Across the country, states and local governments are gearing up for massive increases in energy demand driven by growing industries and expanding economies. The Trump administration has led the charge in cutting federal red tape to unleash America’s energy potential, but that hasn’t remedied state policies driving up costs for consumers. Todd Snitchler, President and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, warns that these costs are “a clear and predictable outcome from policies that put ambitious goals ahead of operational realities.”

According to S&P Global’s RRA State Evaluation, when regulators create an unfriendly environment for natural gas utilities, consumers ultimately bear the cost. EID has taken a closer look at how these policies influence state energy markets:

Red Tape, Higher Rates

Despite natural gas’ proven track record of delivering affordable and reliable energy, some states continue to work against this vital fuel source when meeting energy needs. For example, according to S&P, Connecticut ranks among the worst regulatory environments for energy in the country out of the 53 states and territories measured.

Rate case decisions from the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) have stalled capital investment in infrastructure and long-term planning. But that’s only part of the story. On top of its burdensome regulatory climate, Connecticut tacks on heavy policy-driven costs that directly impact consumer bills.

One major contributor is the Public Benefits Charge—a mandatory line item on residential utility bills that adds up to roughly $58.70 per month per household. This charge funds everything from renewable subsidies to utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs, regardless of whether they provide meaningful savings, which leaves customers to question the utility’s role as a trusted carrier.

These price tags aren’t driven by markets; they are driven by mandates. The state’s aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) force utilities to purchase higher-cost renewable energy, often sidelining more affordable options like natural gas.

These mandates are projected to cost Connecticut ratepayers an estimated $1.5 billion through 2030, with broader economic impacts including job losses and reduced disposable income.

In comparison, states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Wisconsin offer a different approach that balances environmental goals with pragmatic infrastructure and regulatory policies. These states foster investment, keep energy infrastructure modernized, and allow for a more diverse energy mix that includes affordable natural gas. As a result, their residents enjoy significantly lower utility bills and more reliable energy access.

Connecticut’s heavy-handed regulations and rate decisions have stalled infrastructure upgrades and driven energy prices through the roof. This is a textbook example of policy failure, and ultimately, ratepayers are left to bear the burden.

Infrastructure as a Major Player
Even though natural gas prices have fallen to decade-long lows, many states still face high residential electricity bills because poor infrastructure and restrictive energy policies prevent those savings from reaching consumers.

New England is a case study. Despite sitting relatively close to the Marcellus Shale, the region suffers from limited pipeline infrastructure, thanks in part to state-level opposition to infrastructure projects. These bottlenecks mean that even when natural gas is cheap at the sources, it can’t flow to the areas that need it most, especially during peak demand.

Meanwhile, states like California are grappling with aggressive renewable mandates alongside soaring grid upgrade and wildfire mitigation costs. The state’s regulatory approach is so rigid that even modest utility investments trigger months-long reviews and layers of new mandates, further compounding high electricity prices, no matter how affordable natural gas becomes on the wholesale market.

States like Utah and Nebraska offer a clear contrast. Both have adopted pragmatic, infrastructure-first energy policies and embraced the full energy mix approach, including natural gas. With diverse local energy resources and well-developed transmission networks, these states have managed to keep electricity costs under control. As a result, both states have seen real declines in average residential electricity prices over the past decade.

This contrast serves as a powerful reminder: affordable, reliable energy isn’t accidental. It requires balanced policies, pragmatic infrastructure investment, and a full embrace of the available energy mix—including natural gas.

Bottom Line: States that partner with industry to modernize energy systems and embrace natural gas, deliver affordable, reliable energy for their communities. Those that push hostile, top-down energy mandates force their own consumers to pay the price. With energy demand only expected to grow in the years ahead, policymakers need to stop treating natural gas like a liability and start recognizing it as a key asset.