America's energy bill crisis spirals out of control as red state sees $300 a month hikes
Customers of Georgia Power saw their monthly bills rise as much as $300 last month.
Local residents Brenda Lankfert and Michael Reff both received bills of almost $800 in July, WSB-TV reported.
Reff claims the bill was a 117 percent increase from the month before. 'We've had hot days, but that's a huge leap,' he told the publication.
Lankfert said her $780 bill was attributed to just two air conditioning units.
'I don't run my units cold. I keep my house about 78 degrees year-round,' she said.
'This July was one of Georgia's hottest in nearly a decade, with temperatures averaging 2–5 degrees above normal. When temperatures rise, so does energy use,' Georgia Power said in a statement.
'Even with seasonal spikes… Our rates have averaged 15 percent below the national average since 1990.'
As temperatures continue to rise due to climate change, Georgia residents have been urged to look into ways to cut back their energy use to bring their bills down.
Electricity use in the peak hours between 2pm and 7pm will cost more than in non-peak hours.
It come as New Jersey residents have also complained of huge spikes in their energy costs.
The New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities (BPU) approved a 17 to 20 percent hike in June for the majority of households in The Garden State.
Republicans in the state have claimed it is tied directly to Democratic Governor Phil Murphy's move to shut down the state's nuclear and coal plants in 2017.
Murphy touted offshore turbines as the way forward, but none of them have yet to be completed due to issues around costs.
Electric bills in the state now rank as the 12th highest in the nation, with prices 15 percent higher than the national average, analysis from The Wall Street Journal found.
The state is becoming increasingly dependent on out-of-state generation to meet the electricity demand, according to the Journal.
Republicans in New Jersey have claimed the bill hike is due to Democratic Governor Phil Murphy's move to shut down the state's nuclear and coal plants in 2017
One resident who spoke with Fox News said her monthly energy bill had gone up by $200.
'This is killing us, and every time you turn around it's something more. You only get little pleasures in life that you enjoy, and my air conditioner is one of them,' she said.
Meanwhile residents in Michigan have been forced to resort to old-fashioned techniques to control their energy bills after price hikes this summer.
Some residents reported cutting wood for fires rather than using electric heating earlier this year.
Consumers Energy, the second largest power provider in the state, filed an intention to raise rates in March, leaving residents bracing for even higher bills.
The filing requested an annual rate hike of a whopping $436 million.
The July inflation report found that energy prices across the US rose 0.9 percent in the past month.
Food prices were also among the hardest hit last month, rising another 0.3 percent, matching May's grocery increase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
US court skeptical of ruling that reinstated thousands of federal workers
Aug 19 (Reuters) - Judges on a U.S. appeals court panel on Tuesday said a lower court judge who ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to reinstate 17,000 fired federal workers likely lacked the ability to hear the case at all. A three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco heard oral arguments in the administration's appeal of a ruling that said the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in February wrongly ordered six agencies to fire probationary employees en masse. Probationary workers typically have less than one year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees in new roles, and they have fewer job protections than other government workers. The administration fired roughly 25,000 probationary employees, an early step in Trump's efforts to dramatically downsize the federal bureaucracy. Two Trump appointees on the 9th Circuit panel said it seemed that the unions that sued over the firings were instead required to take their claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears federal workers' appeals when they are fired or disciplined. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said it was "crazy" and "weird" that the American Federation of Government Employees and other unions opted to sue OPM instead of challenging the individual firings at the merit board. 'There's a problem here,' he said. 'It seems to be circumventing an agency process and it's doing it by grabbing hold of an agency that never fired anybody." The three-member merit board currently lacks a quorum to decide cases after Trump in January fired a Democratic member, Cathy Harris, in an unprecedented move. The U.S. Supreme Court in May allowed Harris to be removed while her lawsuit challenging her termination plays out. More than 13,000 appeals have been filed with the board since Trump took office in January. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in March had said that OPM improperly directed the firings by telling agencies they should terminate all but the most critical probationary workers. The Supreme Court in April stayed the ruling, which applied to the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury, pending the appeal. The employees had been reinstated before the Supreme Court's decision, though many were placed on administrative leave and did not return to work. The practical impact of a ruling reversing Alsup is unclear, as many probationary workers have lost or could soon lose their jobs as part of broader federal layoffs. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress on Tuesday said that if the firings were illegal, the unions should have gone after the individual agencies in seeking to have workers reinstated. 'You don't need OPM to be a defendant or a party in that process in order to be able to achieve that result,' Bress said to Danielle Leonard, who argued for the unions. Leonard countered that the core claim in the lawsuit is that OPM unlawfully created a rule redefining when probationary workers can be fired without going through the administrative process required by federal law. The merit board cannot resolve that claim, she said. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen broke with her colleagues, saying that in merit board cases the defendants are the employing agencies. The unions 'are not asserting that. They're asserting that OPM acted outside its authority," said Christen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, a Democrat. A federal judge in Maryland had separately ruled in March that the firings of probationary workers were unlawful because agencies failed to give states advance notice as required by federal law. The Virginia-based 4th Circuit paused that decision and is expected to rule soon on the administration's appeal. The case is AFGE v. OPM, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1677. For the unions: Danielle Leonard of Altshuler Berzon For the government: Emily Hall of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court halts reinstatement of fired federal employees US judge halts Trump administration's calls for mass firings at agencies Trump administration ordered to retract 'sham' rationale for firing workers Trump moves to ease firing of recently-hired federal workers US appeals court sides with Trump, clears way to fire thousands of federal workers
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Texas Republicans set to approve Trump-backed congressional map to protect party's majority
Aug 20 (Reuters) - Texas legislators on Wednesday took up a new state congressional map intended to flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats in next year's midterm elections, after dozens of Democratic lawmakers ended a two-week walkout that had temporarily blocked passage. Republican legislators, who have dominated Texas politics for over two decades, have undertaken a rare mid-decade redistricting at the behest of President Donald Trump, who is seeking to improve his party's odds of preserving its narrow U.S. House of Representatives majority amid political headwinds. The map, which should easily pass the Texas House by a simple majority vote but will have to be reconciled with the state Senate's version, has triggered a national redistricting war, with governors of both parties threatening to initiate similar efforts in other states. Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom is advancing an effort to redraw his state's map to flip five Republican seats. Democratic-controlled California is the nation's most populous state while Republican-led Texas is the second most populous. The Texas map would shift conservative voters into districts currently held by Democrats and combine some districts that Democrats hold. Other Republican states -- including Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Missouri -- are moving forward with or considering their own redistricting efforts, as are Democratic states such as Maryland and Illinois. Redistricting typically occurs every 10 years after the U.S. Census to account for population changes, and mid-decade redistricting has historically been unusual. In many states, lawmakers manipulate the lines to favor their party over the opposition, a practice known as gerrymandering. Texas Democrats on Wednesday raised multiple objections to and questions about the measure, slowing debate. Democratic Representative Chris Turner introduced an amendment to kill the bill, which did not pass. He said from the House floor that the redistricting bill was an "illegal and racially discriminatory Congressional map." "This body has no business passing it," Turner said. "This is unprecedented and it is wrong." Republicans argued the map was created to improve political performance and would increase majority Hispanic districts. Turner was among the Democrats who fled the state earlier this month to deny the Texas House a quorum. In response, Republicans undertook extraordinary measures to try to force the Democrats home, including filing lawsuits to remove them from office and issuing arrest warrants. The walkout ended when Democrats voluntarily returned on Monday, saying they had accomplished their goals of blocking a vote during a first special legislative session and persuading Democrats in other states to take retaliatory steps. Republican House leadership assigned state law enforcement officers to monitor Democrats to ensure they would not leave the state again. One Democratic representative, Nicole Collier, slept in the Capitol building on Monday night rather than accept a police escort. Republicans, including Trump, have openly acknowledged that the new map is aimed at increasing their political power. The party currently controls 25 of the state's 38 districts under a Republican-drawn map that was passed four years ago. Democrats and civil rights groups have said the new map dilutes the voting power of racial minorities in violation of federal law and have vowed to sue. Nationally, Republicans captured the 435-seat U.S. House in 2024 by only three seats. The party of the president historically loses House seats in the first midterm election, and Trump's approval ratings have sagged since he took office in January.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Poll suggests CA Dems prefer Newsom over Harris in 2028
Former Vice President Kamala Harris is losing political altitude in her own backyard. A new poll suggests California Democrats prefer Gavin Newsom over Kamala Harris in a potential 2028 presidential primary. The Politico survey shows the California governor leading Harris with 25% support compared to her 19% among registered Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independents in California. Moreover, less than a quarter of California Democrats - just 23 percent - are very excited about the prospect of another Harris presidential bid. The survey shows a clear majority - 58 percent - are 'not excited' about Harris 2028. California Democrats are a bit more enthusiastic for Newsom though 51 percent are still 'not excited.' As Democrats remain leaderless following Joe Biden 's exit from the White House , Newsom has emerged as a leading candidate to unite the party against Donald Trump . Meanwhile, Harris has largely remained largely out of the political fray since losing the general election to Trump in 2024. 'There's affection for her, but maybe less confidence that she would be a strong candidate,' said Jack Citrin, a UC Berkeley political science professor who helped author the poll. The survey does show Newsom and Harris would both be leading contenders in the California primary. However, Harris' inability to garner clear support in her own home state is a doomsday scenario for her chances to grab the nomination. '(Newsom is) in the news everyday. If you think someone is running, you're more likely to support them,' Citrin added. Harris also indicated that she's not looking to jump back into the political machine following her landslide loss to Trump. In July, the former vice president said she will not run for California governor ending months of speculation. Harris has also not consistently opposed the Trump administration compared to other Democratic contenders. In contrast, Newsom has spent most of his remaining term as governor publicly resisting Trump's political agenda, including by redrawing California political districts and opposing ICE immigration raids. Additionally, California under Newsom is suing the administration over Trump federalizing the state's National Guard amid anti-Trump protests in LA over the summer. In the past, Harris has struggled at securing the nomination in competitive Democratic primaries. During the 2020 Democratic election primary, she ended her campaign before voting even began in the Iowa caucus.
