Map Shows Which States Could See Energy Bills Rise From GOP Budget Bill
The budget reconciliation bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 repeals many renewable energy incentives introduced by the Biden administration, which analysts warn could limit energy production and increase costs for Americans nationwide.
According to the climate policy think tank Energy Innovation, the energy provisions of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" will raise wholesale electricity prices by 25 percent by 2030 and by 74 percent by 2035, while increasing the rates consumers pay by between 9 and 18 percent over the decade.
In response to these fears, the White House told Newsweek that the bill will "turbocharge oil production," lowering overall energy costs and providing "further relief to American families and businesses."
Why It Matters
The projected increases in Americans' energy bills, which are already rising for reasons beyond the GOP's budget, will further strain household budgets, particularly in regions that have adopted or planned to expand their adoption of clean energy technologies to meet their electricity demands.
In addition to rising energy costs, analysts believe the bill could also see hundreds of thousands of job losses, as renewable energy projects across the country are halted or canceled outright.
What To Know
The bill, signed into law after months of interparty debates and revisions, amends several clean energy grant programs enacted during the presidency of Joe Biden and via his flagship 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The budget pulls funding for clean energy programs and phases out various renewable tax credits, primarily by shortening the qualification window for wind and solar projects.
According to Energy Innovation, the downstream impacts of the bill on renewable energy projects—many of which will be abandoned as a result—will "significantly hamper the development of domestic electricity generation capacity," resulting in a 340 gigawatt decrease in generation capacity by 2035 despite the simultaneous efforts to increase nonrenewable energy production.
Their research found that the bill will raise energy costs for all Americans, but Dan O'Brien, a senior analyst at the think tank, told Newsweek recently that these impacts would "vary by state." This, he said, depends on each region's geography and potential for solar and wind developments, as well as states' willingness to support investments in such technologies without federal assistance.
Below is a map detailing Energy Innovation's estimates for the annual energy cost increases expected by 2030 and 2036 as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill.
According to the findings, Nevadans will see the most significant price hike by the end of this decade, with the bill adding $300 to the average $1,600 currently paid annually in the state. Energy Innovation said this significant increase is due to the declining deployment of new energy resources, which will result from the bill's passage.
Nevada has long been a leader in incorporating green energy, with renewables accounting for 43 percent of Nevada's total in-state electricity generation in 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nationally, these account for around a quarter of America's total generation.
By 2035, Missouri is expected to see the largest increase of $640, followed by Kentucky and South Carolina, both at $630.
"As deployment of new energy resources and advanced manufacturing decline under the bill, Missouri will lose out on significant planned private investment," the think tank wrote in its analysis, adding that the state will also see annual losses of $1.4 billion in its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030, rising to $3.5 billion by 2035.
What People Are Saying
Dan O'Brien, a senior analyst at Energy Innovation, told Newsweek: "This bill will raise energy prices for all Americans. The impacts will vary by state. Some states in the South and Midwest have enormous potential for wind and solar development due to their unique geographies, but little state policy to back this investment. As a result, these are the states where we forecast lots of projects will fail and where dependence on increasingly expensive natural gas generation is likely."
He added: "Much of energy cost inflation is due to increases in the price of power as fewer low-cost renewables are added to the grid. In fact, we find this bill will increase the inflation-adjusted price of electricity over a sustained period of several decades for the first time since the energy crisis of the 70s and 80s. Nationally averaged, this comes in at 10 to 18 percent increases for residential, commercial, and industrial consumers."
White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers told Newsweek: "Since Day One, President Trump has taken decisive steps to unleash American energy and drive oil and gas production to reduce the cost of energy. The One Big Beautiful Bill will turbocharge oil production by streamlining operations for maximum efficiency and expanding domestic production capacity, which will deliver further relief to American families and businesses."
Harry Godfrey, managing director and head of federal engagement at Advanced Energy United, previously told Newsweek: "As this bill has been debated over the past 6 months, we've seen pullbacks, particularly from domestic advanced energy manufacturing companies.
"Those pullbacks speak to the upstream impact of this bill. Manufacturers, making multi-decadal, multi-billion dollar investments in new factories and assembly lines, are looking out beyond the horizon and seeing a shrinking U.S. market for technologies like solar inverters, wind turbines, batteries (particularly for EVs). So it's little surprise they're getting cold feet. They're the canaries in the coal mine."
What Happens Next
Beyond energy bills, the think tank estimates that the decreased incentives for investments in renewables will also result in a $980 billion hit to America's GDP over the budget reconciliation window, alongside around 760,000 job losses by 2030.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
DNC chair says Democrats will start process of setting 2028 primary calendar this month
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said on Sunday that the party will begin deliberating the 2028 primary calendar later this month at a meeting in Minneapolis. 'We're going to start that conversation actually this month in August at our DNC meeting in Minneapolis,' Martin said in an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' when Chris Stirewalt asked about the primary calendar in the next president election. 'The Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is newly composed, will start this conversation by putting forward the rules and procedures, and start to really figure out how we're going to engage in this,' he continued. Martin said the process will play out over the next year, and he expects to have a calendar set by the end of next year. Stirewalt asked Martin about questions arising from the party's 2024 postmortem, specifically about the decision to heed former President Biden's request to shift the primary calendar to favor South Carolina and Michigan — states in which Biden was expected to perform well. Stirewalt noted the primary calendar changes 'probably insulated the incumbent president to an unhelpful degree,' pointing to the fact that Biden waited until July to end his campaign. But Martin, who was elected chair in February, said he is committed to making the process fair and said any state that wants an early primary date should be permitted to bid for one and be considered. 'The process of having states come in to bid for this has to be fair and open,' he said. 'Any state that wants to be part of the early states window will be considered by the DNC.' Martin also said he anticipates a crowded primary field in 2028 and said he wants to make sure the process for setting the calendar is guided by three principles: 'One, it has to be rigorous. Two, it has to be efficient. Three, it has to be fair.' 'It has to be rigorous, in the sense that it battle tests our nominee and prepares them for the general election,' he said, expanding on the first principle. Martin said it has to be 'efficient' in a way that 'we don't bankrupt our candidates in the early part of this process,' adding, 'We want them to have resources for the general election because the only prize that matters is November.' 'And the third thing is that it has to be fair,' he added. 'It has to allow all of our candidates, which God knows how many candidates we're going to have, to actually compete in those early states.'
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Former Treasury Secretary Says Trump Is Trying to 'Scapegoat' Jerome Powell
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers warned that President Donald Trump may be trying to "scapegoat" Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell in the event the economy slows down enough to hit a recession. "He's looking to set up a scapegoat if the economy performs badly," Summers said during an appearance on ABC News' This Week. "That's what this attacking chairman Powell is really about. It's not really about trying to change policy." Newsweek reached out to the White House by email outside of normal business hours on Sunday morning for comment. Why It Matters Trump has made tariffs the centerpiece of his economic and foreign policy plans, using trade negotiations to try and end conflicts and completely reshape the international trade landscape to more heavily favor the United States. However, many economists and business leaders have warned that Trump's plan will cause a recession as the tariffs raise prices for Americans, which could deter buying and prompt more Americans to hold onto their money. Trump has therefore urged Powell to cut the interest rate in order to spur the economy and get people to spend more money, but Powell has resisted—much to Trump's frustration. What To Know The stock market took a hit on Friday after Trump signed a series of executive orders to impose tariffs on over 90 countries, ranging from 10 to 41 percent. The July Jobs report showed that growth had slowed, showing just 73,000 new jobs—well under the projected 100,000 that the Dow Jones had estimated. Additionally, the jobs reports for May and June were hit with significant revisions that showed very weak growth across those months. Trump fired Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and accused her of manipulating the reports for "political purposes." Summers, who served in former presidents Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's administrations, suggested on Sunday that Trump is likely also trying to line up Powell as a scapegoat should the economy continue to struggle, even though Trump appointed Powell during his first term in office. "I think that this kind of political Fed bashing is a fool's game," Summers said. "The Fed doesn't listen, so short-term interest rates aren't going to be different because of it." He continued: "The market does listen, and so longer-term rates are going to go higher, which is going to make it more expensive to buy a house. This is hurting the economy, not helping. I think the president understands that and what the president is doing is recognizing that, for all kinds of reasons, of which his policies are very important ones, the economy is at a lot of risk." Summers also expressed surprise that more people hadn't responded within the administration to McEntarfer's firing, saying that the decision to remove her "is way beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever did." When Nixon dismissed special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Watergate Scandal, it prompted several officials to resign rather than fire Cox, causing what was known as the "Saturday Night Massacre." Trump faced a similar issue in February, which has been likened to Nixon as the "Thursday Night Massacre," when Department of Justice (DOJ) officials resigned rather than execute an order to dismiss federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. No one has yet resigned in response to McEntarfer's firing, but Summers indicated that he sees the firing as a scapegoating as well, saying: "These numbers are put together by teams of literally hundreds of people following detailed procedures that are in manuals." "There's no conceivable way that the head of the BLS could have manipulated this number," he added. "The numbers are in line with what we're seeing from all kinds of private sector sources." Summers remains cautious about suggesting the economy is headed for a recession. Instead, he said the economy is at "stall speed," which "could tip into recession," but that "wouldn't be my prediction right now." Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers speaks during the World Economic Summit in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2024. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers speaks during the World Economic Summit in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2024. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying President Donald Trump in a post on Truth Social on Saturday wrote: "'Too Late' Powell should resign, just like Adriana Kugler, a Biden Appointee, resigned. She knew he was doing the wrong thing on Interest Rates. He should resign, also!" In a post from Friday, Trump wrote: "Jerome 'Too Late' Powell, a stubborn MORON, must substantially lower interest rates, NOW. IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE, THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!" Ernie Tedeschi, the former head of Yale University's Budget Lab, wrote on X on Friday about McEntarfer's firing: "I've worked closely with Erika. I know of no economist who is more data-focused & devoted to truth in statistics. She never shied from speaking truth to power when the data were disappointing. Nothing would be worse for US credibility than political meddling in our economic data."
