Integrated gas and electric planning could lower bills

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated: 25 August 2026

Integrated gas and electric planning aligns the assumptions that gas and electric utility divisions use so investments do not duplicate one another and push up customer bills. Current Energy Group and Advanced Energy United identify misaligned forecasts at National Grid’s Niagara Mohawk territory as an example: the electric arm forecasts over 30,000 more heat pump installs by 2030 than the gas arm assumes, and the gas business plans roughly 15,000 more customers to serve under a lower-electrification view. Brad Cebulko and Sarah Steinberg wrote this analysis for Utility Dive and argue coordinated forecasting and shared data can reduce needless infrastructure spending.

shifting the paradigm of distinct and separate ‘gas and electric’ planning and investment to a single ‘energy delivery’ paradigm;

Central Hudson Gas & Electric

How conflicting forecasts translate into higher bills

When a single company runs separate gas and electric planning teams with different load assumptions, the mismatch can create overlapping capital programs. In Niagara Mohawk territory the electric arm projects more than 30,000 additional heat pump installs by 2030; the gas arm does not incorporate that same level of electrification. The Current Energy Group analysis flagged this gap and estimated that, if the gas business used the electric forecast, it would plan to serve about 15,000 fewer customers than it currently includes in its budgets.

That difference matters because utilities recover infrastructure costs from ratepayers. National Grid’s gas unit plans roughly $550 million of spending through 2029 to support customer growth that may not materialize under a higher-electrification trajectory. Those investments, if underutilized or stranded, increase per-customer delivery charges and push up the roughly $300-per-year bill increase the analysis projects for the combined gas and electric customer by the end of 2027.

Why utility incentives and siloed models persist

Separate profit centres and legacy regulatory rules help explain the divergence. A utility that earns returns on capital has an incentive to justify pipeline or distribution upgrades; a parallel electric division that expects rapid electrification has a countervailing need to add wires and generation to serve new loads. The two forecasts can therefore drift apart even within the same corporate structure.

Siloed planning also limits data visibility. Integrated planning requires shared datasets and aligned forecasting methods so planners compare the same consumer adoption scenarios, such as heat pump rollouts or building electrification rates, before committing funds. The five core components of the integrated approach are procedural alignment, data sharing, aligned forecasting, least-cost alternatives identification, and coordinated investments.

What integrated gas and electric planning would change

Integrated gas and electric planning forces both sides to start from the same demand picture and to evaluate non-pipeline alternatives before committing capital. That means comparing distributed energy resources, demand management and targeted electrification policies against traditional pipeline or wire builds to identify the least-cost solution for ratepayers.

Done correctly, the approach reduces duplicative spending, lowers the risk of stranded assets and improves reliability by revealing system interdependencies ahead of extreme weather. Several New York utilities have begun iterations of this work: Consolidated Edison published an Integrated Long-Range Vision; Central Hudson Gas & Electric described a shift toward a single ‘energy delivery’ paradigm; and National Grid is piloting gas-electric collaboration.

New York’s policy window and the national signal

New York’s 2025 Energy Plan explicitly calls for proactive, long-term integrated planning that favors alternatives to new pipelines and programs to curb demand, and it recommends reform of the Public Service Commission to align regulation with that model. A bill pending in the State Senate, SB 5995, would ask the PSC to take on integrated planning; the bill remains pending and would standardize early efforts if enacted.

The Current Energy Group and Advanced Energy United authors argue the New York case is a template. If regulators require aligned forecasting and make non-pipeline alternatives central to decision-making, utilities will have less latitude to justify spending that duplicates capacity across gas and electric systems. That, in turn, is the mechanism by which ratepayer costs tied to delivery and infrastructure — already a dominant share of heating and electric bills in the state — can be reduced.

Outlook — how integrated planning could play out

The bottom line

The New York case shows how misaligned utility forecasts can convert planning disagreements into tangible costs: overlapping capacity programs and preemptive spending shift bill pressure onto households already under strain. Integrated gas and electric planning addresses the root mechanism by aligning assumptions, sharing data and evaluating non-pipeline alternatives before committing capital. Whether the approach lowers rates depends on regulators and legislators setting common forecasting standards and enforcing data transparency; without that, the incentives that favour larger rate bases are likely to keep forecasts apart and bills higher.

What to watch

• Watch for New York State Senate action on SB 5995; no date has been set.
• Watch for any PSC rulemaking on integrated gas and electric planning following the 2025 Energy Plan; no date has been set.
• Watch National Grid’s piloting reports for non-pipeline alternatives and any filings that update the projected $550 million spending plan through 2029; no public date has been set.