The Trump Administration is eliminating some federal rules to force electrification, including new vehicle mileage standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency last year that could only be met by automakers through increased production and sale of EVs. More rules, such as those to “encourage” consumers to install electric heat pumps by banning all but the costliest condensing natural gas furnaces, are likely to be dropped as well. But many states continue their headlong rush to force individuals and businesses to replace fossil fuel-using equipment – cars, trucks, boilers and, yes, even gas stoves – with electric versions.

The eagerness to accelerate electrification is driven by aspirations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, policymakers’ singular focus on reducing GHGs for electric utility planning efforts, which will have no measurable impacts on world climate, ignores economic and environmental realities.

Regardless of one’s beliefs on the importance of electrification mandates, all share what should be an uncontroversial trait: they require sufficient supplies of power and the supporting infrastructure to deliver it (transmission lines, transformers, neighborhood poles and wires, etc.) to ensure that the electricity required will be reliable and affordable.

Yet, at the behest of regulators and politicians, utility companies are increasingly ignoring this reality and instead focusing on policies that emphasize rationing, primarily through higher prices, but also via restrictions on consumers’ access to electricity. In other words, rather than designing an electric system to meet customers’ requirements, utilities are focused on constraining customers’ access to electricity and trying to accommodate growth in demand mainly by using existing electrical power systems.

As with many ill-considered energy-related initiatives, California leads the way. Customers of that state’s investor-owned utilities have “smart meters” that measure electricity use in real time. The utilities have instituted time-of-use (TOU) pricing, which charges – i.e., penalizes – consumers with higher rates when electricity demand peaks, in order to encourage consumers to reduce electricity usage.

For example, Southern California Edison charges residential customers 73 cents/kWh between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the summer months. By contrast, the average residential rate in California in 2023 was 29.5 cents/kWh. San Diego Gas & Electric charges some residential customers $1.16/kWh on “Reduce Your Use Event” days, which the company can declare 18 times per year. Further north, PG&E charges residential customers 56 cents/kWh during the summer between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. Rationing by price may be economists’ preferred strategy to address scarcity, but it ignores a crucial reality that forcing consumers to rely almost entirely on electricity requires it to be available and affordable.

The high TOU prices are especially hard on consumers living in inland counties where summer temperatures routinely exceed 100 degrees. For them, affordable electricity to run an air conditioner is crucial. Moreover, on average, those counties have the state’s highest poverty rates. Many residents received electric bills this past summer exceeding $1,000, despite efforts to reduce their air conditioning use. Sweating in the dark hardly seems a desirable outcome of electrification efforts.

At the same time as all of the above, the overall reliability of electric systems is decreasing, even when major events such as hurricanes or wildfires are excluded. For example, over the last decade, the amount of time California’s Pacific Gas & Electric customers have been blacked out has doubled. Despite unaffordable TOU prices for many consumers and decreasing reliability, a dozen states are following California’s model for electricity planning; more are being urged to do so.

This is madness. Forcing individuals and businesses to become even more dependent on electricity and then restricting their access to the electricity required reveals an epic failure in utility planning. Despite long-standing requirements that electric utilities, not just in California but in most states, prepare detailed “least-cost” plans that forecast electricity demand 10-20 years into the future and how the utility intends to meet that demand, utilities are now warning of imminent shortages because of rising demand.

While regulators may applaud utility efforts to reduce the need for new infrastructure and new supplies, both are ignoring costs borne by consumers: direct costs that punish consumption; and indirect costs that force consumers to adjust their behavior and which depress economic growth.

With or without electrification mandates, the importance of electricity to a functioning modern society will continue to grow. Politicians, regulators, and electric utilities need to recognize that fact and plan accordingly, rather than imposing ever more punishing rationing schemes.

If policymakers want to meet the dual goals of greater electrification and reducing growth in carbon dioxide emissions, the rational policy framework would be to end mandatory electrification efforts; end punishing electric pricing regimes, end policies that restrict consumers’ ability to use electricity when they want it and end subsidies and mandates for intermittent wind and solar power, which are destabilizing electric grids. Instead, using natural gas and nuclear power should be emphasized to minimize carbon dioxide emissions, which will do so at a far lower cost and, because they can be sited close to load centers, will require far less investment in new transmission lines to deliver far-flung wind and solar energy.