The Burrow
Dec 10, 2025
As the Christmas season draws near, streets begin to glow, homes light up and businesses prepare their festive displays. For many, these bright decorations are a highlight of the holidays, a way to bring communities together and create a little magic during the long nights of December. Yet behind every sparkling rooftop and glowing front yard sits a practical question that most people never stop to consider: what does it actually cost to keep all those lights shining?
In 2025, that answer varies widely depending on where you live. While electricity prices and household incomes shape the cost of running Christmas lights, the visibility of festive lighting and the level of cultural engagement also reveal how strongly different regions embrace the season. Some places create bright, widespread displays with little financial strain, while others show their Christmas spirit despite higher energy costs.
To understand these differences, the energy comparison experts at Compare the Market created a detailed index measuring both the financial and cultural investment behind Christmas lights. The index combines three equally weighted factors: December nighttime brightness, the cost of powering a typical household display as a percentage of weekly income, and public interest based on annual Google search activity for Christmas light related terms. Together, these measures reveal where Christmas spirit shines brightest and where festive displays come at a greater cost.
Let’s start with the countries where running Christmas lights places the smallest strain on household budgets. These countries combine stronger incomes with lower electricity costs, making festive lighting far more accessible for residents.
Despite its reputation as one of the world’s most expensive countries to live in, Norway is surprisingly affordable when it comes to Christmas lighting. With incomes above US$98,000 and electricity at US$0.155 per kWh, households need only spend around 0.04% of their weekly income to power a festive display.
What makes Norway especially interesting, however, is the contrast between behaviour and enthusiasm. Norwegians also show the highest search interest among the five most affordable countries, with 1,920 Christmas-light queries per 100,000 people; yet satellite data reveals only moderate December brightness. With a final index score of 67.41, just outside the global top three, Norway proves that even where festive lighting is highly affordable, many residents still prefer to keep displays modest.
The United States offers both affordability and one of the most enthusiastic festive cultures in the world. With an average annual income of US$83,660, the highest outside Europe in this dataset, and relatively low electricity costs at US$0.182 per kWh, the average household spends only 0.05% of its weekly income to run Christmas lights.
The US also records the brightest Christmas illumination globally and more than 1,700 Christmas-light searches per 100,000 people, highlighting its strong cultural attachment to holiday décor. This combination places the US in first place on the Christmas Lighting Index with a score of 85.48, showing that Americans don’t just enjoy affordable lighting, they fully maximise it.
Iceland blends strong income levels with comparatively low lighting costs, allowing households to run festive lights for only 0.05% of their weekly income. Electricity sits at US$0.172 per kWh, while the average annual income exceeds US$78,000, creating a favourable financial environment for holiday displays. Although its index score of 52.32 sits below other top performers, largely due to lower light pollution and search interest, Iceland’s affordability makes it one of the easiest places in Europe to enjoy Christmas lighting without significant expense.
Canada combines some of the lowest electricity prices in our top five countries with bright festive illumination. Energy costs sit at just US$0.123 per kWh, and with average incomes of US$53,340, the cost of Christmas light displays requires only 0.06% of weekly earnings. With an index score of 66.03, Canada remains one of the most cost-effective places to light up the season, reflected in its consistently bright night skies during December.
Rounding out the top five is Luxembourg, where high living standards make festive lighting surprisingly accessible despite higher electricity prices. With one of the highest annual incomes globally at around US$91,470, households spend only 0.07% of their weekly earnings to power a standard Christmas display. Though its index score of 36.55 is lower than other top performers, driven by lower search interest (98 searches per 100k) and overall radiance (10.75), Luxembourg still offers strong affordability for households wanting to illuminate their homes during December.
While some countries can light up their festive season without much financial strain, others face steep costs due to low incomes, high electricity prices, or both. These bottom five countries reveal how economic pressure and energy costs can significantly dampen Christmas lighting traditions – even in places where festive culture runs deep.
Renowned for having the longest Christmas season in the world, with celebrations beginning as early as September, the Philippines places immense cultural importance on the festive period. Yet despite this enthusiasm, the data shows how costly it can be for households to illuminate their celebrations. With average annual incomes of just US$4,470 and electricity priced at US$0.204 per kWh, running even a modest display requires 1.14% of weekly income, the highest of any country analysed.
These financial pressures contribute to the Philippines’ low index score of 7.94, highlighting how challenging it is for many households to power the Christmas glow the country is so passionate about.
Jamaica faces a similar affordability hurdle. With incomes averaging US$6,490 and electricity costing US$0.285 per kWh, the cost of Christmas lights accounts for 1.10% of weekly earnings. This is one of the highest energy burdens recorded among the bottom five countries and contributes to Jamaica receiving the lowest index score globally at just 5.57. Although Jamaica has a vibrant festive culture, the combination of low incomes and high electricity prices makes larger Christmas displays difficult for many households to sustain.
South Africa’s placement in the bottom five is driven by a combination of low earnings and high electricity costs. With an annual income of US$6,100 and electricity priced at US$0.192 per kWh, running Christmas lights requires around 0.79% of weekly income, a significant household expense. Paired with limited search demand and lower brightness levels, South Africa’s index score of 21.28 reflects the reality that festive lighting remains financially out of reach for many families.
India’s festive season is rich with cultural celebrations, yet Christmas lighting remains comparatively expensive for many households. With the lowest average annual income in the entire dataset at just US$2,650, even relatively low electricity prices of US$0.077 per kWh result in Christmas lights consuming 0.73% of weekly income. Its index score of 27.61 reflects both this financial barrier and the lower national emphasis on Christmas lighting compared with countries where the holiday is more culturally central.
Colombia rounds out the bottom five, but its profile differs from other low-affordability countries. With an average annual income of US$7,040 and electricity priced at US$0.202 per kWh, powering a small festive display still requires 0.72% of weekly income. Despite this, Colombia records the highest Christmas night-time brightness and the strongest search demand of any country in the bottom five. This cultural enthusiasm helps lift Colombia’s final index score to 34.75, noticeably higher than its peers, even though the financial burden of Christmas lighting remains a significant challenge for many households.
The cost of running Christmas lights differs widely across Europe, and some of the highest festive burdens fall on households in North Macedonia, Albania, and Czechia.
North Macedonia faces the greatest challenge, with modest annual incomes of US$8,360 and festive lighting consuming 0.38% of weekly income, making Christmas displays noticeably more expensive for many households. Albania experiences similar pressure. Despite relatively moderate electricity prices, low household earnings of US$8,690 push Christmas lighting to 0.34% of weekly income, limiting how much families can comfortably illuminate their homes. Czechia, by contrast, has much stronger incomes at US$29,140, yet still ranks among the least affordable due to having one of Europe’s highest electricity prices at US$0.353 per kWh. As a result, festive lighting accounts for around 0.30% of weekly income.
Their position within Europe highlights the continental divide: festive illumination is far more affordable in many northern and western European homes, and for families in parts of southeastern and central Europe, it remains a more meaningful financial consideration.
Having explored how Christmas-light affordability varies around the world, how do things look closer to home?
Australia ranks thirteenth globally for affordability, but the picture becomes far more varied when you break it down state by state. Some regions enjoy relatively accessible festive lighting costs, while others pay double the share of their weekly income for the same festive setup. Ranked from most affordable to least, here’s how each state performs:
Western Australia sits at the top largely due to having high household incomes (AU$106,043), which helps offset mid-range electricity costs. Australian Capital Territory and Victoria also benefit from strong annual earnings and competitive energy prices, making festive lighting comparatively accessible.
New South Wales, however, faces some of the highest electricity prices in the country at AU$0.5959 per kWh, pushing it toward the less affordable end of the scale. Finally, South Australia ranks last due to a high residential electricity cost (AU$0.5752 per kWh), which significantly drives up festive lighting expenses alongside lower income rates.
Although the United States is one of the most affordable countries in the world for running Christmas lights overall, state-by-state affordability varies widely due to differences in electricity pricing, income levels and festive engagement. Ranked from most affordable to least, the US states with the lowest and highest share of weekly income spent on Christmas lighting are:
Most affordable states
Least affordable states
Incidentally, the most affordable states are clustered in the West and Midwest, where electricity remains comparatively cheap, and incomes sit comfortably above the national midpoint. Idaho in particular benefits from the lowest electricity cost in the entire dataset at US$0.1207 per kWh, keeping festive lighting inexpensive even with mid-range household incomes. Nevada also strongly performs thanks to one of the lowest electricity rates nationally, reflected in boasting the brightest festive illumination – recorded at 100.02.
At the other end of the spectrum, Hawaii faces the greatest affordability challenge. Despite high incomes (US$95,322), it has the steepest electricity price in the country at US$0.389 per kWh, pushing lighting costs to the top of the national range. Maine shares the same affordability level, but for the opposite reason: lower incomes combined with above average electricity costs.
Meanwhile, California, Connecticut and New York all sit at 0.08% of weekly income. Their elevated electricity prices and dense urban living push up the cost of running festive displays. Yet cultural interest remains strong, particularly in California and New York, where search demand and night-time brightness rank among the highest nationwide. States such as Alaska, Rhode Island and Massachusetts also made the list.
Overall, the results reveal a clear divide. Inland states benefit from low electricity prices and manageable running costs, while coastal states face a much higher financial barrier even though festive enthusiasm remains just as strong.
As Christmas lights begin to glow around the world, the data makes one thing clear: the cost of creating festive magic varies widely. Some households can illuminate their homes with ease, while others face noticeably higher electricity bills that make even modest displays a meaningful expense. No matter where you live, those costs can build quickly over the holiday season.
Compare the Market Australia’s Head of Energy, Meredith O’Brien, says: “Festive lighting should bring joy, not unexpected bill stress. With electricity prices rising in many regions, energy comparison services can help keep seasonal costs manageable, ensuring households can enjoy the celebrations without financial surprises.”
For anyone looking to stay prepared this Christmas, exploring your options through Compare the Market’s energy comparison service can provide valuable peace of mind and help keep your celebrations bright.
To measure the energy cost and cultural investment behind Christmas lights in 2025, our index blends three equally weighted factors:
Scoring and Standardisation
Each factor was normalised on a zero to one scale.
Final index scores reflect a balanced combination of brightness, affordability, and cultural participation.
Higher scores indicate regions where residents invest the most financially or culturally in festive lighting.
All data correct as of 18.11.25.
Disclaimer
This index was created for comparative and editorial purposes. Values represent indicative estimates of festive lighting affordability, brightness, and public engagement, rather than exact measurements of household energy use. Differences in data coverage, reporting frequency, or geographic definitions may affect rankings. Results should be viewed as a snapshot of the cost and culture of Christmas spirit worldwide.
Sources
To view the 2022 version of this piece, click here.