Much of the world has been impacted financially by the latest war in Iran. But not everyone has reacted the same way. The sudden lack of access to oil and gas resources in the Middle East led some countries to reconsider their reliance on fossil fuels. For example, the European Union in late April announced plans to shift the region toward “clean, homegrown energy” to protect Europe from the “fossil fuel crisis” and instead work toward accelerating the transition to clean energy, which they dubbed “secure.” Data shows that the war inspired many countries to buy up clean energy technology, with China—the leader in the clean-tech space—benefiting most from this energy pivot.

The U.S., on the other hand, has approached amassing energy “security” much differently. The Trump administration has doubled down on the country’s vast oil and gas resources, as I previously wrote. Instead of embracing clean energy projects at home, which could bring much-needed energy to regions investing in data centers, the administration has systematically blocked their construction. It’s also started forcing retiring coal-fired power plants to continue operations. Those policies are already having major economic impacts in the form of higher power bills.

Electricity bills continue to climb across the country thanks to the increased strain on local power grids. States like Ohio that have resisted solar panels are now getting data centers. One proposed project in southern Ohio, backed by OpenAI and Nvidia, would need as much power to run as New York City uses at its peak in the hot summer months. And it will be built on federal land.

Where coal-fired power plants account for a portion of the local energy mix, power bills reflect the greater expense of running these facilities versus clean energy alternatives. Between 2021 and 2024, the cost of generating electricity from coal increased 28%—nearly twice the rate of inflation. Colorado has sued the Trump administration over emergency orders it used to force one of the state’s coal-fired power plants to keep running. As that lawsuit plays out, the governor earlier this month signed a bill into law that would allow utilities to receive low-interest, state-backed bonds to help pay for keeping their plants online: an effort to protect ratepayers from taking on higher power bills.

Trump’s energy policies could impact taxpayers in other ways, too. First, there’s his decision to pay off French company TotalEnergies to keep it from moving forward with building an offshore wind project off the coasts of New York and North Carolina. The deal includes paying the company nearly $1 billion, which ostensibly would come from taxpayers. Seven states are challenging the deal in court.

Then there’s the cost of the administration’s deregulations. As Grist reporter Ayurella Horn-Muller wrote earlier this month, many of the administration’s rollbacks in the energy and environmental space were tied to promises of economic benefits. Often, those benefits are squarely aimed at benefiting the oil and gas industry. But sometimes, it’s unclear who the financial winner will be.

That’s the case with the use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, a greenhouse gas used in refrigerators and AC units. Last month, Trump announced the administration would be loosening two of the Environmental Protection Agency’s refrigerant rules to save U.S. businesses and families more than $2.4 billion. Except that, economists and former EPA officials say the rollbacks are more likely to raise prices than reduce them.