A state-by-state analysis finds many of the nation’s highest electricity prices in states that backed Democrats in the past two presidential elections, with researchers arguing that climate mandates and energy policies help explain the gap while federal data show geography, fuel costs and regulation also affect rates.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Electricity prices differed dramatically across the United States in 2025, ranging from 35.72 cents per kilowatt-hour in Hawaii to 8.20 cents in North Dakota, as two energy research organizations argue that state policy choices are an important factor in determining how much consumers pay.
The Institute for Energy Research and Always On Energy Research have expanded earlier work on electricity affordability into an interactive state-by-state map examining rates alongside renewable-energy requirements, carbon-free electricity mandates, carbon-pricing programs, natural gas access, net-metering policies and utility net-zero commitments.
Their analysis identifies a strong partisan pattern among states with higher electricity prices. The organizations classify states according to their presidential vote in 2020 and 2024 and argue that jurisdictions consistently voting Democratic are disproportionately represented among those with rates above the national average. Federal Energy Information Administration data independently confirm the large differences in electricity prices between states, although the EIA says several factors — including fuel availability and costs, power-plant availability and state regulation — affect local electricity prices.
“While there are many factors that influence electricity rates, the one constant we see is that states that have pursued climate or net-zero policies above all else have some of the highest rates in the country,” IER President Tom Pyle said. “Families and businesses deserve clear, accessible information about how those policy choices affect their monthly bills.”
According to the groups’ analysis, described in a Newsmax report, 86% of continental states with electricity prices exceeding the national average voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2020 and 2024.
At the opposite end of the price range, the researchers said nine of the 10 least expensive states voted Republican in both elections.
“Eighty-six percent of continental states with electricity prices above the national average voted Democratic in both 2020 and 2024, while 90 percent of the 10 cheapest states voted Republican in both elections,” AOER President and CEO Amy Cooke said.
The organizations classify Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as politically “purple” because their presidential votes were divided between the parties over the two election cycles. Florida was the first state classified as “red” in their ranking, appearing at No. 20.
The political pattern documented by IER and AOER represents a correlation, however, rather than by itself establishing that partisan control or any single policy caused the difference in prices. Electricity markets vary substantially because states use different generation sources, transmission systems, regulatory structures and fuels.
Hawaii provides the clearest example of why geography can matter.
The state’s 2025 average of 35.72 cents per kilowatt-hour was approximately 162% above the national all-sector average of 13.63 cents, according to EIA data. Hawaii has consistently recorded the country’s highest electricity prices, and the EIA identifies its heavy reliance on imported petroleum fuels as the primary reason its electricity is considerably more expensive than in other states.
IER and AOER agree that the state’s isolation matters but argue that its policy decisions also contribute to the cost.
“Hawaii led the way in adopting blue-state energy mandates,” the groups said. “The same legislature that banned coal, and considered banning LNG, should propose a serious alternative to lower bills.”
California provides a different case.
The state averaged about 27.6 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, approximately twice the national average, according to the researchers. IER and AOER said California recorded the largest increase in retail electricity prices of any state since 2018 and calculated that its inflation-adjusted increase approached 30%.
California requires renewable and zero-carbon resources to supply 100% of retail electricity sales by 2045 under Senate Bill 100. State targets call for 60% renewable electricity by 2030, followed by 90% renewable and zero-carbon electricity by 2035, 95% by 2040 and 100% by 2045.
California also operates a cap-and-trade system and has pursued extensive electrification and renewable-energy policies.
IER and AOER point to those requirements, costs associated with electricity infrastructure, natural gas policies and utility net-zero commitments as contributors to the state’s high prices.
The groups have also examined the role of Diablo Canyon, California’s remaining nuclear power plant, as part of the state’s changing generation mix. Nuclear generation has accounted for roughly one-tenth of California retail electricity consumption in recent years, while renewable resources supplied 45.2% of retail sales in 2024 and total zero-carbon generation, including nuclear and large hydropower, reached 67%.
New York represents another major focus of the researchers’ analysis.
Its electricity averaged approximately 21.6 cents per kilowatt-hour in the figures used by IER and AOER, about 60% above the national average.
New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requires 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and a 100% zero-emission electricity system by 2040. The state is also a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the multistate carbon market covering electric power plants.
IER and AOER additionally cite restrictions affecting natural gas production and infrastructure, building electrification requirements and the closure of the Indian Point nuclear facility as changes that have affected New York’s energy system.
Cooke pointed to California and New York to illustrate the organizations’ interpretation of the data.
“California and New York show why,” she said. “California mandates 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045 and operates a cap-and-trade program, while its average electricity price has climbed from 16.6 to 27.6 cents per kilowatt-hour since 2018. New York requires a zero-emissions grid by 2040, and its average price has risen from 14.8 to 21.6 cents per kilowatt-hour.”
Several other Northeastern states were also among the most expensive jurisdictions in the groups’ analysis.
Rhode Island’s price was approximately 90% above the national average, while Connecticut and Massachusetts were about 88% higher. Maine was 67% above the national level and New Hampshire was 58% higher, according to the analysis.
Current EIA monthly data continue to show substantial regional differences. In June 2026, for example, the all-sector average was 25.72 cents per kilowatt-hour in Massachusetts, 25.30 cents in Rhode Island, 24.17 cents in New York and 23.19 cents in Maine, compared with a national monthly average of 14.48 cents.
IER and AOER contrast those states with North Dakota, which had the country’s lowest 2025 annual average electricity price at 8.20 cents per kilowatt-hour, about 40% below the national figure. The EIA independently identifies North Dakota and Hawaii as the endpoints of the 2025 state price range.
North Dakota is also one of the country’s major crude-oil producers and has not adopted the type of statewide renewable or zero-emission electricity mandates found in California and New York.
According to the groups, North Dakota’s electricity prices have declined in real terms since 2018, falling 28.3% after adjustment for inflation.
“North Dakota’s mandate-free energy policy has delivered the cheapest electricity in America and the most favorable real-price trajectory of any state,” IER and AOER said. “What remains is to ensure ratepayers are protected while the state encourages data center demand.”
More recent EIA figures show North Dakota’s all-sector electricity price at 9.01 cents per kilowatt-hour in June 2026, still substantially below the 14.48-cent national monthly average.
The rapid construction of data centers has introduced another question into the national debate over electricity affordability.
Large computing facilities used for artificial intelligence, cloud computing and other digital services can consume substantial amounts of power, leading policymakers and utilities in several states to debate how the cost of new generation and transmission infrastructure should be divided between data centers and existing customers.
IER previously examined state data-center populations alongside electricity rates and concluded that the available state-level data did not show a statistically significant relationship between the concentration of data centers and higher electricity prices.
“The data shows no statistically significant correlation between the number of data centers in a state and its current electricity prices,” Pyle and IER adjunct fellow Daniel Simmons wrote.
IER’s analysis found that the 10 states with the largest numbers of data centers averaged 14.46 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2025, compared with 14.39 cents among the remaining states. The organization said electricity consumption was increasing in data-center-heavy states but argued that higher demand had not yet translated into a consistent pattern of higher rates across those states.
The researchers acknowledged that relationship could change as electricity-intensive artificial intelligence infrastructure expands.
“That may or may not change in the future, but the most recent data shows that data centers are not responsible for higher electricity rates,” Pyle and Simmons wrote. “The data shows no statistically significant correlation between the number of data centers in a state and its current electricity prices.”
The wider electricity-price debate therefore involves competing explanations rather than a single national cause.
IER and AOER argue that state renewable mandates, carbon programs, natural gas restrictions and other policy choices are central to explaining why many Democratic-leaning states have comparatively high prices. Their state-by-state project was specifically designed to demonstrate that relationship.
Federal energy data confirm the underlying geographic disparity but identify a broader set of factors affecting what customers ultimately pay, including the availability and cost of fuels, the availability of power plants, transmission and distribution expenses and state utility regulations. Hawaii’s reliance on imported petroleum is one particularly clear example.
California and New York, meanwhile, have explicitly chosen long-term transitions toward zero-carbon electricity and acknowledge that maintaining affordability and reliability while building the generation, storage and transmission infrastructure needed to meet those targets is a central challenge. California energy regulators, for example, say reaching the state’s 2045 requirement will demand unprecedented construction of new clean-energy resources.
With electricity affordability increasingly part of the national cost-of-living debate, the IER and AOER analysis puts renewed attention on decisions made by state governments — and on how much of the price difference between states should be attributed to policy, geography, fuel supply, infrastructure and the changing demands placed on the nation’s electric grid.
Original article
Comments