“Affordability.” That’s the new political mantra of Democratic politicians. Or maybe it’s one of two mantras, the other being that deporting illegal aliens makes ICE the modern-day “Gestapo.” [some emphasis, links added]
So, how to achieve “affordability”? There are two approaches, which are essentially opposites of each other. Can they both be right?
Approach Number 1 is that the government orders producers not to increase prices, and sometimes offers handouts of one sort or another to favored constituencies to reduce their effective costs.
Approach Number 2 is that the government mostly keeps out of the relationship between producers and consumers, and thereby makes the producers reduce their costs if they want to attract customers.
My observation would be that there exists an enormous amount of evidence on this subject, all of which supports the proposition that Approach Number 2 works, while Approach Number 1 is counterproductive. But maybe that’s just me.
So there was Mikie Sherrill last week in Newark, getting inaugurated as the new (Democratic) Governor of New Jersey.
New Jersey was one of only two states that had gubernatorial elections in 2025, the other being Virginia, and in both cases, the winning (Democratic) candidates made “affordability” the central theme of their campaigns.
For Sherrill, among various areas of concern, the most significant one regarding “affordability” was electricity.
The cost of electricity to consumers in New Jersey had soared by some 15-25% within just the past year under prior (Democratic) Governor Phil Murphy.
Murphy had spent his eight years in office setting aggressive “green” energy targets and promoting wind and solar electricity generation as the wave of the future.
In a piece in October 2025, New Jersey Monitor summarized Murphy’s approach to electricity generation:
“Murphy’s energy goals were always ambitious. In successive pronouncements, the governor called for New Jersey to draw 100% of its energy from clean [i.e., wind and solar] sources, first by 2050 and then by 2035.”
Here is their summary of Murphy’s record as to the implementation of his green energy plans:
“Murphy presided over a broad expansion of solar power in New Jersey[;] his greater plans to produce thousands of megawatts in offshore wind generation ultimately failed to create any new power, even as some existing power plants were shuttered. …”
Readers here will not be surprised that Murphy’s plans resulted in rate increases in New Jersey beyond the national norms.
So in the face of Murphy’s record, how is Sherrill now going to achieve the Holy Grail of “affordability” in electricity prices? She addressed the subject in her inaugural address, delivered on January 20:
“I’ve heard you, New Jersey — we are facing an affordability crisis, and you want costs to come down. And you want that to begin today. … So, right now, yes, before I even finish this speech, I am going to sign my first in a series of executive orders to declare a State of Emergency on Utility Costs.”
Step 1: Declare a state of emergency! Surely that will work. What else?
“I am issuing an Executive Order giving the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities the authority to pause new utility requests for additional rate increases, and I will freeze rate hikes to finally provide families with real relief on their energy bills.”
Step 2: Decree a rate freeze! Another sure thing. And then there’s Step 3:
“I am issuing an Executive Order directing the Board of Public Utilities to open solicitations for new solar and storage power generation, to modernize gas and nuclear generation. …”
In short, it’s the usual prescription of backing politically favored but costly producers and attempting to order prices from increasing.
At least Sherrill didn’t rule out continuing to use existing gas and nuclear generators (although her use of the term “modernize” in this context would seem to imply only upgrading existing facilities as opposed to building any new ones).
We’ll have to check back in four years to see how New Jersey’s electricity rates have performed as compared to those in other states that let the utilities build the least costly production.
As our attempt to peer into New Jersey’s future, we can look to California. That state has gotten way out ahead of the others in building new “renewable” electricity generation capacity, in their case mostly solar.
California has also similarly followed my “Approach Number 1” to affordability in numerous other areas, from gasoline production to housing, and many others.
Something called the Transparency Foundation then did a big Study that came out in November 2025, benchmarking the costs of various things in California versus the norms of the other states. The title of the Study is “The Cost of California 2025.”
Let’s start with the cost of electricity. You will find the Transparency Foundation’s cost comparisons in a chart on page 14 of the Study:
Electricity costs are 101% higher than the national average. That’s almost exactly double. Keep at it, New Jersey, and you can get there.
Just keep building solar and wind generators — plus the backup and storage needed to make them work even a little.
Go through the Transparency Foundation Study on California, and in one category after another, California is not just a little but a lot more expensive than the national norms.
Gasoline prices are 50% higher than the national norm; housing costs are 50% to 124% higher (depending on data source). Granted, this last category requires some judgment calls, but whichever data source is used, the comparison is not even close.
Well, New Jersey, you voted for the candidate who promised to deliver “affordability” via decrees and subsidized producers. You’ll just have to be example number 2,000 of why this approach doesn’t work.
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
