Adjust the affordability levers and compare the state-level path.
The first chart traces a zoomed, non-zero Rs/kWh axis from a CEA-grounded 2025 starting point to a stressed 2035 status quo and then down through the selected affordability strategies. The second chart links a CEA-grounded power-sector CO2 proxy, a 2035 status quo, and the 2035 clean-share strategy case.
Outputs
State affordability path
Cost reduction wedges, 2025 to 2035
The dashed line is a stressed high-load-growth BAU path, the dark line is the strategy path, and the colored wedges expand over time to show each strategy's 2035 rate impact.
Power-sector emissions and clean share
Bars show state power-sector CO2 and the line shows clean share against the 80% benchmark.
From Output To Action
What states should do if they want these savings.
The point of the simulator is not just to show a cheaper path. It is to show that the cheaper path needs a policy program: more open access and competition, faster land and evacuation, tighter grid-utilization discipline, and tariff design that rewards flexible demand instead of punishing it.
Let cheaper clean power reach customers directly.
Expand open access, group captive, third-party procurement, and aggregator participation so factories, campuses, and consumers can benefit from low-cost clean power faster.
Make utilities prove existing assets are being used well.
Require substation-reuse screening, reconductoring review, storage alternatives, and local-grid deferral analysis before new capex is translated into tariffs.
Collapse the delay stack around clean energy.
Use ready land, evacuation-ready zones, and faster approvals so low-cost solar, wind, and storage can arrive on the timeline affordability needs.
Keep industrial growth and EVs from becoming peak-cost shocks.
Use time-of-day tariffs, managed charging, and flexible large-load structures so new demand lands in lower-cost hours instead of driving avoidable local upgrades.