Graph and download economic data for Average Price: Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (CBSA) (APUS37A72610) from Nov 1978 to Dec 2024 about Dallas, electricity, energy, TX, urban, retail, price, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Average Price: Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) (APUS37B72610) from Nov 1978 to Dec 2024 about Houston, electricity, energy, TX, urban, retail, price, and USA.

Retail residential electricity prices in the United States have mostly risen over the last decades. In 2023, prices registered a year-over-year growth of 6.3 percent, the highest growth registered since the beginning of the century. Residential prices are projected to continue to grow by two percent in 2024. Drivers of electricity price growth The price of electricity is partially dependent on the various energy sources used for generation, such as coal, gas, oil, renewable energy, or nuclear. In the U.S., electricity prices are highly connected to natural gas prices. As the commodity is exposed to international markets that pay a higher rate, U.S. prices are also expected to rise, as it has been witnessed during the energy crisis in 2022. Electricity demand is also expected to increase, especially in regions that will likely require more heating or cooling as climate change impacts progress, driving up electricity prices. Which states pay the most for electricity? Electricity prices can vary greatly depending on both state and region. Hawaii has the highest electricity prices in the U.S., at roughly 43 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour as of May 2023, due to the high costs of crude oil used to fuel the state’s electricity. In comparison, Idaho has one of the lowest retail rates. Much of the state’s energy is generated from hydroelectricity, which requires virtually no fuel. In addition, construction costs can be spread out over decades.

Monthly average retail electricity prices by state from EIA (Residential, Commercial, All Sectors).

Graph and download economic data for Average Price: Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour in U.S. City Average (APU000072610) from Nov 1978 to Jul 2025 about electricity, energy, retail, price, and USA.

In 2022, the average end-use electricity price in the United States stood at around 12.2 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. This figure is projected to decrease in the coming three decades, to reach some 11 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour by 2050.

United States - Average Price: Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) was 0.17000 Index in December of 2024, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Average Price: Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) reached a record high of 0.25800 in July of 2022 and a record low of 0.03200 in November of 1978. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Average Price: Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on July of 2025.

A comprehensive dataset of average residential, commercial, and combined electricity rates in cents per kWh for all 50 U.S. states.

Graph and download economic data for Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Energy in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) (CUURA318SA0E) from Apr 1978 to Jul 2025 about Houston, energy, TX, urban, consumer, CPI, inflation, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

Hawaii is the state with the highest household electricity price in the United States. In February 2025, the average retail price of electricity for Hawaiian residences amounted to 41.11 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. California followed in second, with 32.41 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. Meanwhile, Utah registered the lowest price in the period, at around 12.41 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. Why is electricity so expensive in Hawaii? Fossil fuels, and specifically oil, account for approximately 80 percent of Hawaii’s electricity mix, so the electricity price in this state can be roughly brought down to the price of oil in the country. Oil was by far the most expensive fossil fuel used for electricity generation in the country. As Hawaii depends on oil imports, the cost of transportation and infrastructure must be added to the oil price. Electricity prices worldwide The U.S. retail price for electricity increased almost every year since 1990. In 2024, it stood at 13 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, almost double the charge put on electricity back in 1990. However, household electricity prices are around 25 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour lower in the U.S. when compared to European countries reliant on energy imports, such as Germany and Italy.

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (CMSA) - Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Household energy in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (CBSA) was 315.74800 Index 1982-84=100 in January of 2024, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (CMSA) - Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Household energy in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (CBSA) reached a record high of 315.74800 in January of 2024 and a record low of 96.30000 in January of 1986. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (CMSA) - Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Household energy in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (CBSA) - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on July of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Energy in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (CBSA) (CUURA316SA0E) from Feb 1978 to Jul 2025 about Dallas, energy, TX, urban, consumer, CPI, inflation, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

Texas has suffered major disruptions to its electricity supply due to storm Uri sweeping the United States from February 14, 2021. The state's largest independent system operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) was unable to deliver electricity to over four million customers, as extreme cold temperatures resulted in many power plants having to be shut off. ERCOT manages roughly 90 percent of Texas' electric load, serving 26 million customers. Between February 15 and 17, the difference between day-ahead forecasts for electricity demand and electricity generation was particularly pronounced.

The 2025 preliminary average annual price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil reached 68.23 U.S. dollars per barrel as of June. This would be eight U.S. dollars below the 2024 average and the lowest annual average since 2021. WTI and other benchmarks WTI is a grade of crude oil also known as “Texas light sweet.” It is measured to have an API gravity of around 39.6 and specific gravity of about 0.83, which is considered “light” relative to other crude oils. This oil also contains roughly 0.24 percent sulfur, and is therefore named “sweet.” Crude oils are some of the most closely observed commodity prices in the world. WTI is the underlying commodity of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s oil futures contracts. The price of other crude oils, such as UK Brent crude oil, the OPEC crude oil basket, and Dubai Fateh oil, can be compared to that of WTI crude oil. Since 1976, the price of WTI crude oil has increased notably, rising from just 12.23 U.S. dollars per barrel in 1976 to a peak of 99.06 dollars per barrel in 2008. Geopolitical conflicts and their impact on oil prices The price of oil is controlled in part by limiting oil production. Prior to 1971, the Texas Railroad Commission controlled the price of oil by setting limits on production of U.S. oil. In 1971, the Texas Railroad Commission ceased limiting production, but OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries with member states Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela among others, continued to do so. In 1972, due to geopolitical conflict, OPEC set an oil embargo and cut oil production, causing prices to quadruple by 1974. Oil prices rose again in 1979 and 1980 due to the Iranian revolution, and doubled between 1978 and 1981 as the Iran-Iraq War prevented oil production. A number of geopolitical conflicts and periods of increased production and consumption have influenced the price of oil since then.

This spreadsheet contains information reported by over 200 investor-owned utilities to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the annual filing FERC Form 1 for the years 1994-2019. It contains 1) annual capital costs for new transmission, distribution, and administrative infrastructure; 2) annual operation and maintenance costs for transmission, distribution, and utility business administration; 3) total annual MWh sales and sales by customer class; 4) annual peak demand in MW; and 5) total customer count and the number of customers by class. Annual spending on new capital infrastructure is read from pages 204 to 207 of FERC Form 1, titled Electric Plant in Service. Annual transmission capital additions are recorded from Line 58, Column C - Total Transmission Plant Additions. Likewise, annual distribution capital additions are recorded from Line 75, Column C - Total Distribution Plant Additions. Administrative capital additions are recorded from Line 5, Column C - Total Intangible Plant Additions, and Line 99, Column C - Total General Plant Additions. Operation and maintenance costs associated with transmission, distribution, and utility administration are read from pages 320 to 323 of FERC Form 1, titled Electric Operation and Maintenance Expenses. Annual transmission operation and maintenance are recorded from Line 99, Column B - Total Transmission Operation Expenses for Current Year, and Line 111, Column B - Total Transmission Maintenance Expenses for Current Year. Likewise, annual distribution operation and maintenance costs are recorded from Line 144, Column B - Total Distribution Operation Expenses, and Line 155, Column B - Total Distribution Maintenance Expenses. Administrative operation and maintenance costs are recorded from: Line 164, Column B - Total Customers Accounts Expenses; Line 171, Column B - Total Customer Service and Information Expenses; Line 178, Column B - Total Sales Expenses; and Line 197, Column B - Total Administrative and General Expenses. The annual peak demand in MW over the year is read from page 401, titled Monthly Peaks and Output. The monthly peak demand is listed in Lines 29 to 40, Column D. The maximum of these monthly reports during each year is taken as the annual peak demand in MW. The annual energy sales and customer count data come from page 300, Electric Operating Revenues. The values are provided in Line 2 - Residential Sales, Line 4 - Commercial Sales, Line 5 - Industrial Sales, and Line 10 - Total Sales to Ultimate Consumers. More information about the database is available in an associated report published by the University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute: https://live-energy-institute.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_TDA_2016.pdf Also see an associated paper published in the journal Energy Policy: Fares, Robert L., and Carey W. King. "Trends in transmission, distribution, and administration costs for US investor-owned electric utilities." Energy Policy 105 (2017): 354-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.036 All data come from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC Form 1 Database available in Microsoft Visual FoxPro Format: https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms/form-1/data.asp

Graph and download economic data for Utilities: Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Payroll Employment in Texas (TX43221100M158FRBDAL) from Feb 1990 to Jun 2025 about power transmission, distributive, utilities, electricity, payrolls, TX, employment, rate, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Average Price: Gasoline, Unleaded Premium (Cost per Gallon/3.785 Liters) in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (CBSA) (APUS37A74716) from Sep 1981 to Jul 2025 about Dallas, energy, gas, TX, urban, retail, price, and USA.

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX (CMSA) - Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Household Energy in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) was 165.45300 Index 1982-84=100 in July of 2024, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX (CMSA) - Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Household Energy in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) reached a record high of 210.18100 in July of 2008 and a record low of 84.90000 in January of 1987. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX (CMSA) - Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Household Energy in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (CBSA) - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on July of 2025.

Freeport LNG (FLNG) is undertaking the construction of an LNG Plant and Export Terminal on the site of FLNG's existing import terminal in Texas, the US.The project involves the construction of an export terminal with a capacity of 2 billion cubic feet per day (BCFD) of gas. It includes the construction of a liquefaction plant, storage tanks, conveyor, loading facility, four liquefaction trains with a capacity of 4.4 million tonnes of LNG per annum (MTPA) each i.e, total 13.2MTPA and pipeline transportation facility. The fourth liquefaction train with a nominal production capacity of 5.1 million tonnes/year.FLNG appointed CH-IV International to work on the pre-FEED study and selected Chart Industries as the technology provider for the reliability, efficiency and overall performance of liquefaction process. Chart has been appointed to provide detailed process design and equipment specifications and to supply the critical cryogenic equipment such as the cold boxes for the liquefaction trains.FLNG appointed Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APCI) as the liquefaction technology provider for its experience and overall performance of its proprietary cryogenic liquefaction process (C3MR).The project will be financed by Macquarie Bank. Macquarie Bank and FLNG plan will jointly market half of the export plant’s capacity, and the other half will be offered to FLNG’s existing import customers Dow Chemical and ConocoPhillips.Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I) and Zachry Corporation have been appointed as FEED contractors on the project.FLNG filed two applications with the Department of Energy (DOE), each for 511 Bcf/year, in December 2010 and 2011 respectively and received approval from DOE to export LNG to Free Trade Agreement countries in February 2011 and 2012 respectively.In December 2010, FLNG submitted a pre-filing request with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to begin the environmental review of the liquefaction project and in December 2011, FLNG completed and filed drafts of all resource reports for FERC application, including the draft technical Resource Report 13 (FERC FEED). A formal FERC application pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act was filed in August 2012.On February 10, 2011, FLNG secured approval to export LNG from this facility to FTA countries.In May 2011, DOE granted the first authorization to export LNG to non-FTA countries for the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, at a rate of up to 2.2BCFD.The project received approval from DOE for exporting the product to the countries with which free Trade agreement were signed.In July 2012, FLNG signed 20-year LTAs with Osaka Gas and Chubu Electric for train I production (2.2 mtpa each), and in February 2013, a 20-year LTA was signed with BP for train II output (4.4 mtpa).In May 2013, DOE conditionally authorized FLNG export application from the FLNG Terminal on Quintana Island, Texas, to countries that do not have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the US.In September 2013, FLNG signed offtake agreements with Toshiba Corporation and SK E&S (2.2 mtpa each) for train III.In December 2013, CB&I and Zachry Industrial, Inc. were awarded the EPC contract for the construction of first two trains. In December 2013, IFM Investors entered into an agreement with FLNG to invest approximately US$1,300 million of equity funding for the project. The investment will provide equity required for the development of Train II.On February 27, 2014, Osaka Gas and Chubu Electric entered into an agreement with FLNG to invest approximately US$1,200 million of equity funding for the project. The investment will provide equity required for the development of Train I.In April 2014, project secured final environmental impact statement (FEIS) from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.In July 2014, FLNG secured FERC approvals for the project.On September 10, 2014, GE Oil & Gas secured a contract from FLNG to provide technology and capital for the project. It will also supply the main refrigeration compressors, variable-speed drive electric motors and other electrical equipment for two customized LNG liquefaction trains.On October 20, 2014, project secured approval from FERC to go ahead with the construction works.On November 10, 2014, construction works initiated with groundbreaking ceremony for the first two trains.On November 25, 2014, FLNG secured US$11,000 million for the Train I and Train II in debt and equity financing transactions. For Train I: US$4,369 million was secured in debt financing by Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Limited, Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation, and ING Bank N.V., Tokyo Branch insured by Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI). US$1,240 million was secured in equity financing by Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. (Osaka Gas) and Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc. (Chubu Electric).For Train II: US$4,025 million was secured in debt financing by a syndicate of 25 commercial banks under a 7-year mini-perm construction facility. US$1,300 million was secured in equity financing by IFM Investors.FLNG has signed Liquefaction Tolling Agreements with Osaka Gas and Chubu Electric for the first train, BP Energy Company for the second train and Toshiba Corporation and SK E&S for the third train.On March 26, 2015, a joint venture between CB&I, Chiyoda International Corporation, a U.S. based wholly-owned subsidiary of Chiyoda Corporation and Zachry Industrial Inc. was awarded the EPC contract worth US$2,000 million for the construction of Train III.On April 28, 2015, financial closure was secured for Train III, which includes US$3,692 million in debt financing and US$925 million of equity financing. The debt financing has been provided by 27 commercial banks and financial institutions under a seven-year mini-perm debt facility and the equity financing has been provided by Freeport LNG through mezzanine debt financing. The mandated lead arrangers were: ING Bank US$188 million; Bank of Tokyo and Mitsubishi UFJ US$188 million; HSBC US$190 million; Credit Suisse US$114 million; Crédit Agricole US$188 million; Royal Bank of Canada US$114 million; Standard Chartered US$114 million; BBVA US$114 million; Mizuho US$188 million; Lloyds Bank US$114 million; Société Générale US$188 million; Scotiabank US$188 million; Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation US$188 million; Goldman Sachs US$114 million; Deutsche Bank US$188 million; Intesa Sanpaolo US$188 million; Natixis US$188 million; Bank of Montreal US$114 million; Santander US$114 million; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce US$114 million; Industrial Commercial Bank of China US$114 million; Bank of America Merrill Lynch US$114 million; Korea Development Bank US$112 million; National Australia Bank US$114 million; Barclays US$51 million; Mitsubishi Trust US$50 million; and Shinsei Bank US$50 million.Chadbourne & Parke LLP represented the lenders for Train III of the project. White & Case LLP has been appointed as legal advisor.In May 2015, construction works on Train III commenced.In June 2015, Honeywell Process Solutions secured the Automation Contract. The scope of the work includes designing, delivering and installing the automation, instrumentation, controls, and safety and security systems for the project.On September 8, 2016, Mammoet was awarded a supply contract for the project. The scope of the contract includes transporting a substantial number of pieces to two different sites located three miles apart. Mammoet is using two different methods of transport, by barge and over the road, depending on the various weights and sizes of the pieces, resulting in significant time savings.In June 2017, FLNG Liquefaction 4 LLC (FLIQ4), a wholly owned subsidiary of FLNG have filed a formal application with the FERC for authorization to site, construct, and operate a fourth liquefaction train.In July 2017, the front-end engineering and design for the proposed fourth liquefaction train were commenced.In March 2018, the FLNG secured the export permit for the fourth train by DOE.On June 26, 2018, FLNG signed a three-year contract with Trafigura PTE Ltd. to supply a half-million tons of liquefied natural gas each year.FLNG will commence supplying LNG to the company once construction is complete.FERC officials are expected to issue a final environmental assessment for the fourth train in November 2018 and a decision on the permit in January 2019.On September 5, 2018, FLIQ4 and Sumitomo Corporation of Americas (SCOA), a subsidiary of Sumitomo Corporation jointly entered into a binding Heads of Agreement(HOA) for 2.2 million tons per annum (mtpa) of LNG. Under the HOA, SCOA has agreed to negotiate for a 20-year liquefaction tolling agreement (LTA). The LTA is expected to commence in 2023 upon the commencement of commercial operations of the fourth train (Train 4) of FLNG’s natural gas liquefaction and export facility.Construction activities on the three trains are underway. The first train is scheduled to complete on September 1, 2019, the second on January 2020 and third in May 2020. Read More

Graph and download economic data for Average Price: Utility (Piped) Gas per Therm in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (CBSA) (APUS37A72620) from Nov 1978 to Dec 2024 about utilities, Dallas, energy, TX, urban, retail, price, and USA.