You’ve reached your free article limit
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Introducing the Electricity Price Hub, a partnership between Heatmap News and MIT in collaboration with CleanEcon designed to bring much-needed clarity to the conversation around energy affordability.

As the energy shock generated by the Iran War ripples through the global economy, gas prices are front of mind for many Americans. They are the most visible energy prices in our lives — posted on billboards along the highway and in towns and cities across the country, updated on a day-to-day, even hour-to-hour, basis.
Electricity prices, by contrast, are far less transparent. Even as prices rise across the country, it is difficult for households and businesses to see, let alone understand the price they are paying for electricity and what is behind it.
In nominal terms, electricity rates are up by an average of 33% over the past five years nationwide, adding $35 on average to household bills every month, or $420 per year. Prices in 32 states grew by more than 25% in that time, with six states experiencing increases of over 50%. As electricity prices increase, what was once a relatively stable line item in many Americans’ budgets is now more volatile, compounding broader cost of living pressures.
As the stakes rise for American consumers, the lack of transparency also makes effective policymaking more difficult: Regulators and politicians are making high-stakes decisions about reliability, affordability, and future investment with, at best, partial information.
That is why Heatmap and MIT are launching the Electricity Price Hub, a new public data platform built to address this information gap. The hub provides month-to-month estimates of residential electricity prices and bills for utilities across the United States, from 2020 to the present. For the largest utilities, these estimates are broken down into their core components. By making this data available down to the zip code level, the hub empowers users to understand what they are paying and see how that compares to neighboring communities and states.
That clarity is urgently needed. More than half of Americans say that power bills are causing at least “a decent amount” of stress on their budgets, according to a Heatmap Pro poll from last fall. Electricity prices have already emerged as a political issue in states like New Jersey, Virginia, and Georgia — and are likely to keep rising in voters’ minds.
Last year utilities asked state regulators to approve more than $28 billion in rate increases, according to the research and advocacy group PowerLines. Many of these rate increases won’t take effect for months or even years to come, meaning that some amount of price increase is baked in regardless of how the policy and technology environment changes.
But electricity prices are not the only problem. If the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity is analogous to the number projected on the neon sign at the gas station, the total monthly cost of electricity use is what you see at the bottom of your receipt when you fill up. As anyone who has ever driven a gas car knows, the ultimate expense is a function of both the size of your tank and how fuel-efficient your car is.
Even where electricity prices appear moderate, electricity bills can be high. Alabama Power, for example, has prices that are just $0.05 above (or 1.3x) the national average. But its average residential bills are among the nation’s highest, at nearly $100 over the national average. (Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo has more on how trends in prices and bills can diverge.)
In many areas, it’s not just that bills are rising. Sharp swings in bills are especially difficult for households to manage. The median difference between the highest and lowest bills in 2025 was $92 (a 91% difference). Zooming in on a subset of utilities with the greatest bill volatility, peak-to-trough bill differences often exceed $200, with percentage swings of 200% to 280%. Two utilities in New Jersey, for example, saw average residential bills increase by more than $275 between spring and peak summer months.
Why have electricity prices remained so deeply opaque? In part, this is a function of the byzantine structures that govern our electricity system. We have three major grids, seven regional transmission authorities, 51 state-level regulators, more than 800 rural co-operatives, and roughly 3,000 utilities.
The result is a data environment that is fragmented and inconsistent, and lags well behind real-time price changes:
In the absence of reliable data, simplified narratives fill the void, allowing anyone to pick their chosen villain — be it renewables, data centers, transmission lines, or environmental policies — to blame for system failures. Policymakers risk adopting blunt measures that provide limited and temporary relief but that fail to address critical underlying issues, including the investments required to protect the grid’s long-term reliability and affordability.
Addressing these challenges starts with more timely and detailed data. That is what the Electricity Price Hub is all about. The platform delivers timely data for utilities serving the vast majority of residential customers in each state, with standard estimates that are comparable across states with different regulatory systems and across utilities with different rate structures.
It provides monthly, up-to-date estimates of both electricity prices and bills for a typical residential customer, offering a clearer view of the real cost burden households face and how that burden varies across places and over time. These estimates are more current than any existing public data sources.
We construct these estimates by combining detailed price and price component data for the largest utilities, sourced from state filings and utility rate books. We complement that with data for a wider set of utilities from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to generate standardized, current estimates of monthly average prices and bills.
We also disaggregate electricity prices into their core components: generation, the cost of producing electricity; transmission, the cost of moving power over long distances; distribution, the cost of getting electricity “the last mile” to homes and businesses; and other, a grab bag of regulatory and system-level charges. (You can find more on our methodology here.)
By standardizing and updating this information on a monthly basis, the platform is designed to inform consumers and businesses, and equip federal and state policymakers, regulators, and researchers with the information needed to design targeted, evidence-based responses.
You can now explore this tool for yourself, but here’s what we’ve already learned: There isn’t one cause of rising electricity costs. Prices are rising for different reasons in different places. There is no single national explanation for surging power prices.
Take our data on Maine. The state has long had some of the country’s most expensive electricity prices, and in recent years, distribution-related charges have been rising steadily. The utility Versant Power, for example, has seen distribution charges more than double over the last five years. The rising costs of maintaining and repairing aging distribution infrastructure, made worse by the increasing equipment and construction costs, are behind that trend.
In other parts of the country, extreme weather is driving higher distribution costs. While wildfire-related costs in California currently offer the most extreme example, storm costs are showing up in rising bills across the country. In Florida, for example, Tampa Electric customers have seen storm-related charges rise steadily, increasing from a credit in 2020 to more than $0.027 per kilowatt-hour in 2025.
Elsewhere, other factors are at play. In parts of the Mid-Atlantic, persistent bottlenecks in adding new capacity to the grid — as well as surging power demand, driven primarily by data centers — are causing generation costs to get bid up. In New Jersey, for example, the utility Atlantic City Electric Co’s generation-related charges have increased by more than 50% year on year.
You can already find other stories from the Electricity Price Hub from Heatmap reporters across the site. In some states, for instance, “other” charges are driving up power bills. We also look in detail at what’s going on with prices in PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest grid.
We hope this hub is only the beginning of a new era in open electricity data. If we want a modern electricity system that can deliver affordability, reliability, decarbonization, and economic growth, we will need a modern, up-to-date, and localized data infrastructure to match.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
‘Our entire company was built for this purpose.’
After decades of stagnation, the nuclear industry has drummed up all kinds of ideas meant to revive the prospects for building reactors in the United States. Make the reactors smaller. Micro, even! Cool them with helium or molten salt instead of water. Invite the Koreans or Canadians to come teach us how to construct atomic power stations again.
Yet the startup bold enough to name itself The Nuclear Company launched in 2024 on a simpler thesis: Just go with the large-scale reactors we have built before, and construct them in bulk to bring down costs.
Essentially, do what the Chinese did.
While the U.S. struggled for 15 years to complete its first two Westinghouse AP1000s, the 1.1-gigawatt units designed at the dawn of this century to be America’s flagship nuclear technology, China built four in the same time period. Beijing then reverse-engineered the technology to make its own version with an entirely domestic supply chain. China now has 10 operating Hualong One reactors and at least 37 more on the way. The U.S. ultimately completed its first two AP1000s at Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia right around the same time.
The Nuclear Company was formed by hiring former managers who oversaw the Georgia project. Despite the Trump administration’s pledge to finance construction of at least 10 more large nuclear reactors, the only projects that have broken ground are new, first-of-a-kind small modular reactors that skeptics fear will face the same billion-dollar cost overruns that the AP1000s faced at Plant Vogtle — but without the same output of electricity to balance out the expenses.
On Wednesday morning, The Nuclear Company announced its most significant attempt at a Chinese-scale buildout yet. The firm unveiled plans to build 6.6 gigawatts of new, large-scale reactors at a greenfield site in Kentucky, along the Ohio River. Dubbed Prosperity One, the project would be located in Lewis County, on property once assembled for a coal-fired station that was later abandoned. The site sits half a mile from a 765-kilovolt transmission line that connects to PJM Interconnection, the nation’s second-largest and arguably most stressed grid system.
“Our entire company was built for this purpose,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer and a former manager on the Plant Vogtle buildout, told me. “We recognize that this is different and unique in our country. We believe it’s very much needed.”
The project will begin with two reactors at a time; the Kentucky site has room for up to six. The Nuclear Company is already negotiating potential offtake agreements with electricity buyers to help finance construction, and it expects deals by next year. The company told me it has not yet decided whether it will run the Prosperity One as an independent power provider or sell the facility to a utility or another plant operator. “We are preserving all options and will make that decision as we pull the other partners onboard formally,” Klecha said.
Since its inception, The Nuclear Company has focused on the AP1000 as the most promising design in the U.S. That’s particularly true after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified the Vogtle Unit 4 design last week as the permanent, settled schematic for future AP1000s.
But Klecha left open the possibility of another technology. “The AP1000 is our basis for the site at this point, but we’ll continue to evaluate other options as we get through the site characterization,” he said. He expects that process to wrap up in “the first half of next year.”
The company’s options are limited, though. Last month, as I reported, South Korea agreed to help the U.S. build up to six new AP1000s at an as-yet-unspecified site in addition to constructing at least two APR1400s — that is, essentially the Korean version of the American technology. In theory, The Nuclear Company could build APR1400s, too. But it’s highly unlikely, since Westinghouse accused the state-owned Korea Electric Power Corporation of ripping off its technology for the APR1400 in 2022. That led to a yearslong lawsuit and settlement that gave the American company the right to demand royalties and keep Seoul out of markets where Westinghouse aims to compete.
The only other viable option is the ABWR. The world’s first so-called advanced reactor, the ABWR was built with General Electric’s boiling water reactor technology, which is used across about a third of the U.S. fleet. It serves as the second-most popular design after Westinghouse’s pressurized water reactor model. Japan successfully built four ABWRs over a decade from 1996 to 2006, and Taiwan nearly completed two before killing the project in a bid to phase out nuclear power altogether. The NRC certified the ABWR for construction in the U.S., but a project in southern Texas that aimed to build the first in the U.S. was scrapped about a decade ago.
“The ABWR has an impressive pedigree of construction success as well as experience being built to U.S. standards that is hard to find outside of the Vogtle project,” Brett Rampal, a veteran nuclear consultant who advises Deloitte and Veriten, told me. Still, he said, the AP1000 is the leading contender for the Kentucky site.
Rampal said Prosperity One represents a welcome break from how large-scale reactors have been planned in recent years. While most of the industry remains focused on small modular reactors, research I covered last month indicates the technologies could face worse cost problems than large-scale units, and the emerging consensus on building AP1000s focuses on expanding existing nuclear plants.
Indeed, The Nuclear Company’s first major deal was to help Brookfield Asset Management, which owns 51% of Westinghouse, complete a thwarted AP1000 project at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. But other potential sites considered for new AP1000s included expansions of Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bellefonte nuclear station in Alabama, or even adding another two units to Plant Vogtle.
“A lot of the thoughts around AP1000s and large reactors have always been around existing or already-licensed sites,” Rampal said. “It’s very interesting to see TNC’s first project buck the trend of what folks have been talking about around the large reactor story in this country."
At least one thing is certain about The Nuclear Company’s approach: It will settle on one design. The company is animated by the need to avoid one of the U.S. nuclear industry’s biggest financial mistakes, known simply and derisively as “Whoops.” In 1983, the Washington Public Power Supply System — WPPSS — triggered what was then the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history after its buildout of several different reactor designs at once fell apart in a major boondoggle.
Building different reactors at Prosperity One “really goes against our mission, our vision, and our thesis as a company,” Klecha confirmed.
The key is repeating the same design over and over again so the project managers sort out the fastest, most efficient ways to build and workers hone skills in actually constructing the design. “Six AP1000 units on one site creates the scale and repetition needed to drive down costs and sends a strong signal to the supply chain,” Lin Yuan, the senior advisor at the Nuclear Scaling Initiative, a non-profit collaboration working to create the enabling commercial and policy conditions for safe and secure nuclear energy scaling, told me in an email. “Manufacturers and craft labor need to see a sustained order pipeline to invest in capacity, factory expansion, and training.”
Vogtle Unit 4 came online in 2024 roughly 30% cheaper and faster than Vogtle Unit 3, completed a year earlier. Klecha said that’s the minimum cost reduction The Nuclear Company expects for the first two reactors built at Prosperity One.
“The 30%, I would say, is the floor on the savings from the first unit to the second unit,” he said. “How do we capture those lessons? Obviously, our team’s experience. We have a pretty rigorous ‘lessons learned’ document.”
Soon, he hopes, there will be even more lessons learned — in concrete, rather than on paper.