Looking Ahead to a Deepening Affordability Crisis, an Election and the Threat of an AI Investment Bubble

Seven experts weigh in on what they expect in 2026.

Share This Article

A substation connects wind turbines to transmission lines near Pomeroy, Iowa. Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images
A substation connects wind turbines to transmission lines near Pomeroy, Iowa. Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Share This Article

U.S. energy markets and policy are heading toward the equivalent of a multicar pileup in 2026.

The key factors are consumer frustration with rising energy prices, Trump administration policies that are making the problem worse despite promises to make it better and a growing awareness that investment in AI data centers is part of a bubble that could pop at any time.

I asked seven experts for their outlook on what we’ll be talking about in 2026 and almost all of them touched on this set of intertwined problems. Call it a crisis or a disaster. Or just call it terrible politics for the party in power ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Newsletters

We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines deliver the full story, for free.

Prices Are High, and They’re Going to Get Higher

Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling at the think tank Energy Innovation, said he expects energy affordability to be the major issue of the year. He pointed to the rising wholesale price of natural gas and how that is likely to translate into higher utility bills, since gas is the country’s leading fuel for power plants and home heating.

“I don’t anticipate that people’s home energy bills are going to go down anytime soon,” he said.

The country’s benchmark price of natural gas has risen from an average of $2.19 per billion BTUs in 2024 to forecasts of $3.19 in 2025 (full-year figures for 2025 are not yet available) and $4.01 in 2026, according to the Energy Information Administration’s short-term outlook.

Gas prices are rising for many reasons, including an increase in exports of liquified natural gas, mainly to Europe, and growing demand from U.S. gas-fired power plants.

Orvis also highlighted the Trump administration’s policy of requiring old coal plants to remain online, even when their owners would otherwise have closed them for economic reasons. The administration has done this several times, citing the need to maintain the grid’s reliability during periods of high demand.

The result is that utilities are forced to operate plants they wanted to close, which are dirtier and more expensive than readily available alternatives.

Meanwhile, the least-expensive option for new power plants in most of the world is utility-scale solar. Even if we include the cost of batteries to allow solar to be stored for nighttime use, solar is a low-cost leader, as shown by research that includes a report last month from energy think tank Ember.

We Need to Build New Power Plants. Good Luck With That

The federal government could respond to rising prices by rapidly building new power plants. But the country’s permitting system, supply chains and recent policy decisions are harming the ability to provide relief.

Some of these problems predate the Trump administration. But President Donald Trump has made things worse with executive orders that add restrictions on the development of wind and solar power, including a stop-work order in December that halted construction on five offshore wind projects.

Michael Webber, a professor of engineering and public affairs who studies energy at the University of Texas at Austin, puts this problem in the form of a question:

“Do we return to normal for permitting energy projects or will every project have to price in the risk that the president might impulsively cancel it?” he asked in an email.

He said this risk is a cost driver for developers that will be enough to stop some marginal projects and drive up rates for consumers.

When Does the Data Center Bubble Pop and Who Gets Hurt?

Our crystal balls are not super precise on some topics. For example, several people said the investment in AI data centers and forecasts of rising electricity demand to power them are part of an investment bubble. But it’s unclear if this market will face its reckoning in 2026 or later.

The larger problem is that AI companies are spending tens of billions of dollars to build gigantic, energy-sucking data centers, often without clear plans for how these projects are going to make money.

“There’s a bubble, and what’s going to end up happening is there’s going to be a consolidation,” said Stephen A. Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an advocacy group based in Knoxville, Tenn.

In a consolidation, the companies with the weakest business plans will go bust and the companies with viable plans and ample cash reserves will pick over the wreckage.

One of the main questions, Smith said, is how much consumers will need to cover the costs of unwise investments to power data centers.

The worst-case scenario would be if utilities make substantial investments to meet data center demand and the demand doesn’t fully materialize, leaving the costs to be paid by households and other consumers.

Some states, including Indiana and Ohio, have adopted rules to try to make data center developers assume much of this risk. But much of the country has yet to thoroughly explore what happens to utilities and their consumers in a data center bust.

State Utility Regulators Know They Need to Do Something, But There Are No Easy Answers

State utility commissions have helped set the table for the affordability crisis by approving rate increases and spending that push the limits of what ratepayers can afford.

Commissioners, along with governors and members of state legislatures, “are finally taking heed of their policy missteps,” said Kent Chandler, senior fellow for the think tank R Street Institute and former chairman of the Kentucky Public Service Commission.

Chandler expects that some state-level discussions will focus on introducing competition in areas where utilities now have local monopolies, with the hope that market forces can help contain costs.

At the same time, states and regions that already allow competition in electricity and natural gas markets may go in the opposite direction and explore giving utilities more leeway to build power plants and pass costs on to consumers.

If this sounds disjointed, that’s because it is. The larger point is that officials will respond to frustration with rising prices by wanting to be seen as taking action.

The EV Market Will Continue Its Swoon for Much of the Year

The decision by Congress and Trump to eliminate consumer tax credits for electric vehicles will cast a pall on at least the first half of 2026 and maybe longer. The credit phaseout in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer led to a sudden surge in EV purchases before the incentives expired at the end of September, followed by an expected drop-off in sales.

“We’re going to see sales be a bit more tepid,” said Mryia Williams, executive director of Drive Electric Columbus in Ohio.

The problem is that potential buyers “are not sure what’s going on with anything,” she said.

Automakers have some high-profile EVs coming this year, including the redesigned Chevrolet Bolt and the new Rivian R2. But some companies also are reducing and redirecting their funding for EVs, including Ford, which discontinued the F-150 Lightning pickup as a fully electric model and is replacing it with a gas-electric hybrid.

Williams has concerns that eliminating tax credits sends the wrong message to automakers and consumers at a time when other countries are moving ahead of the United States in building the vehicles of the future. That said, she remains confident that the world will make a near-complete shift to EVs, even if U.S. policymakers decide they want to move more slowly.

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Donate Now

Democrats Are Poised for Gains in Midterms, But Is This Going to Be a Wave Election?

It’s normal for the party that’s not in power to gain seats in Congress in the first midterm election after a presidential election. And, considering that Republicans’ majority in the U.S. House is fewer than five seats, it would surprise nobody if Democrats win control of the chamber.

The larger questions are about the scope of Democrats’ gains, including whether the party will pick up enough seats to gain control of the U.S. Senate and make substantial progress in governor’s offices and state legislative chambers.

A big part of the answer will depend on how effectively Democrats communicate their agenda in terms of voters’ affordability concerns, said Caroline Spears, founder and executive director of Climate Cabinet, an advocacy group that supports pro-climate candidates in state and local races.

“Voters are angry about rising prices, and we have an undercurrent of instability in the economy that has become more of a feature rather than a bug in the last few years,” she said.

Spears’ organization is focusing on states such as Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, where flipping just a few seats could make a big difference on climate and energy policy.

She highlights Arizona as a state with a huge upside in terms of Democrats being close to having enough control to unlock more of the economic benefits of solar power.

“The extreme anti-clean energy legislation we’re seeing out of the sunniest state in the country is just astonishing,” she said.

To underscore this point, she noted that Massachusetts has more solar power jobs than Arizona, a fact that should be upsetting to Arizonans.

Why Aren’t We Talking More About Efficiency?

Now it’s time for the closer: Amory Lovins, an engineer and cofounder of RMI, has done about as much as anyone to foster research and advocacy about energy efficiency and conservation.

I saved him for last because the discussion of rising energy demand should, and could, turn into one about the need for greater efficiency.

Efficiency can take many forms, including batteries with higher energy density, solar panels that can capture more sunlight and computer servers that require less electricity to perform the same tasks.

He expects to see progress in 2026 but thinks more about how actual progress compares to what could be achieved with the right investment, research and policy support.

The obstacles aren’t technical or economic, he said. They’re mainly cultural and institutional.

“This is not low-hanging fruit that you harvest and then it gets scarce and expensive,” he said. “This fruit has fallen off the tree and is mushing up around our ankles, rotting faster than we can harvest more.”

He didn’t discuss efficiency in partisan terms, but I will. We have a president who has taken steps to weaken government requirements that products become more efficient, casting this as a matter of consumer choice. Trump said in his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order that he is safeguarding “the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances” including lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets and shower heads.

While Trump said this is a consumer-friendly action that will save money, decades of research on efficiency standards show the opposite to be true. The Trump administration has said its actions on the standards will save $11 billion, but this is based on an estimate of the cost of the rules that doesn’t include savings on utility bills. If we consider the costs and benefits, the standards have a net savings of $43 billion, according to an analysis from the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

So, in an election year amid an energy affordability crisis, one side is actively hostile to energy affordability.


Other stories about the energy transition to take note of this week:

Offshore Wind Developers Seek Quick Court Resolution to Allow Construction to Resume: Ørsted and Equinor, two of the companies building offshore wind farms, have gone to court to seek permission to resume construction of two large projects that were stopped by a Trump administration order, as Diana DiGangi reports for Utility Dive. This is in addition to Dominion Energy’s request that a court allow it to resume work on a separate offshore wind farm, which will be the subject of a hearing next week. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum had ordered a stop to construction last month, saying there is new evidence that offshore wind could pose national security risks, but he didn’t go into detail about the risks.

Negotiations on Permitting Reform Hit a New Roadblock: The Trump administration’s stop-work order for offshore wind has made Senate Democrats pause negotiations on a measure that would streamline the federal process for approving construction of new energy projects, according to Sen. Shelden Whitehouse, D-R.I., as reported by Kelsey Brugger of E&E News. Members of both parties have been working on this proposal, but there remain some major sticking points, including the fact that House Republicans want the legislation to favor fossil fuel projects and Democrats are asking for limits on the Trump administration’s ability to pick and choose which projects happen.

EVs Take a Back Seat at Consumer Electronics Show: The Consumer Electronics Show, taking place now in Las Vegas, has become a showcase for new EV models and technologies in recent years. But this year, automakers are not planning any major debuts of new EVs, signaling a shift in emphasis for manufacturers in response to the Trump administration cutting incentives for the vehicles, as Abhirup Roy reports for Reuters. Instead, much of the emphasis this year is on AI, robotics and self-driving vehicle technologies.

Inside Clean Energy is ICN’s weekly bulletin of news and analysis about the energy transition. Send news tips and questions to [email protected].

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

Thank you,

Share This Article