Utility customers could save $5 billion per year by 2030 if the U.S. prioritizes clean energy over a fossil-fuel heavy approach to meeting record electricity demand from data centers and other large loads, according to research released today by Energy Innovation.
The nonpartisan think tank modeled two different scenarios: one where the U.S. doubles down on gas and coal, consistent with the Trump administration’s current federal policy, to meet a projected 21% jump in demand growth by 2030; and another where clean energy options including solar, wind, and battery storage meets all of that forecasted demand. The researchers found that in each pathway, the power grid could reliably meet load growth across a wide range of weather conditions.
The clean energy approach saves money largely because it avoids volatile gas and coal fuel prices, which most utilities directly pass on to ratepayers, as well as the operation and maintenance costs of keeping aging power plants open. (One 2025 report found that if the Department of Energy forces all large fossil fuel power plants scheduled to retire by the end of 2028 to stay online, it could cost ratepayers more than $3 billion annually.)
Those savings more than offset the generally higher upfront capital required to build clean energy projects — though researchers noted that that dynamic is beginning to change; storage is getting cheaper while gas plants are becoming more expensive due to shortages of turbines and other equipment.
The research lands amid widespread agreement that the U.S. isn’t adding new power generation fast enough to keep up with unprecedented load growth from data centers. The question causing divisions in the industry, however, is how to solve the problem in a way that both tempers rising utility bills and maintains grid reliability.
“We really wanted to look at this because decisions are being made right now about the planning, procurement, interconnection, and permitting of all the resources that are going to be part of the grid in 2030,” Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity at Energy Innovation and co-author of the study, told Latitude Media. “So what’s the best path?”
Pierpont said the Trump administration’s fossil-fuel-heavy approach is incongruent with both economic reality and energy market trends of recent years. In 2025, solar, wind, and batteries accounted for about 90% of the new capacity added to the grid, in part because those projects are faster to build than new fossil infrastructure and the costs of storage are falling rapidly. In the first quarter of 2026, solar and storage alone accounted for the vast majority of new power added to the grid, according to industry data.
Nonetheless, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have argued that variable solar and wind power aren’t reliable enough to meet the 24/7 electricity demands of data centers. The Trump administration is blocking aging coal and gas plants from retiring, subsidizing the construction of new fossil fuel plants, canceling offshore wind projects and slow-walking approvals of clean energy projects on federal lands.
The GOP-controlled Congress also eliminated investment tax credits for wind and solar energy, with support from the administration.
Since last year, DOE has ordered at least five coal plants and one gas to stay online past their retirement dates by using its emergency authority under the Federal Powers Act. That authority was invoked after the department released a grid reliability study forecasting greater risks of blackouts over the next decade as load growth outstripped demand. However, some analysts said the study made some questionable assumptions about load growth from electrification.
From Pierpont’s perspective, the two biggest risks to reliability are exactly what the Trump administration is doing: stymieing projects already under development, and generally creating an uncertain investment environment.
“We know that reliability is a top concern for utilities and grid operators, but that’s not an argument for more fossil fuels,” he said. “It’s an argument for building a portfolio of resources that are cheaper, and building that quickly.”
Even under Energy Innovation’s clean energy scenario, fossil fuels would still account for 38% of the grid’s generation mix while carbon-free sources, including existing nuclear and hydropower plants, make up 62%. That would reflect a large uptick in clean energy from 2025, when it accounted for 43% of grid generation.
By contrast, under Energy Innovation’s high fossil-fuel forecast, carbon-free sources make up 44% of grid generation while coal, oil, and gas account for 56%. That could add $30 billion annually to customers’ bills in 2030 — on top of the average 16% increase in electricity bills that households have paid over the past 18 months. There’s also the risk that fossil fuel prices could total billions of dollars more due to unpredictable global events, such as geopolitical upheaval like the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran or extreme weather.
Meanwhile, the clean energy scenario costs more than $5 billion less, an estimated $24.6 billion. Both pathways assume that tax breaks under current law continue. Meanwhile, storage costs fall while wind and gas turbine costs rise due to supply chain constraints. Fuel cost forecasts were based on state-level historical data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Researchers also assumed there isn’t new transmission capacity by 2030.
“I think if we were to just let markets and economics dictate what’s happening, I believe we would see something much closer to the clean pathway because it is cheaper,” Pierpoint said, noting that’s what has played out in Texas’ unregulated market. (That said, most other U.S. electricity markets are regulated in a way that prevents economic forces alone from driving investment decisions.)
Either way, prioritizing fossil fuels will likely come with a higher tab for customers. “If we follow the pathway of the Trump administration, it’ll be more expensive, more risky from fossil fuel volatility, and of course more air pollution and carbon emissions,” Pierpoint said. “There’s a better path that is still reliable for consumers.”
