

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
If funding is not restored to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, said one expert, "pipes will freeze, people will die."
As more than 40 million households that rely on federal food aid are forced to stretch their budgets even further than usual due to the Trump administration only partially funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under a court order, many of those families are facing another crisis brought on by the government shutdown: a loss of heating support that serves nearly 6 million people.
President Donald Trump has sought to eliminate the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), proposing zero funding for it in his budget earlier this year and firing the team that administers the aid.
Though Congress was expected to fund the program in the spending bill that was supposed to pass by October 1, Democrats refused to join the Republican Party in approving government funding that would have allowed healthcare subsidies to expire and raised premiums for millions of families, and Trump and congressional Republicans have refused to negotiate to ensure Americans can afford healthcare.
The government shutdown is now the longest in US history due to the standoff, and energy assistance officials have joined Democratic lawmakers in warning that the freezing of LIHEAP funds could have dire consequences for households across the country as temperatures drop.
Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA), told the Washington Post on Wednesday that even if the shutdown ended this week, funding would not reach states until early December—and more families will fall behind on their utility bills if lawmakers don't negotiate a plan to open the government soon.
“You can imagine in a state like Minnesota, it can get awfully cold in December. We’re all just kind of waiting, holding our breath.”
"People will fall through the cracks,” Wolfe told the Post. “Pipes will freeze, people will die.”
With heating costs rising faster than inflation, 1 in 6 households are behind on their energy bills, and 5.9 million rely on assistance through LIHEAP.
The Department of Health and Human Services generally released LIHEAP funds to states in the beginning of November, but energy assistance offices in states where the weather has already gotten colder have had to tell worried residents that there are no heating funds.
Officials in states including Vermont and Maine have said they can cover heating needs for families who rely on LIHEAP for a short period of time, and some nonprofit groups, like Aroostook County Action Program in northern Maine, have raised money to distribute to households.
But states and charities can't fill the need that LIHEAP has in past years. Minnesota's Energy Assistance Program received $125 million from the federal government last year that allowed 120,000 families to heat their homes.
Aroostook County Action Program has provided help to about 200 households in past years, while LIHEAP serves about 7,500 Maine families.
The state has already received 50,000 applications for heating aid and would be preparing to send $30 million in assistance in a normal year.
“You can imagine in a state like Minnesota, it can get awfully cold in December,” Michael Schmitz, director of the program, told the Post. “We’re all just kind of waiting, holding our breath.”
NEADA told state energy assistance officials late last month to plan on suspending service disconnections until federal LIHEAP funds are released, and US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) led more than four dozen lawmakers in urging utilities to suspend late penalties and shutoffs for federal workers who have been furloughed due to the shutdown.
States reported that they'd begun receiving calls from people who rely on LIHEAP as Americans across the country went to the polls on Tuesday and delivered Democratic victories in numerous state and local races.
The president himself said the shutdown played a "big role" in voters' clear dissatisfaction with the current state of the country.
The companies that made billions selling the fuels that destabilized the climate can afford to help fix the grid that’s collapsing under it.
We talk a lot about the cost of energy, but not enough about what’s actually driving it. Across the country, electricity bills are climbing not because of regulation, as the industry claims, but because of the growing costs of the climate crisis itself. The storms, the fires, the floods, and the heat are battering an electric grid that was mostly built half a century ago, and the costs of repairing it are being quietly folded into our monthly bills.
The other side wants you to believe it’s “climate” that’s driving up prices, and they’re right, just not in the way that they mean. It isn’t climate mandates or clean-energy standards. It’s climate disasters. And the truth is, the fastest way to lower costs isn’t to slow down the energy transition, it’s to speed it up. Clean energy brings cheap, reliable power online faster and protects families from the kind of fuel price spikes that come with oil and gas dependence.
That’s where climate superfund laws come in. New York and Vermont have already passed versions that require the biggest polluters to chip in for climate damage. These laws follow the same principle that governs toxic-waste cleanup. If you made the mess, you help pay to clean it up. States are starting to realize that the funds from a climate superfund could cover part of the cost of hardening the grid, things like replacing wooden poles with steel, elevating substations that flood every few years, building microgrids so hospitals and schools can stay open during blackouts, and funding new and more reliable clean energy projects. These projects would help to ease the pressure on ratepayers while making the systems themselves more resilient.
For years, utilities and regulators treated big storms as one-off emergencies. A few poles went down, they rebuilt them, everyone moved on. But the “one-off” has now become, dare I say, the “new normal.” In Maine, the cost of storm recovery has risen more than 30 fold since 2020. Every time a nor’easter slams through the state, Central Maine Power spends millions to replace equipment and clear lines, and then regulators approve a new rider or adjustment that gets added to customer bills. It’s the same story across the country.
The next time a storm knocks out your power or a bill arrives higher than expected, that’s the climate crisis arriving as a tab in your mailbox.
In California, billions have gone toward wildfire mitigation after blazes sparked by utility equipment destroyed entire towns. To prevent future fires, power companies are burying lines, trimming trees, insulating wires—all necessary, and all very, very expensive. According to state filings, utilities’ wildfire-related costs are contributing to 7-12% bill increases for residential customers. What began as infrequent emergency response spending has become a permanent part of doing business for utility companies across the country.
A new national analysis from the Center for American Progress and the Natural Resources Defense Council shows how big this problem has gotten. Utilities in 49 states and Washington, DC have already raised rates or proposed to raise within the next two years. By 2028, those hikes will add nearly $90 billion to household energy bills. That’s billions with a b. And for many families, that means another $30 or $40 a month on top of everything else they’re already struggling to afford.
The reasons are tangled together. The grid is old and failing faster under stress. The price of natural gas has spiked again, partly because exports of natural gas have linked American prices to volatile global markets. And new power-hungry data centers are popping up so quickly that utilities are scrambling to build the power plants to feed them. But one of the biggest single drivers remains extreme weather. Each storm and heatwave adds another layer of cost to a grid that was never built for this world.
The Government Accountability Office has warned that climate change will stress every part of the energy system and that failing to adapt will cost billions of dollars more in the long run. Yet the way we pay for that adaptation hasn’t changed at all. Utilities rebuild, regulators sign off, and the public pays. Fossil-fuel companies whose emissions are fueling the disasters that make all this necessary contribute all of nothing.
It’s tempting to think of this as just another utility issue, a problem for regulators and accountants and not us. But to me, it’s really a measure of how far the climate crisis has crept into our daily life. The next time a storm knocks out your power or a bill arrives higher than expected, that’s the climate crisis arriving as a tab in your mailbox. We can keep pretending it’s inevitable, or we can start sending the bill to the companies that profited from creating the problem.
Climate superfunds won’t solve everything. But they’d at least start to balance the scales. The companies that made billions selling the fuels that destabilized the climate can afford to help fix the grid that’s collapsing under it.
Team Trump has mishandled American energy policy in every possible way literally since day one, setting the stage for higher electric bills.
The next two elections should be decided on the great questions of democracy versus authoritarianism, openness versus racism, science versus ignorance. But my guess is that electric bills may play at least as large a role.
And that should be a good thing for the forces of virtue, because team Trump has mishandled American energy policy in every possible way literally since day one—they’re setting up a debacle. But as we should know by now, Democrats are particularly good at turning debacles into nothingburgers. So let me try and lay out the script right now.
Let’s go back to US President Donald Trump’s first day in office. He declared an “energy emergency” because the production and “generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs. We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries, and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.” If we didn’t get more electricity in particular, the White House said, we would fall behind China in the AI race, with disastrous consequences.
You can debate whether or not we need new AI data centers (My guess is that the technology has been oversold, and that we’re actually going to see fewer of them developed than people think). But you can’t debate two things.
Trump’s crusade against clean energy is obviously idiotic—windmills don’t cause cancer. But it’s more than idiotic—it’s the reason you’re paying more for electricity.
One, the obvious way forward for this country was to develop more sun, wind, and batteries. We know this because it’s what this country, and every other country around the world, had been doing for the last two years. More than 90% of new electric generation around the world last year came from clean energy, momentum that continued through the first quarter of the year. This was not because everyone in the energy business had “gone woke.” Texas, after all, installed more renewable capacity than any other state last year. It was because you could do it cheaply and quickly—we live on a planet where the cheapest way to make power is to point a sheet of glass at the sun.
But, two, the Trump administration immediately began to do absolutely everything in in its power to stop this trend and to replace it with old-fashioned energy—gas, and coal. They have rescinded environmental regulations trying to control fossil fuel pollution, ended sun and wind projects on federal land, cancelled wind projects wherever they could, ended the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for clean energy construction and instead added subsidies for the coal industry. Again—short of tasking Elon Musk to erect a large space-based shield to blot out the sun, they’ve done literally everything possible to derail the transition to cheap clean energy.
And as a result, electricity prices are starting to skyrocket. If you don’t believe me, listen to this excellent recitation of a power bill in the style of Faulkner from a fellow with an excellent beard. And they are skyrocketing because our power systems are not moving into the new world.
For example: Trump issued an executive order designed to “reinvigorate America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry,” which explained that:
Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers. We must encourage and support our Nation’s coal industry to increase our energy supply, lower electricity costs, stabilize our grid, create high-paying jobs, support burgeoning industries, and assist our allies.
This is nonsense on a cracker, of course, and a new independent report last week found that consumers will be paying an extra $3-$6 billion dollars a year for the privilege of keeping coal-fired power plants open past their expiration dates:
Forcing utilities to continue to operate unneeded and costly coal-fired power plants past their planned retirement increases the electric bills paid by homeowners and businesses. It also undermines the competitiveness of US businesses such as manufacturing by raising electric rates.
Anyone who pays an electricity bill in any region outside the Northeastern US could be footing the bill. Electricity costs could increase by tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars per year in most states.
If you want more detail on this topic, by the way, David Roberts has a very fine interview with the (very fine name) Frank Rambo, who also points out that the coal-fired power plants they’re trying to keep open are not just the most expensive possible source of electric but among the least reliable:
Now, the thing about coal, as it’s been circling the drain, the coal plants that are left are running much less. They’re not running as these baseload where you run it, you might dial it down at night when demand for electricity is lower, but you’re basically always running it.
They are now running much less. They’re running more where they’re having to cycle through, to cycle on and off. And a coal-fired boiler is not built to operate that way. Again, it’s a 20th-century resource for a 21st-century grid, and that causes a lot of maintenance issues. So that they have to—all of a sudden it’s called a "forced outage."
They have to take it offline. So it’s somewhat ironic they are relying on—the DOE is relying on —the one, one of the resources that’s becoming less and less reliable.
Anyway, this level of corruption and incompetence—remember, all this is happening because candidate Trump literally told the fossil fuel industry they could have anything they want if they gave massive contributions to his campaign, and then they did—should open up his party to scrutiny and to scorn. At some level Democrats are figuring this out—as the Washington Post said last week, they have lots to work with, beginning with Trump’s promises that electric bills would fall:
“Under my administration, we will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months, at a maximum 18 months,” he told an audience in North Carolina in August 2024.
Trump’s first 12 months aren’t over yet. But so far, the data show prices trending in the wrong direction. And Democrats are keen to make Trump pay for that.
They are crafting an argument that not only have prices not come down but the sweeping tax and spending law Trump signed into law in July will make energy costs worse.
In fact, as NPR reported recently, electricity costs are now climbing twice as fast as inflation, which should give the Dems a huge opening. And indeed the Senate Dems have put together a bill that would cut those costs. But take a look at the press release from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—really, just look at the headline—and ask yourself if the Dems have really figured out the snappy rhetoric they need to take advantage of the situation.
I’d say the real danger is the GOP will go on the attack instead, blaming electricity price hikes on their favorite target, Joe Biden. You can already see it happening—here’s Murdoch’s New York Post trying to blame Biden (and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy) for being Green New Dealers. (Ironic, since they’ve actually done much to disappoint enviros in their states). And here’sTrump’s Energy Secretary (and former fracking exec) Christ Wright yesterday moaning that it’s all Joe Biden’s fault:
“The momentum of the Obama-Biden policies, for sure that destruction is going to continue in the coming years,” Wright told Politico during a visit to wind- and cornrich Iowa. Still, he said: “That momentum is pushing prices up right now. And who's going to get blamed for it? We're going to get blamed because we're in office.”
This is all inane. Wright was standing in Iowa, which has some of the lowest electric rates in the country—the average Iowan will spend 39% less on electricity than the average American. Why? Because it produces 57% of its electricity from the wind, the second-biggest wind state in the country. The same thing is true across the country. Here’s Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, explaining the math in the Wall Street Journal:
How do the 12 highly renewable states rank in terms of electricity prices? Ten of them are among the 19 states with the lowest electricity prices. Seven are among the 10 states with the lowest prices. South Dakota, with renewables supplying 95% of demand, has the ninth-lowest electricity price. North Dakota (52% renewables) has the lowest. More renewables mean lower prices.
Only California and Maine have high renewables and high prices. Why? California’s industrial price of natural gas, needed for electricity backup, is routinely the third highest in the US and twice the US average. Plus, utilities have passed to customers the costs of wildfires from transmission-line sparks, undergrounding transmission lines, the San Bruno and Aliso Canyon gas disasters, retrofitting gas pipes following San Bruno, and keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear-power plant open.
California’s use of more renewables and batteries in 2024 than in 2023 increased grid reliability, however, as evidenced by 52% lower spot electricity prices this March to June, versus the same period in 2023. This slowed retail electricity-price rises.
More renewable electricity generators and batteries reduce energy prices. Even in states with high electricity prices caused by other factors, renewables and battery storage keep prices lower than they otherwise would be.
So Democrats need to get good at saying this. They need props—solar panels, batteries. They need sound bites. They need lots and lots of solar installers speaking up, and lots of people with solar on their roofs holding up their teeny tiny bills for the camera. The Dems need to be on the offensive, and sometimes they need to be offensive. The basic line: Trump’s crusade against clean energy is obviously idiotic—windmills don’t cause cancer. But it’s more than idiotic—it’s the reason you’re paying more for electricity.
The Department of Energy literally put out a tweet last month with a picture of a hunk of a coal and the legend “She is the moment.” But in fact coal is 18th-century technology, and gas is 19th-century technology, and now we’re in the 21st century where people know how to intercept the rays of the sun and the breeze in the air and turn them into the cheapest electricity the world has ever seen. And Trump’s getting in the way of that.