Manufacturing Costs
Five States Where Industrial Power Cost More Than Commercial Power in June
June 2026 industrial electricity averages exceeded commercial averages in ID, ND, NE, NV and RI; national values were 9.17 and 14.19 cents/kWh.
Editorial evidence cutoff: September 9, 2026. Published September 29, 2026. Observation periods are stated throughout; older figures are retrospective evidence.
Industrial electricity averaged 9.17 cents per kilowatt-hour nationally in June, against 14.19 cents for commercial customers. The familiar industrial discount was substantial. It was also absent in five states: Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada and Rhode Island.
That finding qualifies a tempting shortcut in a September utility review. A national sector difference can identify a question worth asking about a plant's bill. It cannot tell a particular business what price it could obtain, and the state exceptions show why the sector label alone is insufficient.
Five exceptions inside a large national gap
Idaho's industrial average was 10.23 cents per kWh, compared with 9.92 cents for commercial customers. North Dakota's pair was 8.32 and 8.02 cents. Nebraska recorded 9.64 and 8.82 cents, Nevada 10.16 and 9.83 cents, and Rhode Island 22.91 and 22.70 cents.
Nebraska had the largest reversal among these states: industrial customers' average was 0.82 cents higher, or 9.30% above the commercial average. The other premiums ranged from 0.93% in Rhode Island to 3.74% in North Dakota. These are differences between observed sector aggregates, not quotations offered to the same customer.
The comparison covers all 50 states and the District of Columbia. DC is reported separately and did not reverse the national pattern in June: its industrial average was 16.21 cents against 23.38 cents commercial. It should neither be called a state nor added to the five-state exception count.
The national number does not disappear
Nationally, commercial average revenue per kWh was 54.74% above the industrial average. Expressed the other way, industrial electricity was cheaper relative to commercial electricity. The denominator determines the percentage, so a comparison should specify which sector is being treated as the base.
The state exceptions do not invalidate that national observation. A national aggregate reflects the sales and revenue represented in each sector, not an equal-weight average of 50 state price gaps. Large volumes and the distribution of customers matter to the total.
Nor do the exceptions establish a national trend toward a disappearing discount. This is a matched June cross-section. Establishing whether Idaho or Nebraska regularly reverses the pattern would require multiple comparable state-month observations. A one-month exception is sufficient to challenge a universal claim, but insufficient to establish its persistence.
An average is not a rate a customer can select
EIA's average retail price is calculated from electricity revenue and sales. It combines the experiences of customers within the reported sector. It is not a tariff sheet naming a price available to every business with a particular industrial classification.
Differences in customer size, service arrangements, consumption patterns and the distribution of providers can affect the averages. Identifying the contribution of each requires more detailed evidence than the state totals used here. It would be an overreach to attribute every reversal to one delivery-cost mechanism.
A plant cannot obtain the national industrial average simply by requesting a different label on its account. The applicable utility schedules, eligibility rules, demand charges and service requirements must be examined for that location. The sector comparison is a benchmark for that investigation, not proof that a reclassification is available or would save money.
The arithmetic can illustrate scale without promising savings
At a hypothetical 60,000 kWh a month, the national average gap of 5.02 cents corresponds to $3,012. That is a useful way to understand the size of the observed difference. It is not a forecast of what a particular shop could remove from its bill.
The same illustration can point in the opposite direction. Applying Nebraska's June averages to 60,000 kWh makes the industrial calculation $492 higher than the commercial calculation. No actual customer is identified in either exercise, and the comparison does not hold demand or service conditions constant.
That is precisely why the illustration should remain separate from the savings claim. It can establish that the benchmark gap is large enough to investigate. It cannot establish the incremental cost of changing schedules or the charges a utility would apply to the plant's actual load.
A September review needs the bill behind the benchmark
The useful follow-up is to assemble the facility's own consumption, peak demand, applicable schedule and charges over a relevant operating period. A single cents-per-kWh ratio can conceal whether a high effective cost came from energy prices, a demand peak, low production volume or another billed component.
Those are questions to answer from invoices and the applicable tariff. Comparing several months also helps avoid treating one season's operating pattern as a permanent property of the site. The June state average should remain dated wherever it appears in that review.
The industrial electricity history and commercial electricity history provide useful context. Their purpose is to make a comparison visible. The facility's own bill supplies the evidence needed to move from a broad sector difference to a specific action.
The exceptions improve the question
The practical conclusion is not that commercial service is preferable in five states. The data does not compare alternative service plans for the same customer. It shows that an industrial label did not guarantee a lower observed sector average everywhere in June.
That makes the September question more precise: how does this facility's effective cost compare with relevant customers, and which parts of its bill explain the difference? A benchmark can reveal where to look without pretending it already contains the answer.
The retrospective is useful because it preserves both sides of the evidence. A large national industrial discount existed in June, while five states showed the reverse. A credible bill review should be able to accommodate both facts before it turns an average into a promised saving.
Sources and calculation
The analysis joins the EIA industrial and commercial sector observations on state and June 2026. The September 9 data version includes all 50 states and DC. Gaps use cents per kWh and percentage comparisons use commercial as the base where explicitly stated. See EIA electricity data and EIA average-price methodology. Customer and load composition are not controlled.
Sources and evidence
Evidence period: June 2026, 50 states plus DC. The frozen evidence record lists the source files and verified hashes available September 9, 2026. Source revision: 5e4fb7726c3d40060c0151c086c903baae856cab. Later live-data updates do not alter the historical evidence in this article.
eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/epa.pdf
Published 2026-09-29.