The original op-ed by Christian Perkins was published on AL.com.
Last year, electricity bills for Alabama homeowners and businesses rose by over 6%, an above-average increase relative to other states in the nation. In 2026, Alabamians will likely see further price hikes, especially as developers seek rural land to construct new, power-hungry data centers. Combined with global oil and gas supply disruptions, next year’s increase could be even larger.
High electricity bills, or “energy burdens,” mean Alabamians spend less on consumer goods and services, constraining already tight local and state economies. The consequences are most severe for lower-income households, where the choice to pay for electricity can mean children missing a meal or losing access to high-quality childcare.
Alabama’s elected leaders have already acknowledged the problem. Last year, Governor Ivey signed the Powering Growth Act into law, establishing the Alabama Energy Infrastructure Bank, a state-backed financing vehicle authorized to issue up to $1 billion in bonds for energy infrastructure projects. The bank’s stated purpose is to expand Alabama’s energy capacity, strengthen supply chains, and position Alabama competitively for industrial investment.
That’s a worthy ambition. But as currently structured, the bank is not designed to do the one thing Alabamians most urgently need: lower their energy bills.
The AEIB was built to serve economic developers, not energy consumers. Eligible projects are those tied to industrial sites approved by the State Industrial Development Authority or qualifying for economic development incentives, and the money is earmarked specifically for transmission equipment to get electricity to development sites, not power generating facilities. In other words, the bank is a recruiting tool for big business. This is a missed opportunity.
Across the country, states have deployed similar financing vehicles, commonly called “green banks”, with a fundamentally different tilt. Rather than subsidizing grid buildout for industrial tenants, green banks finance distributed energy projects that serve local offtakers, which often include rooftop solar systems for churches, building efficiency upgrades on community-based nonprofits, and battery storage systems that provide firm power to at-risk communities. Maryland’s Clean Energy Center, for example, finances projects from its Climate Catalytic Capital Fund, initially seeded with $15 million in state funds. Georgia, Illinois, and Connecticut have built similar institutions. In fact, Alabama is one of the only states in the union without a quasi-public green bank. These banks attract large inflows of private capital, create local jobs, and reduce utility bills for the households and small businesses they serve. Alabama’s AEIB could do the same. The legislative framework is there. The bond issuance authority is there. What’s missing is a clear directive that a meaningful share of the bank’s capital must flow to distributed, consumer-serving energy projects, not just transmission lines built for the next data center.
The argument for this reorientation is rooted in economics, not ideology. Energy independence, not just grid expansion for out-of-state corporations, means Alabama families and businesses generating and storing their own power locally, protecting themselves from utility rate increases and global supply shocks. Every community solar project that sells electricity at a discount is money staying in Alabama communities rather than flowing to shareholders.
As written, the AEIB also misses a revenue generating opportunity that would grow the state’s budget. At their core, green banks are revolving loan funds, meaning that, when structured correctly, they deploy capital at a return, recycle proceeds into new deals, and build equity for the public over time. Maryland, Connecticut, and New York have each demonstrated that green banks can be self-sustaining and even profitable over a ten-year horizon, generating returns for state treasuries without ongoing legislative appropriations. Alabama’s bank, by contrast, is structured primarily around bond issuance tied to specific industrial projects, a financing model that does not naturally lend itself to recycling capital or building a durable public balance sheet.
None of this requires starting over. The legislature could direct the AEIB to allocate a defined percentage of annual financing to distributed energy projects serving residential and small commercial customers. It could require that financed projects demonstrate a measurable reduction in utility costs for Alabama ratepayers. It could also empower the bank to partner with the state’s rural electric cooperatives, which serve large swaths of the state and are uniquely positioned to deploy community-scale solar and storage at low cost.
An energy bank that finances grid infrastructure for the next Amazon warehouse while working families pay more each year for electricity is not energy independence. It’s energy policy for corporate benefit. Alabama lawmakers were right to build this institution, but now they should finish the job.