Adjust the affordability levers and compare the state-level path.
The first chart traces a zoomed, non-zero retail-rate axis from the official 2025 starting point to a stressed 2035 status quo and then down through the selected affordability strategies. The second chart links 2024 state CO2, 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 black 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 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 requires a visible policy program: more competition, faster permitting and interconnection, and tighter scrutiny of monopoly grid spending.
Let low-cost clean power compete.
Open procurement and market access to solar plus storage, third-party aggregators, community-scale projects, and direct customer participation so the cheapest resources can actually reach households and industry.
Make utilities prove the existing grid is being used well.
Require grid-utilization metrics, non-wires review, and transparent deferral analysis before approving new wires spending that will stay in rates for decades.
Collapse the soft-cost delay stack.
Use automated permitting, shot clocks, standardized interconnection, and faster permission to operate so clean resources can be deployed on the timeline affordability requires.
Keep large-load and peak costs off household bills.
Use flexible large-load tariffs, BYOC structures, and curtailment-ready connections so data center and industrial growth does not automatically become a household rate shock.