There’s an old saying in politics: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” After years of watching families struggle under soaring energy bills, leaders in some of America’s most expensive states are finally putting down the shovels and looking for a ladder out.
Better late than never.
Connecticut’s Governor Ned Lamont now publicly embraces practical energy policies as a solution to some of the nation’s highest electricity prices. New York—long an opponent of natural gas infrastructure—has granted the Iroquois pipeline the air permits needed for expansion. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey is calling for a comprehensive, line-by-line review of what’s driving energy costs higher for residents.
These aren’t just welcome developments—they’re evidence that political reality has finally caught up with physical reality. When Connecticut pays $0.30 per kilowatt-hour, California hits $0.31/kWh, and New York families face $340 billion in policy-driven cost increases—equivalent to $7,000 per person annually for 25 years—electoral consequences become unavoidable.
The Cost of Ideology Over Outcomes
The question now is whether these policy awakenings will lead to genuine reform or merely cosmetic changes that preserve the status quo while families continue to suffer.
The evidence is clear on what drives high costs. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory research demonstrates that states with policies aggressively opposing natural gas infrastructure while mandating more expensive generation technologies experience electricity prices 15-30% higher than states maintaining fuel diversity.
This is an important finding because it is evidence that policies – not individual actors – are cost drivers. Bear this in mind as you hear anti-business activists and certain elected officials blame AI data centers for cost increases. Equally, remember this when the same elected officials who supported policies limiting cost-effective energy sources claim they will work to reduce prices.
We are hearing these noises from some of the bigger markets in the country. In PJM—the large power grid manager serving 65 million Americans—capacity prices jumped nearly 10 times higher for 2025-26, adding $12.5 billion in costs flowing to consumers. Of course, the Independent Market Monitor that oversees PJM blames data centers when there is evidence that the price hikes are a contagion of restrictive energy policies from certain states being socialized into higher prices across the entire market, not to mention some serious questions about market design.
The Real Test: Will Policy Actually Change?
Recognition of the problem is one thing. Fixing it requires political courage that runs counter to years of established positions and the activist groups that helped bring them to life.
Here’s what genuine reform looks like—not just talk, but action:
Stop blocking critical infrastructure. The Access Northeast pipeline—killed by regulatory delays—would have saved New England residents $1 billion in electricity costs while powering up to 5 million homes. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline cancellation eliminated enough capacity for 7.6 million homes. These aren’t abstract policy debates—they were decisions that locked in higher costs for families.
Eliminate restrictions on reliable generation. Twelve states—including California, New York, and Massachusetts—currently prohibit new nuclear construction. At the exact moment AI and data centers push electricity demand toward 11-12% of total U.S. consumption by 2030, these states ban a proven, emissions-free, baseload power source.
Provide transparency on policy-imposed costs. Connecticut’s Public Benefits Charge adds more than $1 billion annually to ratepayer bills. Massachusetts Governor Healey recognizes that citizens deserve to know exactly what policies cost them. Every state with high energy prices should provide line-by-line accounting of what legislative mandates add to bills—then justify each one or eliminate it.
Learn from states that prioritize affordability. While some states struggle with electricity costs exceeding $0.30/kWh, others maintain prices below $0.10/kWh. States like Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota embrace fuel diversity, streamline permitting, and prioritize reliability and affordability. They recognize that energy abundance enables everything else a state wants to achieve.
What Comes Next
To leaders in high-cost states finally acknowledging these realities: we welcome the recognition because your citizens are suffering. But recognition without action is fixes nothing.
Will we embrace genuine reform that prioritizes affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy? Or will we tinker at the margins, blame regulators and utilities, and hope voters don’t notice that the fundamental policies driving high costs remain unchanged?
The ladder out of this hole exists. The only question is whether we’ll climb it.