U.S. electricity rates are rising, and utilities are making more money than ever
According to a recent PowerLines report, nearly 80 million Americans struggle to pay their utility bills, yet prices are expected to increase. In early 2025, U.S. gas and electric utilities either requested or were approved for rate hikes totaling roughly $20 billion.
Utility companies say the price increases are necessary to upgrade our aging grid. Some also point to clean energy, specifically solar homeowners, as the reason electric bills are rising. But researchers have looked into the numbers and say they don't add up.
'Utility spending has been out of control for years and years and years,' said Brad Heavner, Executive Director of the California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA).
Stay informed on the latest industry news—delivered to your inbox each month. Sign up for EnergySage's newsletter.
Your electric bill is divided into two sections: Supply and delivery. The supply part covers the cost of generating the electricity you use, while delivery is the cost of delivering the electricity to your home.
Price fluctuations will always surround energy generation, whether it's coal, gas, or renewables. But when we asked Jigar Shah—an entrepreneur and podcaster who was formerly the Director of the Loans Program at the Department of Energy—he said it's not generation but the distribution part of our electric bills that has 'been going haywire.'
'Distribution used to be 20%, today, it's 50% of your bill,' said Jigar.
Below is an example of an electric bill from a Massachusetts home. The electricity supply is about $220, which is still high, but the delivery charges are nearly $315, or 60% of the bill.
So the question becomes, why are energy delivery costs rising? Jigar says our electricity demands are too great for the current grid infrastructure.
'People are buying all sorts of things that use electricity, whether hair dryers, electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric water heaters, or whatever it is. And every time you do that, the utility says, 'We need to be able to upgrade the distribution grid so that you can do whatever you want. You can turn everything on in your house simultaneously, and we have to be able to serve you.' That bargain is getting way too expensive,' said Jigar.
He's right—Americans are using electricity like never before. This isn't necessarily bad because home electrification is excellent for our planet and health. The problem is that much of our power grid was built in the 1960s and 1970s, when people had one TV, no computers or internet, and only 12% of homes had air conditioning.
Jesse Buchsbaum, energy economist and fellow at Resources of the Future (REF), said our electric bills are directly tied to utilities' investments to upgrade transmission and distribution infrastructure. (FYI—transmission lines are the high voltage wires that carry electricity from a power plant to your city or town.)
'In many places, the grid is aging, and so there are necessary upgrades that are needed, especially as climate risk and natural disaster risk are rising,' Jesse said.
He also raises the valid argument of a changing climate. Over the last decade, we've seen record-hot summers and historic freezes, which only put a bigger strain on the grid. For example, in 2024, Hurricane Helene shut off power to more than two million North Carolinians. In 2021, the ice storm in Texas left millions of people powerless in freezing temperatures for days.
To prevent these events from happening, utilities need to strengthen and expand our current power grid—and we're the ones paying for it.
'[Rate increases] are needed to expand the grid, both in the generation sense, but also to build the poles and wires that will transport the power to those new sources of demand, " Jesse said. 'A lot of those costs end up being borne by both residential and commercial industrial rate payers.'
While our electricity needs have increased and our grid needs upgrades, some experts argue that utilities are hiking our rates more than they need to. In a report published earlier this year, Brad and his team at CALSSA said the real reason rates are rising in California is 'out of control utility spending.'
CALSSA hired an independent economist to investigate 20 years of utility rate case filings in the state. Brad said that when utilities claim they need more money to fix and expand the distribution grid, regulators are 'unable to say no' and approve rate hikes that may not be necessary.
'And the utilities get away with it—they're laughing year after year,' Brad said. 'Now, after two decades of effectively playing this game, their profits have soared and so have electric rates.'
While the CALSSA report is specific to California, utility mismanagement of funds is a nationwide issue. RMI released a report in November 2024 highlighting how utilities have invested money into small transmission projects within their territories. The report says these small, local projects have very little oversight from state and federal regulators, earn the utilities guaranteed profits, and cost us ratepayers way more than if they were to invest in bigger, regional projects—ones that would require more overhead and planning.
Report co-author Claire Wayner told Canary Media that transmission planning is like 'two cars being driven on two different roads in parallel. The regional road is like a toll road with all these checkpoints: identify regional needs, open competitive bidding windows, identify the costs and benefits…The local road has no speed limits. [Utilities] can build as much as they want.'
Here's some proof in the pudding: A 2024 analysis by Grid Strategies found that transmission project spending hit an all-time high in 2023, but only 55 miles of new transmission lines were added that year, compared to a record 4,000 miles added in 2013. Yet, our electricity rates were about 20% less in 2013.
'We've authorized the utilities to spend a lot of money, and they haven't spent most of that money yet,' Brad said. 'It's really criminal—in some cases, we've paid them to make upgrades and fix transmission towers, and they haven't done it.'
While millions of Americans are unable to pay their monthly bills, an analysis by the Energy and Policy Institute shows the country's largest publicly owned utilities pay their CEOs between $17 and $33 million a year. The CEOs earned a collective $647 million in 2023, a 9% increase from 2022.
The 2025 analysis shows that the collective payout dropped to $530 million in 2024. However, it states that most of the 54 utilities examined increased their executive payouts year over year.
Some utilities also claim that homes with solar panels are increasing your bills—a theory called 'the solar cost shift.'
The idea is that if solar homeowners generate their own power, utilities make less money. But because solar homeowners still have to use the grid sometimes, the utility raises everyone else's rates to compensate. It sort of paints solar panel owners as freeloaders.
Jigar says there is some cost shift involved when people go solar, but it's 'far smaller than what people are suggesting.'
'I think the bigger problem is that it feels bad when your bills are going up. And a bunch of people that have the means to put solar on their roof are getting a good deal, and all of your neighbors are not getting a good deal,' Jigar said.
Most of us—whether we have solar panels or not—can look at our utility bill and clearly see charges related to solar panels. So, utilities are making us all pay extra while our neighbors with solar enjoy lower electric bills? It doesn't sound fair, but Brad and the CALLSSA team crunched the numbers and said the solar cost shift is extremely inflated and created with 'faulty math.'
'It's really very creative how [utilities] have built this methodology and storyline that has sunk in with a lot of policymakers. And they push it so hard and in such a widespread fashion that it's difficult to counter,' Brad said.
It's not just California; the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors compiled numerous studies from Mississippi to Maine to Nevada and 'found little or no evidence for a 'cost shift' from rooftop solar customers.' Similarly, a report from Brookings found that the economic benefits of solar homeowners not only outweigh the costs but, in most cases, provide a 'net benefit' for the utility and non-solar ratepayers.
'People are catching on to that fact, and the data is pretty clear how much they've increased their spending,' said Brad. 'To deflect attention away from them, they've come up with this elaborate 'cost shift' story saying solar customers are to blame.'
Utilities say they have to increase our rates to bring more electricity onto the grid during moments of high demand, like on a hot summer day when everyone is cranking their AC. But Brad explained that one of the biggest holes in the cost shift theory is that when homes generate their own electricity, they actually help offset this peak power demand.
'Normally, you expand the grid in order to serve a higher peak load. We've kept peak load constant, yet they're spending three times as much money as they did 15 years ago,' Brad said.
Utilities are painting solar owners as the scapegoat for high rates, but really, it's the opposite. Research shows rooftop solar saved California ratepayers $1.5 billion in 2024 alone. Home solar supplies much-needed electricity to the grid, but Brad claims that throws a wrench in the utility's profits.
'Utilities feel threatened by customer solar and storage because it reduces their profit motive, their ability to rate base grid expansion, which is what drives their profits,' Brad explains. 'In California, there's enough solar that they feel like we're really taking weight off the grid and causing them to build less infrastructure, hurting their profits. So they've gone after us in a very strong way here, and that is spilling over into other states, sadly, where you don't have nearly as much solar. And yet this utility playbook is playing out across the country.'
It comes down to simple supply and demand: Utilities are in the business of generating electricity and selling it to us. When you produce your own electricity with solar, that threatens their business model and their large paychecks.
To try and simply answer the question of why your electric bill is so high, it's because our power grid is old and overloaded. And the way most utilities are fixing it is akin to slapping a very expensive band-aid on a gaping wound. Oh, and we're paying for that band-aid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
As electric bills rise, evidence mounts that data centers share blame
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Amid rising electric bills, states are under pressure to insulate regular household and business ratepayers from the costs of feeding Big Tech's energy-hungry data centers. It's not clear that any state has a solution and the actual effect of data centers on electricity bills is difficult to pin down. Some critics question whether states have the spine to take a hard line against tech behemoths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta. But more than a dozen states have begun taking steps as data centers drive a rapid build-out of power plants and transmission lines. That has meant pressuring the nation's biggest power grid operator to clamp down on price increases, studying the effect of data centers on electricity bills or pushing data center owners to pay a larger share of local transmission costs. Rising power bills are 'something legislators have been hearing a lot about. It's something we've been hearing a lot about. More people are speaking out at the public utility commission in the past year than I've ever seen before,' said Charlotte Shuff of the Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group. 'There's a massive outcry.' Some ComEd customers seeing triple-digit bill increases as supply rate hike, heat wave convergeSome data centers could require more electricity than cities the size of Pittsburgh, Cleveland or New Orleans, and make huge factories look tiny by comparison. That's pushing policymakers to rethink a system that, historically, has spread transmission costs among classes of consumers that are proportional to electricity use. 'A lot of this infrastructure, billions of dollars of it, is being built just for a few customers and a few facilities and these happen to be the wealthiest companies in the world,' said Ari Peskoe, who directs the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University. 'I think some of the fundamental assumptions behind all this just kind of breaks down.' A fix, Peskoe said, is a 'can of worms' that pits ratepayer classes against one another. Some officials downplay the role of data centers in pushing up electric bills. Tricia Pridemore, who sits on Georgia's Public Service Commission and is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, pointed to an already tightened electricity supply and increasing costs for power lines, utility poles, transformers and generators as utilities replace aging equipment or harden it against extreme weather. The data centers needed to accommodate the artificial intelligence boom are still in the regulatory planning stages, Pridemore said, and the Data Center Coalition, which represents Big Tech firms and data center developers, has said its members are committed to paying their fair share. But growing evidence suggests that the electricity bills of some Americans are rising to subsidize the massive energy needs of Big Tech as the U.S. competes in a race against China for artificial intelligence superiority. Data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie published a report in recent weeks that suggested 20 proposed or effective specialized rates for data centers in 16 states it studied aren't nearly enough to cover the cost of a new natural gas power plant. In other words, unless utilities negotiate higher specialized rates, other ratepayer classes — residential, commercial and industrial — are likely paying for data center power needs. Meanwhile, Monitoring Analytics, the independent market watchdog for the mid-Atlantic grid, produced research in June showing that 70% — or $9.3 billion — of last year's increased electricity cost was the result of data center demand. ComEd CEO seeks rules to prevent AI from boosting energy billsLast year, five governors led by Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro began pushing back against power prices set by the mid-Atlantic grid operator, PJM Interconnection, after that amount spiked nearly sevenfold. They warned of customers 'paying billions more than is necessary.' PJM has yet to propose ways to guarantee that data centers pay their freight, but Monitoring Analytics is floating the idea that data centers should be required to procure their own power. In a filing last month, it said that would avoid a 'massive wealth transfer' from average people to tech companies. At least a dozen states are eyeing ways to make data centers pay higher local transmission costs. In Oregon, a data center hot spot, lawmakers passed legislation in June ordering state utility regulators to develop new — presumably higher — power rates for data centers. The Oregon Citizens' Utility Board says there is clear evidence that costs to serve data centers are being spread across all customers — at a time when some electric bills there are up 50% over the past four years and utilities are disconnecting more people than ever. New Jersey's governor signed legislation last month commissioning state utility regulators to study whether ratepayers are being hit with 'unreasonable rate increases' to connect data centers and to develop a specialized rate to charge data centers. In some other states, like Texas and Utah, governors and lawmakers are trying to avoid a supply-and-demand crisis that leaves ratepayers on the hook — or in the dark. ComEd closes $10M customer relief fund after 70,000 applicationsIn Indiana, state utility regulators approved a settlement between Indiana Michigan Power Co., Amazon, Google, Microsoft and consumer advocates that set parameters for data center payments for service. Kerwin Olsen, of the Citizens Action Council of Indiana, a consumer advocacy group, signed the settlement and called it a 'pretty good deal' that contained more consumer protections than what state lawmakers passed. But, he said, state law doesn't force large power users like data centers to publicly reveal their electric usage, so pinning down whether they're paying their fair share of transmission costs 'will be a challenge.' In a March report, the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University questioned the motivation of utilities and regulators to shield ratepayers from footing the cost of electricity for data centers. Both utilities and states have incentives to attract big customers like data centers, it said. To do it, utilities — which must get their rates approved by regulators — can offer 'special deals to favored customers' like a data center and effectively shift the costs of those discounts to regular ratepayers, the authors wrote. Many state laws can shield disclosure of those rates, they said. In Pennsylvania, an emerging data center hot spot, the state utility commission is drafting a model rate structure for utilities to consider adopting. An overarching goal is to get data center developers to put their money where their mouth is. 'We're talking about real transmission upgrades, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars,' commission chairman Stephen DeFrank said. 'And that's what you don't want the ratepayer to get stuck paying for.'
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Dave Ramsey bluntly speaks to Americans on buying a car
Buying a car isn't just about selecting something new and exciting - it's a decision that should reflect a person's lifestyle, long-term needs, and financial situation, according to one well-known personal finance author. Dave Ramsey, the author, podcaster and radio host, encourages car buyers to let go of the notion that a flawless, dream vehicle is waiting to be found. Instead, he advises focusing on practicality. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Buyers should ask themselves what kind of vehicle suits their daily life: Is a truck or a car more appropriate? How many passengers are typically transported? What level of fuel efficiency is important? How much cargo space is truly needed? He emphasizes the fact that no single vehicle will meet every desire. The key is to separate true necessities from mere preferences and to consider how the vehicle will serve over time. Ramsey also recommends that car buyers take their time with the search. Exploring both dealership inventories and online listings provides a broader view of available options. Jumping at the first appealing deal may lead to regret, as better choices could be just around the corner. Related: Dave Ramsey warns Americans on buying a car Before beginning the search, Ramsey suggests evaluating whether the current vehicle still meets essential needs. If it remains reliable and functional, delaying a purchase can allow one to save enough money to pay for the car outright rather than taking on a car payment. When it becomes time to buy a car, Ramsey emphasizes the importance of paying cash for a used one rather than taking on car payments with interest while purchasing a new vehicle. Using a car payment calculator, one can easily see the math. Financing a $30,000 car at 9% APR over five years results in more than $7,000 in interest payments. Ramsey warns that the car-buying process often comes with emotional pressure and persuasive marketing. To counter this, he advises buyers to stay grounded in their budget and needs, turning the experience into a financial advantage rather than a setback. Approaching the process with patience and clarity is the best way to avoid costly mistakes, Ramsey explains. "You've got to take the idea of getting a car payment completely off the table," Ramsey wrote. "Not only do you end up forking over thousands more when you take out a car loan or lease a car, but do you really want a gigantic car payment weighing you down like a modern-day ball and chain for the next six years?" When buying a car, it's crucial to have a crisp understanding of how much cash one has on hand that can reasonably be spent on an automobile, Ramsey clarifies. More on personal finance: Dave Ramsey has blunt words for Americans on Medicare, MedicaidJean Chatzky sends strong message on major 401(k) changesFinance expert has blunt words for car buyers "Look at your bank accounts and see what you've got in savings," he wrote. "You also need to ask yourself where buying a ride fits in with your other financial goals." "Do you have debt you want to get rid of? Are you saving for a down payment on a house? You may need a new vehicle, but remember: Every extra dollar you put toward a car is one less dollar you could put toward something else," Ramsey added. Related: Dave Ramsey warns Americans on Social Security Ramsey advises that the combined value of a person's vehicles should not exceed 50% of their yearly income. His reasoning is rooted in the principle of avoiding excessive investment in assets that lose value over time. Vehicles tend to depreciate rapidly, making them a poor place to store wealth. Ramsey emphasizes the reality that financial stability comes from putting money into things that grow in value - not into items that decline the moment they're driven off the lot. "Once you land on a number you can spend out of pocket, decide you're not going above it - no matter what promises the dealer tries to throw your way," Ramsey wrote. "Having a firm budget and paying in cash are both powerful negotiating tools." Keeping vehicle expenses in check helps ensure that more income is available for savings, investments, and other financial priorities. This kind of discipline is key to building long-term wealth, according to Ramsey. Related: Dave Ramsey has blunt words for Americans buying a car The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Nearly half of Gen Z would pick money over love, new survey finds
Leave the fiancé, take the 401k. A stunning 46% of Gen Zers would pick long-term financial stability over romance, and close to 1 in 3 said they'd even take a former partner back if that ex got rich, according to a new dating survey by matchmaking service Tawkify. 'Money equals safety, security and freedom,' Brie Temple, Tawkify's CCO and chief matchmaker, told The Post. 'Taking an ex back because they got rich isn't just about the bank account. It's about what that wealth symbolizes: security, ambition and maybe a sense that they've 'leveled up' since the breakup.' Advertisement 4 Nearly half of Gen Zers would pick long-term financial stability over romance, and close to 1 in 3 said they'd even take a former partner back — if that ex got rich. EDUARDOIVAN – The June 2025 survey asked 1,000 Americans about how money shapes dating today. Gen Xers were the most financially cautious, with 52% saying they'd choose money over love — but Gen Z wasn't far behind. They've got a number in mind, too: 1 in 10 Gen Z women say their ideal match should be making $200,000 or more, and most won't settle for anything under $80,000. Advertisement By contrast, Millennials were the most love-struck: 59% said they'd rather have a 'broke and magical' relationship than one with financial security. And across the larger population, about 63% of Americans said they'd marry for love, even if it meant a lifetime of financial struggle. 4 Millennials were the most likely to prioritize love over romance, while Gen Z and Gen X were the most financially cautious. djile – Still, for many daters, love has a limit — and a minimum salary. Nearly half of Gen Z, 46%, said they wouldn't date someone who's unemployed, even if they were attracted to them, a factor that beat out political differences as a dealbreaker. Advertisement Today's singles of all ages care about more than just income, they're sizing up spending habits, savings goals and long-term financial compatibility, Temple told The Post. 'We're asking more about how people handle money, what kind of lifestyle they want and how they see their future,' she said. 'Even if two people really get along, different views on finances can cause problems later.' Nearly 70% of respondents across all generations said they've stayed in relationships longer than they should have because of shared finances, with a quarter noting the relationship was long-term. 4 Nearly half of Gen Z said they wouldn't date someone who's unemployed, even if they were attracted to them, beating out political differences as a dealbreaker. crizzystudio – Advertisement Gen Z's mindset is shaped by years of economic instability, including the aftermath of the 2008 recession, ballooning student debt and pandemic-era job losses, said Marisa Cohen, a Long Island-based marriage and family therapist. 'The pressure to focus on finances likely feels so urgent because of the economic uncertainty Gen Z has dealt with through most of their lives,' she told The Post. 'Being tied to a relationship in which there is financial insecurity or uncertainty may compete with their own personal goals and pursuits.' And money talk now happens earlier and can make or break a connection, said Damona Hoffman, a certified dating coach and author of 'F the Fairy Tale: Rewrite the Dating Myths and Live Your Own Love Story.' 4 Still, Gen Z hasn't totally ruled out romance. A slim majority, 54%, said they'd still choose a 'broke and magical' relationship over one that's rich and lifeless. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design 'Daters are terrified of partnering with someone who has bad credit or unmanaged debt,' she said. 'You could have a fancy car, a nice apartment and put your dates on credit cards but be sitting on mounds of high-interest loans.' Still, Gen Z hasn't totally ruled out romance. A slim majority, 54%, said they'd still choose a 'broke and magical' relationship over one that's rich and lifeless. 'Gen Z is dating with their eyes wide open,' Temple said. 'They still want love but only when it fits into a life that feels secure, balanced and true to who they are.'
