Opinion: Who is winning the race for affordable power?

Hydroelectric power keeps Washington competitive, but new laws and carbon pricing are driving up electricity costs for residents each year.

Sam Cardwell: Despite a massive hydroelectric advantage, Washington will continue to become more expensive due to its energy tax and regulatory policies

Sam Cardwell
Mountain States Policy Center

Everyone in the country is affected by energy rates. Whether you are a homeowner, renting a duplex, or staying in a studio apartment, you will feel the consequences of expensive power.

This is why effective public policy should aim to provide consistent and affordable energy to power our lives.

So which state has the right approach? Electricity prices vary across our region due to numerous reasons. States such as Idaho enjoy geographical advantages, while others like Washington intentionally enact damaging climate energy policies that drive prices up for consumers.

The most recent data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shows that Washington costs 13.67 cents per kilowatt hour, Idaho 11.88 cents per kilowatt, Wyoming 13.89 cents, and Montana 12.9 cents.

Washington has the second-most-expensive rates at 13.67 cents per KWh, but even that ranking is misleading. The Evergreen State has a tremendous advantage with the amount of hydroelectric power available. 60% of its grid is powered by hydro. Its costs appear competitive in comparison to other states, but without the hydro advantage, it would be dead last.

Washington has the Columbia and Snake rivers with dams that generate power for the state. Hydroelectric power provides its users with affordable and reliable baseload power. This could be at risk, though, after a federal judge in Oregon recently ordered that the Columbia and Snake River Dams generate less electricity in efforts for salmon mitigation.

Washington lawmakers have also acted to undermine the reliability of low-cost energy. In 2019, the Clean Energy Transformation Act was passed to phase out coal-generated energy by 2025. In 2021, a carbon cap-and-trade market system was passed through the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). Over time, this policy has heavily regulated the industry and incentivized more expensive and less reliable energy forms. Just ten years ago, in October of 2015, Washington State was beating its neighbors in affordable energy. Now its policies are increasing prices for consumers.

Costs from the CCA were deferred for the first couple of years of implementation, but now companies such as Puget Sound Energy have begun their next electric rate plans, and the cost will be added to consumer bills to cover compliance costs incurred in 2023, 2024, and part of 2025.

PSE recently announced, “Beginning, August 1, 2025, electric customers will see higher rates to cover the cost of allowances PSE needs to purchase to comply with the Climate Commitment Act and cover emissions from electric generation under the law.”

PSE also asked the Washington Utilities and Transportation Committee to approve its plan to increase electric bill rates by nearly 30% and gas bills by nearly 20% by 2029 for residential rate payers.

Idaho leads the region with the most affordable residential energy rates at 11.88 cents per kWh. Like Washington, it benefits from hydroelectric energy. But unlike Washington, it doesn’t meddle with the particular energy sources that utility companies seek to provide their customers. Energy rates for Idaho residents have increased slightly due to a population boom starting in 2020. Overall, Idaho is doing all of the right things.

Wyoming has a slightly higher cost compared to the rest of the states in our region at 13.89 cents per kWh, but most of this can purely be attributed to its lack of access to hydroelectric power. It has also embraced nuclear energy, as Terrapower has broken ground and just been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct a plant in Kemmerer. In the larger picture of the U.S, Wyoming performs quite well, but it can be overshadowed by its neighbors who have a massive geographical advantage in the form of hydropower.

Montana’s performance is similar to Idaho’s at 12.9 kWh. Its energy generation is from natural gas, coal, hydro, and minimal renewables. Its energy policy has stayed hands off, allowing utility companies to do what’s best for their business and the customer. It hasn’t adopted a carbon cap and trade program and hasn’t enacted a renewable portfolio standard. The Montana Public Service Commission ensures that utility companies can only recover costs that are reasonable and prudent from real expenses. Energy providers in Montana cannot penalize customers for failed investments or speculative projects.

Despite a massive hydroelectric advantage, Washington will continue to become more expensive due to its energy tax and regulatory policies, while Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are likely to see the cost curve bend with their support for bringing more nuclear power online.

Sam Cardwell is a Policy Analyst for the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

In March 2026, Washington high school athletes Frances Staudt and Ahnaleigh Wilson, along with their parents, met with Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal to discuss the state’s transgender athlete policy. The families shared their personal impact experiences and explored the state’s stance on female sports protections ahead of a potential November ballot initiative focused on biological sex in girls’ athletics.

What Grok notices

Reports on the direct dialogue between specific affected athletes and the state’s top education official, highlighting the human element of this complex policy debate.
Highlights the families’ perspectives regarding past public comments and investigations, showing how administrative rhetoric can impact student and family experiences at the local level.
Connects the current meeting to high-level state and federal tensions over Title IX, illustrating how local sports disputes are part of a national legal and cultural conversation.
Explains the role of upcoming voter initiatives, which suggests that the resolution of these athletic policy questions may soon be placed directly before Washington voters.
Combines coverage of the emotional meeting with details about the specific protections the families are seeking for biological female athletes.

Questions worth asking

How can state athletic policies best balance broader inclusion goals while protecting the principles of fairness and safety for biological female athletes?
What is the impact of public commentary from state officials on the conduct of school-level harassment or civil rights investigations?
How should policymakers weigh the various stakeholders—students, parents, and schools—when drafting rules for competitive high school sports?
In what ways could a voter initiative on girls’ sports fundamentally change the way school districts handle athletic participation and Title IX compliance?
What evidence or comparative data from other states can inform Washington’s approach to biological sex requirements in competitive athletics?