NRDC Report Projects Trump Energy Policies Could Add $30 Billion to Annual US Electricity Costs by 2035

The Natural Resources Defense Council has published a report modeling the projected effects of Trump administration energy policies on US electricity costs, power sector investment and public health through 2035. Using energy system modeling software from Evolved Energy Research, NRDC projects that by 2035, US consumers could spend up to an additional $30 billion annually on electricity, with household bills rising as much as 25 percent in certain regions, compared with a counterfactual scenario in which pre-2025 federal energy policy had remained unchanged.

 

Why the Report's Methodology Relies on a Counterfactual Comparison

 

NRDC's findings are not based on directly observed outcomes but on comparing three modeled scenarios: a "January 2025 Snapshot" representing federal and state policy as it existed before the current administration's changes, a "Trump—Limited Impact" scenario incorporating the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and regulatory rollbacks alongside a lower tariff assumption, and a "Trump—Full Impact" scenario additionally incorporating higher persistent tariffs, Department of Energy orders described in the report as forcing fossil fuel plants to delay retirement, and constraints on new solar and wind permitting. All of the report's headline figures represent the projected difference between the Trump policy scenarios and the January 2025 baseline, rather than measured, real-world changes that have already occurred.

That distinction matters for interpreting the report's opening framing, which notes that average US residential electricity rates increased more than 9 percent during the administration's first year and are now 16 percent higher as of May 2026. Those specific rate increases are cited as already-observed data from the US Energy Information Administration, distinct from the report's later projections of a further 4.2 to 5.5 percent nationwide increase attributable specifically to the modeled policies by 2035. The report's own methodology does not attribute the entirety of the already-observed 16 percent increase to the specific policies it models, since electricity prices are also affected by numerous other factors, including broader inflation, fuel costs, and grid investment needs, that operate independently of the specific federal actions this modeling isolates.

 

Read more: Interior Department Proposes Faster Permitting for Winter Arctic Oil Drilling

 

Why the Two Scenario Tiers Matter for Interpreting the Reported Ranges

 

NRDC's modeling produces figures presented as ranges, for instance, a projected $590 billion to $700 billion reduction in cumulative power sector infrastructure investment by 2035, because the report models two distinct policy scenarios reflecting different assumptions about how comprehensively current federal actions persist and expand. The "Limited Impact" scenario assumes a narrower set of changes, primarily the tax and regulatory rollbacks already enacted, while the "Full Impact" scenario layers in additional assumptions including sustained high tariffs through 2035, remanded and delayed offshore wind permits, and a solar development cap of 30 gigawatts annually with no new wind development permitted through 2030 beyond projects already under construction or in advanced development.

The report states that some assumed policies, including those tied to LNG exports and permitting delays, are expected to phase out under a future administration, while others, including tariffs and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's provisions, are assumed to persist throughout the full modeling period given the difficulty of reversing enacted legislation. That modeling choice means the report's most severe projected outcomes depend on assumptions about policy persistence and expansion that have not yet occurred and may not materialize exactly as modeled.

 

Why the Coal Plant Age Detail Provides Useful Economic Context

 

The report notes the average US coal plant is approximately 45 years old, and that under the January 2025 baseline scenario, coal capacity was projected to fall to near zero by 2032, with any remaining plants installing carbon capture technology, reflecting the competitive economics that had been driving coal's decline as older, less efficient plants became more costly to operate than newer renewable or gas alternatives. NRDC's modeling projects that under the Trump policy scenarios, approximately 65 to 75 gigawatts, or 40 percent of the coal fleet, remains operational through 2035 instead.

That figure connects to the report's broader argument that Department of Energy actions requiring some utilities to delay planned retirements of older fossil fuel plants, which the report states has cost consumers more than $400 million to date, work against the underlying market economics that had already been driving coal's decline prior to these interventions, a framing that presents continued fossil fuel operation as a policy-driven outcome working against, rather than in support of, otherwise more cost-competitive alternatives.

 

Explore OneStop ESG Marketplace: Regulation and Compliance

 

Why the Data Center Demand Assumption Is a Notable Methodological Choice

 

NRDC states it assumed identical electricity demand from data centers across all three modeled scenarios, accounting for more than 800 terawatt-hours, or roughly 15 percent of total demand, by 2035 in every case. That choice isolates the modeled effects specifically to changes in federal policy rather than any difference in data center development pace, meaning all of the report's projected cost, investment and emissions differences stem purely from the policy variables being tested rather than from any assumed variation in AI-driven electricity demand growth, a factor increasingly central to broader US grid capacity discussions covered elsewhere in recent reporting.

 

What the Health Impact Estimates Represent

 

The report's projected health impacts, including up to 69,000 additional premature deaths and 85,000 extra emergency room visits over the next decade, are derived using the US Environmental Protection Agency's CO-Benefits Risk Assessment screening tool, applying emissions projections from the power sector modeling to estimate resulting air quality changes and associated health outcomes at county-level resolution. NRDC states these health impacts are concentrated most heavily in regions with substantial existing fossil fuel infrastructure, including parts of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, reflecting the geographic distribution of the coal and gas plants the modeling projects will remain operational longer under the administration's policies rather than retiring as previously scheduled.

 

What Comes Next

 

NRDC states it will continue to challenge the administration's energy policies and work to reverse them "when politically possible," explicitly framing the report as advocacy intended to build the case for policy change rather than a neutral assessment. Whether the specific tariff, permitting and retirement-delay policies NRDC's "Full Impact" scenario assumes will persist through 2035 actually do so, and whether the administration's own assessment of these policies' economic and energy security benefits proves accurate against NRDC's projected costs, will only become clear as the underlying policies continue to be implemented, contested and potentially revised over the coming years.

 

Source: NRDC