Washington – A new study from the California‑based think tank Energy Innovation projects that households across the contiguous United States could see an average of $6,500 more in cumulative energy costs through 2040 as a result of federal policy changes since President Trump returned to office. While the numbers sound alarming, the administration stresses that its emphasis on reliable, domestic fossil‑fuel resources is designed to protect families from blackouts and keep long‑term electricity rates affordable.

Administration’s Response

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the administration’s top priority is to lower electricity prices for American families and businesses. “President Trump is fixing the grid crisis created by the previous administration,” Rogers wrote in an email, adding that the President is “unleashing reliable energy like coal and natural gas to reverse the catastrophic damage Democrats did to the power grid by ramping up clean energy projects that are costly and unreliable.”

Rogers also highlighted a 2025 Department of Energy report, mandated by President Trump, which warned that continued closures of coal and natural‑gas plants could lead to increasing blackouts. The administration argues that keeping these baseload resources online safeguards the nation’s energy security and protects households from sudden service interruptions.

What the Study Shows

Energy Innovation’s modeling indicates that, on average, households will pay roughly $9,000 more in five states—Oregon, Mississippi, South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming—by 2040. The analysis also projects annual household energy spending rising in every state, job losses in 47 of 48 states, and an estimated 37,000 additional premature deaths from air‑pollution‑related illnesses.

However, the study notes that states with high levels of wind and solar generation, such as Republican‑led Iowa and Oklahoma, have experienced the lowest rate increases. Moreover, the analysis found that states that voted for President Trump in 2024 would pay an average of $7,000 more per household, compared with $5,800 in states that supported Vice President Harris.

Critics and Their Affiliations

Climate Justice Alliance legislative director Mar Zepeda, a Washington, D.C. advocate, said her own electric bill rose $200 in the past month and blamed data‑center demand and federal “affordability” policies for higher rates. The Institute for Energy Research, a conservative think tank, has previously argued that blue‑state renewable mandates drive up costs.

Energy Innovation’s senior director for modeling, Robbie Orvis, warned that “across pretty much every state, things are worse” and that the outlook for affordability is bleak. He also noted that the organization’s employees have donated to Democrats and worked with Democratic policymakers on climate issues, a point Rogers called “irresponsible” to label the group as nonpartisan.

Administration’s Policy Highlights

• Cancellation of new clean‑energy projects and revocation of incentives for low‑emission vehicles, aimed at reducing reliance on volatile renewable subsidies.
• Tax‑break package known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that slashed funding for clean‑energy tax credits.
• Loosening of fuel‑economy standards and blocking of California’s rule to ban new gas‑powered cars by 2035.
• Regulatory rollbacks on clean‑air and power‑plant rules, intended to lower compliance costs for businesses.

President Trump and congressional allies argue that these steps restore market‑based energy production, lower costs for manufacturers, and protect American jobs. They contend that a reliable supply of coal and natural gas keeps electricity prices stable, especially in regions where renewable integration has proven costly.

Local Perspectives

Bob Jenks, executive director of the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, called the projected $9,300 cumulative increase for Oregon households “frightening” and warned that utilities may be forced to disconnect customers who cannot afford rising bills. Jenks also emphasized the importance of wind and solar for affordable electricity, urging the federal government to partner with states to develop needed resources.

Despite these concerns, the administration maintains that states led by Democrats, such as California and New York, see higher energy costs because of aggressive renewable mandates, while Republican‑led states benefit from the President’s pro‑fossil‑fuel stance.

Looking Ahead

The Energy Innovation model does not include Alaska or Hawaii due to data limitations, and its projections stop at 2040. As the nation debates the balance between clean‑energy goals and reliable, affordable power, the Trump administration will continue to promote policies that prioritize domestic fossil fuels, arguing that this approach safeguards families, businesses, and the nation’s energy independence.

Original reporting: Alexandria, VA News – WTOP News — read the source article.