have increased dramatically for electricity.

Contrast this with the telephone system that underwent similar changes. The big difference is that as regulation disappeared, the direct connection between provider and customer remained. This allowed customers to control the market by deciding which provider could best meet their needs.

My suggestion is to return to a system that has a direct connection between the provider and consumer. How would I do this?

  • Establish a third party bill provider,
  • Establish a contractual agreement between provider and consumer, where the provider notifies the billing system what to charge the consumer for electricity,
  • Establish a distribution network provider that is regulated and notifies the billing system what to charge for distribution expenses.

If wind, solar, battery providers fail to meet consumer requirements, they will be penalized. If AI data centers want to have a contract for electricity they may do so with the provision that if the provider raises general consumer rates to create a cheaper rate for data centers, they also endanger their consumer satisfaction.

In other words, a real market with real consequences.

sidabma
February 28, 2026 6:34 pm

What gets me is no one seems to think about how efficiently our fossil fuel energy is being used to make this electricity. Power plants are 50% energy efficient. They used to be 35%.
AI is coming. Ask Chat or Grok how much natural gas is going to be consumed to produce the electricity needed by these AI Data Centers in the next 10 to 15 years. Trillions of cu.ft. How much wasted? 1/2 of that amount.
Our electrical rates are going up. Home heating costs are going up, and nobody is talking energy efficiency. Why?
Natural gas is America’s “clean energy source”. It is used in the residential and some commercial and industrial to over 90% energy efficiency. So why are the power plants given a free ride?
President Trump created DOGE to reduce waste. Natural gas needs to be put on that list. These power plants could be operating at over 90% energy efficiency. There should be no exhaust being vented into the atmosphere. This combusted exhaust needs to be turned into good paying full time jobs and money!!
It’s really so simple. It’s not new technology. It’s proven technology. It just takes some engineering and a desire to become energy efficient. That combusted exhaust would create hundreds of full time year round jobs. Some people are concerned that AI is going to be taking jobs away. It doesn’t have to be that way.
This is a story tip that needs to be researched and reprinted over and over. With enough voices telling our DOE to legislate natural gas consumption to be consumed efficiently, will only be good for all Americans.

The Expulsive
March 1, 2026 9:54 am

One of the smart things being done in Ontario is walking back from the fantasy that solar and wind could power our modern economy, like gas and nuclear can. The previous (leftist) Liberal government sought to put wind turbines and solar panels everywhere, even though Ontario is not really that windy and has long periods of cloud, especially in winter when the sun is mainly absent. To keep the system stable they build some gas facilities, which would have been more efficient if they ran instead of just waiting for the wind and solar to fail, as they often do.
The current progressive government (PCs) has come out strongly in favour of nuclear, rebuilding our CANDU facilities and building a new small modular reactor in Darlington and they say they will convert the old mothballed thermal facility in Wesleyville to nuclear using small modular reactors.
I guess we shall see…