Skip to main content
← All News

Household Finance · October 13, 2026 · 2 min read

St. Louis Fed analysis finds utility burdens differ sharply by income in 2024 data

By Econ Data Tools Editorial Team

Published October 13, 2026 • Updated October 13, 2026

Reviewed by Instinct editorial QC

The October 13 analysis separates utility spending from energy hardship. Its latest observations are from 2024, not a live measure of October 2026 household bills.

A St. Louis Fed analysis published October 13 examines utility affordability by household income using 2015, 2020 and 2024 survey data. Author Michael Eggleston separates utility cost burden from energy insecurity. The publication is new, but its latest observations are from 2024 and should not be presented as current October 2026 household bills. Cost burden is utility spending as a share of pretax income, calculated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey. The utility definition includes electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, water and telephone services. It is broader than electricity alone. The analysis treats spending of at least 6% of income as burdened and at least 10% as severely burdened. For 2024, the analysis reports a median utility-spending share of 13.3% for households earning less than $40,000, compared with 2.5% for high-income households. It reports electricity alone at 5.4% and 0.8% of pretax income respectively. These differences concern budget shares, not proof that low-income households consumed more energy or paid a higher tariff. Energy insecurity comes from the Energy Information Administration Residential Energy Consumption Survey. It covers hardships such as giving up necessities, keeping homes at unsafe temperatures, disconnection notices, shutoffs or nonworking heating or cooling equipment. A household can meet this definition without having experienced every hardship or an actual shutoff. The analysis reports that energy insecurity rose between 2015 and 2024 by 8.3 percentage points for low-income households, 8.0 for moderate-income households and 7.9 for middle-income households. It describes improvements between 2015 and 2020 followed by deterioration by 2024. Suggested pandemic-relief explanations are interpretations, not a causal result established by these comparisons alone. Limits include different survey measures, older observation years and income-group thresholds that changed for middle- and high-income comparisons. The findings describe uneven household financial pressure, not a new utility-rate order, monetary-policy decision or forecast. The author says a later post will discuss assistance and efficiency approaches; this first analysis does not establish that any particular intervention has solved the burden.

Follow the data

Relevant directory links appear to be unassigned.

Sources

  • Source 1 — Submitted by the validated Drive bridge

Related News

Fed releases discount-rate minutes; September decisions are not a new October rate change

The October 13 release covers August 17, September 9 and September 16 meetings. Directors reported skilled-labor pressure, but those reports are qualitative and dated.

NFIB September optimism slips to 97.9; membership survey points to hiring and cost concerns

The October 13 report puts optimism just below its long-run average. Its 411 usable responses come from NFIB members, not a census of all U.S. businesses.

ADP weekly hiring estimate eases to 24,750 jobs for period ending September 26

The October 13 release puts the four-week average below the revised 25,250 figure for September 19. This preliminary private-payroll measure has a two-week lag and is not a BLS monthly jobs total.