The debate over rising electricity prices in Washington has revealed a strange paradox. Republicans blame climate policies and renewable energy subsidies for driving up costs. Democrats, meanwhile, claim rates are rising because the Trump administration rolled back clean-energy incentives. Both stories cannot be entirely accurate. Renewables cannot simultaneously be the cause and the cure for high prices. 

In reality, both sides are partly right, but are being strategically misleading. By distorting the economics and ignoring the whole picture, Republicans and Democrats alike risk undermining their policy goals.

Democrats, for example, exaggerate the affordability benefits of their clean-energy policies. Several studies found that eliminating the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits would modestly raise electricity rates. But these analyses focus narrowly on utility bills while ignoring how those lower prices are financed: through higher taxes.

A study by Resources for the Future projected that repeal of the IRA’s clean-energy tax credits would increase annual residential electricity bills by $75 to $145 by 2035. Yet it also found that tax expenditures would fall by between $35 and $50 billion that same year. With approximately 143 million households in 2035, taxpayers would save roughly $245 to $350 per household, more than they would lose due to higher electricity prices. By that measure alone, repealing the subsidies left households financially better off.

A similar pattern has emerged with the Trump administration’s proposed repeal of the Biden-era tailpipe emissions standards. A recent analysis warns that repealing the law would drive up gasoline prices. But, such studies often overlook other costs, including the higher sticker price of electric vehicles, the infrastructure costs of charging networks, and the fiscal costs associated with EV tax credits. When these are included, the economic benefits of EV policies are less clear-cut.

Of course, the case for clean-energy subsidies and vehicle emissions standards was never about cheaper energy. Their purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the damages avoided by cutting emissions are large enough, then the increased costs and higher tax burden might be justified (though research suggests the abatement costs of the IRA tax credits still outweigh the benefits). Trying to sell climate policies as a way to reduce energy prices risks undermining their credibility when prices or taxes inevitably rise.

Republicans, for their part, have a point about how the Biden administration’s climate regulations raised costs. Stricter emissions standards and regulatory uncertainty have made it more expensive and riskier to build fossil-fuel power plants. That has slowed investment, constrained supply, and likely contributed to higher prices. But Republican hostility toward wind and solar power is misplaced. Once built, renewable plants have near-zero operating costs. As long as they can be effectively integrated into electricity grids, renewables may help push down marginal prices over time. Allowing them to compete on their merits, without distortionary subsidies, would likely improve electricity affordability in the long run.

It is encouraging that both sides are now framing energy affordability as a priority. But policymakers should focus less on scoring political points and work to solve the problem.  Lawmakers should use this moment to examine which existing policies are truly driving costs higher and identify where reforms, such as streamlined permitting, could make a difference.

American energy policy should be guided by an honest and transparent assessment of what drives increasing prices and the promise of new technologies. The partisan blame game only impedes progress towards clean, affordable energy.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.