OPINION:
Democrats have settled on a villain for the electricity bills squeezing American families: President Trump and the data centers powering America’s artificial intelligence boom.
Liberal Senate Democrats have attacked the administration’s deals to bring technological investment and jobs to American soil, blaming them for higher power bills, higher costs and everything short of the weather pattern a half a century from today.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, says rising costs are beyond his control and insists “no governor can” fix them.
People were interested in these podcasts
That story is convenient. It is also false.
The real culprit is buried in blue-state renewable energy mandates. Several states force utilities to buy renewable energy credits only from in-state producers, even when the same credits sell next door for pennies on the dollar.
The Constitution’s dormant commerce clause forbids states from walling off their markets, which means the Justice Department can stop such practices. Mr. Trump has already told it to take action.
Nationwide, the inflation-adjusted average electricity price in July 2026 was just 3.6% higher than in July 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Because of the in-state renewable energy mandates, prices took off exponentially: Pennsylvania up 20.4%, New Jersey 14.4%, Maryland 21.3% and Washington state, 33.7%.
The damage is bad enough that even Democrats are acknowledging it. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has warned her own council that the city’s local solar mandate adds $20 a month to every electric bill, a figure set to double by 2029.
Although Mr. Moore says no governor can do anything about prices, Ms. Bowser disagrees.
The competition for the highest energy prices also includes Pennsylvania. The state closed its market to out-of-state generators in 2017 by passing Act 40 and in 2020 by passing Act 114.
Pennsylvania is not hiding its discriminatory economic policies; it even named one bill “Closing Tier II Border.” The only time Democrats care about securing the border is for protectionist green energy policies instead of classic economic capitalism.
About 40% of Pennsylvania’s Tier II credits once came from out of state, but because of state-sponsored protectionism, that share is now zero. Compliance costs soared from $122.5 million in 2020 to more than $700 million in 2025.
It bought nothing but higher prices for Pennsylvanians and greater barriers to entry for companies trying to operate in the state. Pennsylvania’s renewable share has hovered around 4% of generation since 2013. West Virginia generators lost $25 million in 2025 alone. The state projects more than $895 million in lost revenue over the next decade if the protectionism stands.
West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey has found a smarter way to fight back. Rather than relitigating climate policy, his federal lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s Public Utility Commission targets the discrimination underpinning these mandates, calling the laws “naked economic warfare between states.”
The courts have made clear that state laws discriminating against out-of-state commerce remain off limits under long-standing dormant commerce clause jurisprudence, such as New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire. Pennsylvania wrote the discrimination into the statute and put it in a bill title to protect in-state producers — to the detriment of out-of-state competitors. This type of protectionism is exactly what the commerce clause prevents.
That makes this lawsuit the first real crack in the wall. Closed borders are what hold these mandates together. Left to compete, weather-dependent projects in places such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland have lost to cheaper power next door. So lawmakers rigged the market to force them into existence, and their own residents got stuck with the ever-increasing Green New Deal tax.
Strike down the in-state renewable mandates and the discriminatory subsidy scheme collapses. Every blue state subsidy crumbles under the weight of a competitive market.
Mr. McCuskey’s arguments stand firmly within the Constitution. When Minnesota tried to block imported power from new coal plants, North Dakota sued and won. North Dakota has since warned it will sue again over Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s 2040 carbon-free mandate.
The governor who led that charge, Doug Burgum, now sits in Mr. Trump’s Cabinet as interior secretary, and we applaud his commitment to the free enterprise system.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, meanwhile, filed a federal complaint against PJM in 2024 warning of “the largest unjust wealth transfer” in energy market history and threatened to pull Pennsylvania out of the grid.
Yet his administration is in court defending a law that has increased compliance costs nearly sixfold. A governor with national ambitions cannot play consumer advocate in one courtroom and cartel defender in the other.
Some conservatives will bristle at Washington taking sides against a state, but the commerce clause exists to prevent exactly this kind of interstate trade war. Enforcing it is federalism working as the framers intended, because it encourages competition and free enterprise.
Executive Order 14260, Protecting American Energy From State Overreach, issued on April 8, 2025, directs the attorney general to “take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of” state laws that discriminate against out-of-state energy producers.
The Justice Department can act on that today by intervening in support of West Virginia’s case. Doing so would carry out the president’s own order and stand with a state that has stood with him. It would also force Democrats’ favorite 2028 hopeful to defend higher bills on the record.
Blue-state Democrats buried a green energy tax in every power bill and bet nobody would read the fine print. Unfortunately for them, consumers see the scam every time they receive their energy bills.
The Justice Department can call that bet and show voters that monopolistic green-energy mandates are the real culprits behind high energy bills.
• Jordan Sekulow is executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.