
See how your energy prices could change if the GOP passes Trump's tax bill
Household energy bills will be higher over the next decade if Republicans pass their tax and spending bill, according to a new analysis.
President Donald Trump and Republicans are itching to kill tax credits that lower the cost to build wind and solar, which are now largely cheaper than fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. More wind and solar on the electricity grid helps keep utility bills lower, and Biden-era tax credits were set to rapidly ramp up the amount of those cheaper, renewable projects being built.
When combined with the electric vehicle consumer tax credit likely being cut, annual electricity and transportation costs in every state in the continental United States will be higher than they would have if the tax credits stayed intact, analysis from think tank Energy Innovation found. Energy Innovation did not model data for Hawaii and Alaska.
Energy Innovation modeled transportation costs like gasoline for cars, as well as household electricity and heating costs in their analysis.
Red states including Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas could see up to 18% higher energy costs by 2035 if Trump's bill passes, compared with a scenario where the bill didn't pass.
Annual household energy costs could rise $845 per year in Oklahoma by 2035, and $777 per year in Texas. That's because these states would be set to deploy a massive amount of wind and solar if Biden-era energy tax credits were left in place. If that goes away, states will have to lean on natural gas to generate power.
Blue states that are deliberately putting more clean energy onto their grids would still see prices rise over the coming decade, albeit far less, Orvis said. They are more immune to price shocks because they won't be as heavily reliant on gas and coal.
'You're moving from not using a lot of fossil fuels to using a lot of fossil fuels. That makes the price go up a lot,' said Robbie Orvis, Energy Innovation's senior director of modeling and analysis.
Energy analysts expect the cost of natural gas and the cost of building new gas-powered plants will increase, and with it, consumer energy bills.
'Everybody's electricity prices are going to go up,' said Rich Powell, CEO of trade group the Clean Energy Buyers Association. 'I think people have in their minds that gas is a cheap way to generate power. New build natural gas is not a cheap way to generate electricity.'
Powell's group was not involved in the Energy Innovation analysis, but has produced their own analysis with NERA Economic Consulting, also finding repealing the tax credits would raise household energy costs.
Powell added it's an especially bad time for solar and wind tax credits to go away because there is simply more demand for electricity, with data centers and electrification of homes and vehicles. Since 2022, retail electricity prices have increased faster than the rate of inflation, according to the US Energy Information Administration, which predicts they will continue to rise through next year. US natural gas prices have also gone up, and the EIA predicts they will continue to do so next year.
On the transportation side of things, the Energy Innovation model predicts that without a $7,500 consumer tax credit to help defray the cost of electric vehicles, more people will continue to drive gas powered cars.
'That increases the spending a lot, plus that gasoline is actually a little bit more expensive because there's so much more demand for it,' Orvis said.
Red states will see the biggest price hikes. Oklahoma, for instance, is already a wind powerhouse, with wind generating close to 44% of the state's electricity. With the energy tax incentives, the state was set to see another huge spike in wind development that could make the state's electricity generation carbon-free, the Energy Innovation modeling found.
With the energy tax credits staying intact, Oklahoma would become 'a major exporter of electricity, because there's so much wind being deployed,' Orvis said. 'The loss of the tax credits means a lot less wind gets deployed, and that's replaced with in-state fossil resources.'
It's a similar story in South Carolina, the state that's expected to see the biggest spike in annual energy costs if the bill goes away. The state generates a lot of its electricity from nuclear, with natural gas supplying much of the remainder. Orvis said South Carolina stood to add a lot of solar to its electrical grid with tax incentives but would have to revert back to gas once those credits go away.
'You're going from gas setting that price to renewables, and when you undo the tax credits, you see it reverting back to gas,' Orvis said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he wants interest rate cut to 1%, would 'love' if Powell resigned
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he would "love" if Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were to resign, and the president also said he wanted interest rates cut to 1%. KEY QUOTES "I'd love him to resign if he wanted to, he's done a lousy job," Trump said, also labeling the Fed chair as "stupid." "I think we should be paying 1% right now, and we're paying more because we have a guy who suffers from, I think, Trump Derangement Syndrome," Trump added. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Trump has long attacked the Federal Reserve chair over interest rates that the U.S. president wants lowered. Fed chairs have long been seen as insulated from presidential dismissal for reasons other than malfeasance or misconduct, but Trump has threatened to test that legal premise with frequent threats to fire Powell. Powell's term ends in May 2026, and Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months. CONTEXT Trump said he will name as successor to Powell someone who will lower rates. Last week, the Fed decided to leave short-term borrowing costs in the 4.25%-4.50% range.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House
The Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' is facing serious headwinds in the House with The Hill learning that at least six House Republicans are currently a 'no' on the framework, a daunting sign for GOP leadership as the Senate races towards a vote. Those six House Republicans, some of whom requested anonymity, are enough opposition to tank the package, as GOP leaders grapple with a razor-thin majority. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who was one of two GOP lawmakers to oppose the House version of the bill last month, is also likely to oppose the Senate's edition, deepening the pocket of resistance in the lower chamber. Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still clear the legislation, assuming full attendance and united Democratic opposition. 'I support the reasonable provisions in H.R. 1 that protect Medicaid's long-term viability and ensure the program continues to serve our most vulnerable, but I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments, or any provisions that punish expansion states,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) wrote in a statement on Saturday. 'President Trump was clear when he said to root out our waste, fraud, and abuse without cutting Medicaid and I wholeheartedly agree,' he continued. 'I urge my Senate colleagues to stick to the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 — otherwise I will vote no.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) told The Hill that he is also opposed to the bill because of the Medicaid provider tax provision. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) is currently a 'no' on the measure because of the Medicaid language, rollback of solar energy credits and public lands provisions, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, told The Hill that he is against the current version of the package because of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap proposal. The legislation would increase the currently $10,000 SALT cap to $40,000 for individuals making $500,000 or less for five years, then snap back to the original number. 'While I support the President's broader agenda, how could I support the same unfair $10k SALT cap I've spent years criticizing?' LaLota said. 'A permanent $40k deduction cap with income thresholds of $225k for single filers and $450k for joint filers would earn my vote.' It is not, however, just moderates who are signaling issues with the Senate bill: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, posted an ominous message on X that suggested he was not pleased with the package. 'I will not negotiate via X. But it's important to know that jamming us with a bill before we've had any chance to review the implications of major changes & re-writes, fluid scores, a high likelihood of violating the house framework (deficits) , & tons of swamp buy-offs is bad,' he wrote. The opposition is rising to the surface as Senate Republicans inch closer to holding an initial vote on the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would officially kick off the consideration process and eventually tee up a final vote in the House. It remains unclear, however, if Senate GOP leaders have the votes to move forward. If the motion to proceed passes by a simple majority, the chamber would hold a series of unlimited amendment votes called a vote-a-rama, which could result in changes to the measure. Senate GOP leaders are also still talking to holdouts and could make changes to the bill as written. In the meantime, House Republicans — beginning to review the revised Senate text unveiled overnight — are expressing resistance to the measure, prompting serious questions about whether top GOP lawmakers will be able to enact the legislation by their self-imposed July 4 deadline. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) convened a call with the House Republican Conference Saturday afternoon and urged lawmakers to keep their concerns with the Senate bill private, and instead speak directly with their senators and the White House, two sources told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told members that it is unlikely they will have to return to Washington on Monday, the sources said. Tuesday or Wednesday is more realistic, he told lawmakers. One source told The Hill that the call was brief and leadership did not take questions. The main qualm among House Republicans appears to be the Medicaid language in the bill. The Senate's legislation includes a proposal that would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The decrease was initially supposed to begin in 2027, with a 0.5 percent phase down annually, but Senate Republicans overnight changed the text to delay the implementation to 2028. The upper chamber also inserted a provision to create a $25 billion rural hospital relief fund that would be distributed over five years to assuage those concerns. The changes, however, do not seem to be solving all of the GOP's problems, with House Republicans still voicing opposition to the language. Aside from Medicaid, the Senate bill's rollback of green-energy tax credits is an issue for some House Republicans. The revised legislation for the upper chamber slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) would not say how he plans to vote on the bill, but signaled that he is not happy with the Medicaid provisions and green-energy tax credit language. 'Instead of improving the Medicaid and energy portions of [the] House bill it appears the Senate went backwards,' he told The Hill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.