How States Can Cut Electricity Costs Now
States can quickly reduce electricity costs! Discover actionable steps for immediate savings and long-term sustainability.
Electricity bills don't lie. When a small manufacturer in Ohio watches her energy costs climb 30% in two years, or a family in Arizona starts choosing between groceries and keeping the AC on in July, the policy conversation stops being abstract. The decisions being made — or not made — at the state level right now are landing directly on household budgets and business balance sheets.
Former FERC Commissioner Allison Clements and Lori Bird of the WRI Polsky Energy Center argue that states don't have to wait for federal action. They have real tools available today, and the ones moving fastest are already proving it.
The Price Pressure Is Real — and Unevenly Distributed
Average U.S. retail electricity prices have risen sharply over the past several years, but the pain isn't evenly shared. Industrial customers with dedicated account managers and sophisticated energy procurement teams can hedge, shift load, and negotiate. Residential customers — particularly low-income households, which spend a disproportionate share of their income on energy — largely absorb the increases with no buffer.
The gap between states that manage electricity costs proactively and those that don't is becoming a meaningful economic competitiveness factor. A business deciding between two otherwise comparable locations increasingly factors energy costs into that decision. High electricity prices aren't just a consumer welfare issue — they're an economic development issue.
The causes are layered: fuel price volatility (natural gas still dominates the U.S. power mix), aging grid infrastructure that requires costly upgrades, and the complex economics of integrating large amounts of renewable energy onto systems not originally designed for it. No single lever fixes all of that. But states have more levers than many realize.
What States Can Do Right Now
The fastest wins tend to come from reducing waste and friction in the existing system — not waiting for new power plants or multi-year grid overhauls.
Demand-side programs that pay customers to reduce usage during peak periods can cut system costs for everyone on the grid. When a grid operator doesn't have to fire up an expensive peaker plant to meet a two-hour afternoon demand spike, that savings flows — eventually — back to ratepayers. States like California and New York have run sophisticated demand response programs for years. Smaller states have largely left that value on the table.
Rate design is another underused tool. Most residential customers pay a flat rate per kilowatt-hour regardless of when they use power, which means they have no incentive to shift usage to times when electricity is cheap and abundant. Time-of-use pricing — where rates are higher during peak hours and lower overnight — exists in many states but remains opt-in and undersubscribed. A more aggressive push toward default time-of-use rates, paired with proper consumer protections, could reduce peak demand and system costs without a dollar of new infrastructure spending.
Procurement Reform: Stop Leaving Money on the Table
On the supply side, states that have modernized their utility procurement processes — requiring competitive bidding for new generation resources rather than letting utilities self-build without competition — consistently see lower costs for new capacity. Research has shown that competitive procurement can reduce the cost of new power plants by 20-30% compared to utility-sponsored builds that pass costs directly to captive ratepayers.
Energy efficiency remains one of the cheapest resources available, yet efficiency program funding and ambition vary enormously by state. A dollar spent on helping a customer insulate their attic or upgrade to a high-efficiency heat pump costs far less than building new generation to serve that same load. States with strong efficiency portfolio standards — Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island — have demonstrated that this math works at scale.
Long-Term Reform: The Structural Work That Compounds Over Time
Quick wins matter, but the states that will have genuinely competitive electricity costs a decade from now are doing the structural work today.
Transmission is the unglamorous piece of this puzzle that doesn't get enough attention. Inadequate transmission infrastructure forces grid operators to curtail cheap renewable energy and instead run expensive fossil fuel plants because the power can't physically get from where it's generated to where it's needed. Investing in transmission isn't just a climate strategy — it's a cost reduction strategy, and the two are inseparable. SPP, the grid operator covering much of the central U.S., has documented hundreds of millions in annual savings from recent transmission investments. Those savings show up in wholesale power prices.
Integrated resource planning reform is another lever. In states where utility IRPs are rubber-stamped rather than rigorously reviewed, ratepayers often end up locked into long-term contracts for resources that don't represent the lowest-cost option. States that require genuinely competitive, technology-neutral planning processes — where solar-plus-storage, wind, demand response, and efficiency compete on equal footing against new gas plants — tend to make better long-term decisions.
Regional market participation deserves a mention here too. States that participate in well-functioning wholesale electricity markets consistently access lower-cost power than those with vertically integrated utilities operating in isolation. The politics of regional market participation are complicated, but the economics favor it.
Who Has to Be in the Room
Policy doesn't execute itself. The gap between a good idea in a policy paper and an actual change in how electricity is procured, priced, and delivered is filled — or blocked — by stakeholders.
Utilities are the obvious starting point. In most states, investor-owned utilities are regulated monopolies with significant influence over the regulatory process. Their cooperation, or at least their neutrality, is often necessary for reform to move at any speed. The encouraging reality is that utilities in states with forward-thinking regulators and political leadership are increasingly engaging constructively with efficiency programs and grid modernization — not because they've become altruistic, but because the regulatory environment makes it in their interest.
Local governments play an underappreciated role. Municipal governments that aggregate electricity purchases for their communities through community choice aggregation programs can drive competitive procurement at a scale individual customers can't achieve. Several California and Massachusetts communities have used CCA to secure renewable electricity at rates competitive with — or below — incumbent utility rates.
Community engagement isn't a box to check — it's what determines whether reforms survive the political cycles required to actually take effect. Efficiency programs that residents don't know about don't get used. Time-of-use rates that feel like a trick rather than an opportunity generate backlash. States that invest in genuine outreach and education around energy choices tend to see better program uptake and more durable political support for the underlying reforms.
Advocates, large commercial customers, and industrial users all bring different leverage and different interests. The states making the most progress on electricity cost savings are the ones convening these groups early and often — not presenting finished plans for comment, but building solutions collaboratively.
The Practical Path Forward
No state is going to solve its electricity cost challenge in a single legislative session. But the states making meaningful progress share a recognizable pattern: they combine near-term action (demand response, rate modernization, efficiency funding) with structural reform (transmission investment, procurement competition, IRP rigor) and they build the stakeholder coalitions needed to sustain both.
The argument Clements and Bird are making — and it's the right argument — is that states don't need permission from Washington to start. The tools exist. The evidence exists. What's often missing is the political will to use them, and the organized pressure from consumers, businesses, and communities that creates that will.
If you're watching your electricity costs climb and waiting for something to change on its own, you'll be waiting a long time. The states that move are the states that get ahead of it.
Learn more about how to cut electricity costs and explore solutions at InfraSale Marketplace.