Americans living in states that voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections are paying significantly more for electricity, and a new report says the policy choices driving those costs are hiding in plain sight.
Always On Energy Research and the Institute for Energy Research released the first phase of an interactive state-by-state breakdown on July 4, covering the 13 original colonies. The project, titled "Blue States High Rates," builds on an original analysis the two groups completed last December and aims to connect the dots between aggressive climate mandates and the price families pay every time they flip a light switch.
The core finding is blunt: 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in both 2020 and 2024. Meanwhile, 80% of the ten states with the lowest electricity prices voted Republican in those same elections. The correlation alone doesn't prove causation, but the researchers say the policy trail does.
The interactive tool at bluestateshighrates.com examines renewable portfolio standards, net-zero pledges by utilities, net metering policies, carbon pricing and cap-and-trade schemes, infrastructure policies that restrict natural gas access, and data center protection policies. Users can click on any of the 13 original colony states for a full profile. For states outside that initial batch, basic information on average rates and national ranking is already available, with full profiles expected in the near future.
The original December analysis spotlighted five states to illustrate the gap. California and New York, both deep blue, were featured as high-rate examples. Florida, Kentucky, and Louisiana, all reliably red, served as the low-rate counterparts. The red states in the comparison lacked renewable portfolio standards, zero emissions targets, net metering mandates, and other climate-driven regulations that layer costs onto ratepayers.
Isaac Orr, vice president of research at Always On Energy Research, told Just the News:
"We wanted to have a one-stop shop where people could kind of get a feel for what's the energy mix in their state, what policies are being implemented, and what's the impact of those policies on what they're paying at the plug."
Orr acknowledged that the picture is not perfectly uniform. Oregon and Washington, both solidly blue, enjoy lower electricity rates, but that's because they sit on enormous hydroelectric resources that predate the modern climate-policy push. The map, Orr said, captures those distinctions.
"The map shows these kinds of subtle distinctions in the price of electricity for each of these states, and we wanted to be able to demonstrate why that is from a policy perspective."
The report lands at a moment when electricity costs are climbing fast across the country. IER president Tom Pyle cited federal figures showing U.S. electricity prices rose 27% from January 2021 through January 2025. Then came an additional 11% increase from January through September 2025 alone. Those numbers, drawn from U.S. Energy Information Administration data, suggest the trend is accelerating, not leveling off.
Pyle framed the stakes in a statement:
"Americans deserve transparent information on how state decisions directly affect their wallet."
He added:
"The bottom line is that the decisions that states make, good or bad, have consequences for American families and businesses when it comes to electricity affordability."
Under the Federal Power Act, states hold exclusive authority over generation portfolios, siting, retail pricing, and resource adequacy. That means the policy choices documented in the report, renewable mandates, carbon pricing, restrictions on natural gas infrastructure, are decisions made by state legislators and regulators, not Washington. Voters who want to know why their bills keep climbing have a place to look: their own statehouses.
The original December report drew considerable attention. Alex Stevens, IER's manager of policy and communications, said the institute conducted Zoom meetings with state officials to discuss the findings. Stevens also testified before the Maryland Legislature on how blue-state policies drive up energy costs, a notable venue, given that Maryland is among the original colonies covered in the new interactive tool.
The researchers are positioning the project as a resource for voters heading into the midterm elections. Sarah Montalbano, an energy policy analyst at Always On Energy Research, described the approach with a consumer metaphor:
"We obviously have a perspective, but the ingredients are right there on the label for people."
That framing matters. The groups behind the report are pro-energy-development organizations with clear policy views. But the underlying data comes from the EIA, the federal government's own statistical agency. The question for skeptics is not whether the data is real but whether the policies flagged in the report are actually responsible for the price gap. The researchers say the pattern is too consistent to dismiss.
Consider what the report catalogs. Renewable portfolio standards force utilities to buy a fixed share of power from wind and solar, regardless of cost. Net metering policies shift grid maintenance costs from rooftop solar owners to everyone else. Carbon pricing and cap-and-trade programs add a direct surcharge to fossil-fuel generation. Restrictions on natural gas infrastructure limit the cheapest fuel source available in many markets. Each mandate, taken alone, might look modest. Stacked together, they compound into the kind of rate increases families notice on every monthly bill.
Red states that skipped those mandates kept rates lower. That is not a coincidence, and it is not a mystery. It is the predictable result of letting climate ideology drive energy policy instead of letting markets deliver affordable, reliable power.
The report does not claim every blue state is identical. Oregon's hydropower keeps its rates down despite its politics. And not every red state has rock-bottom prices. But the overall pattern, 86% of above-average states voting blue, 80% of the cheapest states voting red, is the kind of signal that deserves a serious answer from the governors, legislators, and regulators who imposed these mandates.
The report's first phase covers only the 13 original colonies. Full profiles for the remaining states are expected soon. When they arrive, voters in every state will be able to see exactly which policies their officials adopted and how those choices compare with the national average. The researchers have not yet published precise cents-per-kilowatt-hour figures in the interactive tool's public-facing summaries, and the full methodology for attributing rate differences to specific policies has not been released in detail. Those gaps matter, and filling them will strengthen or weaken the case.
But the broad strokes are already clear. States that pursued aggressive net-zero timelines, renewable mandates, and carbon pricing ended up with higher electricity bills. States that didn't, didn't.
Supporters of these policies argue the costs are worth it, that the transition to renewables will pay off in the long run through lower emissions and eventual price stability. That argument asks working families to pay more today for a theoretical benefit decades away. It asks small businesses to absorb higher operating costs while competing against firms in states where power is cheap. And it asks voters to trust the same officials who imposed the mandates to eventually deliver on the savings.
The 27% price increase from 2021 to 2025, followed by another 11% in just nine months, suggests the savings are not arriving on schedule.
The Federal Power Act puts these decisions squarely in the hands of state governments. That means voters have the power to change course, if they know what's driving the bill. The "Blue States High Rates" project is built to give them exactly that information.
When the lights cost more in one state than another, and the only difference is the policy stack, the policy stack is the problem. Voters who figure that out before November will be better off than those who don't.
