Attorneys general warn that broader blanket authority could leave ratepayers paying for unnecessary infrastructure
FERC is considering changes that would allow more natural gas projects to move forward without a separate, case-specific approval.
Supporters say faster permitting could reduce delays and improve reliability; 15 attorneys general warn that reduced oversight could expose customers to unnecessary costs and environmental risks.
With electricity prices and demand rising, the debate centers on how to build needed infrastructure quickly while protecting ratepayers and communities.
A coalition of 15 state attorneys general is asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reconsider a proposal that would make it easier for natural gas companies to expand or modify existing facilities. The dispute comes as households across the country face higher electricity costs and policymakers debate how to build energy infrastructure faster without weakening oversight.
FERC’s proposal would expand its blanket certificate program, which allows certain projects involving previously approved pipelines, storage facilities and other natural gas infrastructure to move forward without a separate, full certificate proceeding. The program would reduce delays for work at existing sites, helping companies add capacity and respond more quickly to growing energy demand.
The attorneys general, led by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, contend that the program could allow larger and more consequential projects to receive less scrutiny. The coalition includes California, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
A debate over speed, cost and oversight
The central question is how much review should be required when a company proposes new work within an existing natural gas system. FERC and industry supporters see the blanket certificate process as a way to avoid repeating parts of a review for infrastructure and rights-of-way that have already been examined; opponents say even an expansion at an established site can create new costs, safety concerns and environmental effects.
The attorneys general have framed their objection as a ratepayer protection issue. They argue that faster federal approval does not necessarily establish that a project is needed or that its costs are reasonable, particularly if a utility later seeks to recover those costs from customers.
Supporters contend that lengthy permitting can increase construction costs, discourage investment and delay infrastructure that may be needed to maintain reliable service, especially in regions where constrained natural gas supplies can contribute to sharp price increases during periods of high demand.
The policy fight is unfolding against a difficult backdrop for consumers. Federal data show that electricity prices have increased substantially in a number of the states represented in the coalition, including California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia. Those increases have become a central argument for expanding energy infrastructure.
The regional picture is also uneven. California and much of New England continue to report some of the nation’s highest electricity prices, while Washington and Oregon remain below several Northeast states despite recent increases. New Mexico, which did not join the coalition and is a major oil and natural gas producer, has experienced more modest long-term growth in electricity prices, though its energy mix and market conditions differ from those of the coastal states cited in the debate.
The affordability equation
Natural gas remains an important source of electricity and home heating in much of the country, including the Northeast. When pipeline capacity is tight, utilities and power generators face higher fuel costs and those expenses can reach consumers through electric bills.
Additional infrastructure can help address those constraints, but projects can also require major capital investment that customers may ultimately help finance. The affordability question therefore extends beyond whether a project is approved quickly; it also includes whether the project is necessary, whether a lower-cost alternative exists and how financial risk is divided between shareholders and ratepayers.
Environmental review is another part of that calculation. State officials and community groups argue that expansions can affect air quality, land, water and nearby neighborhoods even when they occur within an existing system. Project developers counter that work at established facilities can often be completed with fewer impacts than construction at an entirely new site.
What happens next
FERC will have to decide whether the blanket certificate program can be expanded while maintaining sufficient safeguards for customers and affected communities. Options could include project-size limits, clearer need standards, stronger notice requirements or additional review for proposals with significant costs or environmental effects.
The outcome will matter beyond the immediate political dispute. Electricity demand is rising in many regions as data centers, manufacturing and electrification place new pressure on the grid; at the same time, families and businesses are asking public officials to control costs and maintain reliable service.
Sources:
Attorneys General of Washington, Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont, & the District of Columbia. (2026, July 27). Motion to intervene and comments: Revisions to the blanket certificate program (Docket No. RM25-12-001). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/20260727commentsblanketcertificatenopr.pdf
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (2026, May 27). Revisions to the blanket certificate program (Docket No. RM25-12-001) [Notice of proposed rulemaking]. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2026-10498
Turner, D. (2026, August 6). This is what blue state AGs are doing to jack up your energy bill. The Daily Wire. https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-is-what-blue-state-ags-are-doing-to-jack-up-your-energy-bill
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2026, July 23). Electric Power Monthly: May 2026. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
