Northeastern Governors Turn to Natural Gas as California Keeps Trying to Shut It

In a development rich with political irony, several Northeastern Democratic governors are moving toward a more pragmatic energy posture, one that makes room for natural gas and other dispatchable resources, even as California’s political class continues to treat natural gas as a villain to be regulated, restricted, or banned. The shift is not a rejection of renewables. It is an admission that affordability and reliability still matter, and that slogans do not keep the lights on.

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey offered one of the clearest examples this month. Her administration announced a major energy initiative directing the state to pursue 10 gigawatts of new energy resources by 2035, paired with a large energy storage target, under what her office and supporting coverage described as an “all-of-the-above” strategy. That approach includes solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, and notably, gas. Just as important, the order specifically calls for a review of existing gas and oil storage capacity and of how the Everett LNG import terminal contributes to regional supply and grid reliability. In short, Massachusetts is not pretending intermittent resources alone can solve an affordability crisis. It is broadening the menu because the real world has entered the chat.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has made a similar and even more explicit turn toward energy realism. In a March 20 op-ed published by her office, Hochul said New York cannot meet its 2030 climate targets without imposing “crushing costs” on residents and businesses. She cited state analysis estimating that compliance would add more than $4,000 per year for upstate oil-and-natural-gas households, roughly $2,300 more for New York City natural gas households, and another $2.23 per gallon at the pump. She also acknowledged that New York has retired more fossil-fuel generation than it has replaced with renewables, and warned that the state’s grid operator is projecting possible shortages, particularly downstate. Her response was not to double down on fantasy. It was to call for changes to the law and an all-of-the-above energy approach that includes other needed power sources beyond renewables alone.

That is the larger point California policymakers should not miss. In blue states that have been among the nation’s most aggressive on climate policy, elected leaders are now being forced to admit that energy policy cannot be built on aspiration alone. Reliability matters. Dispatchable generation matters. Fuel diversity matters. Affordability matters. And when utility bills rise and reserve margins shrink, natural gas suddenly becomes less of an ideological target and more of an indispensable tool.

Meanwhile, California continues marching in the opposite direction. Cities like Morgan Hill and Petaluma adopted local ordinances restricting natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new buildings, prompting federal litigation earlier this year. This week, the federal government dropped those suits only after the cities repealed the ordinances. That sequence should have been a warning shot. Instead, California’s governing culture still too often treats natural gas as a political problem to be eradicated, rather than an affordable and reliable energy source that millions of families and businesses still depend on every day.

For California, the irony is impossible to miss. While progressive activists here continue trying to sideline natural gas in homes, buildings, and the broader energy system, Democratic governors in the Northeast are quietly making room for it because their residents cannot afford ideological energy shortages. The lesson is plain enough for anyone willing to see it: when governing meets arithmetic, natural gas survives. California is not leading the nation toward some enlightened energy future. At the moment, it is leading itself into a ditch.