Natural Gas Gets A Political Jolt—But Pipeline Gaps Risk The Payoff

President Trump’s July 4th signing of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” delivered a political jolt to fossil fuels—complete with sweeping tax incentives and expanded access to federal lands. But while the law spotlights natural gas as a clean, reliable workhorse, it may overpromise and underdeliver without infrastructure to match.

Natural gas already fuels 43% of the U.S. grid, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration, and plays a critical balancing role alongside renewables. Yet, the bill pares back support for wind and solar projects that typically complement gas plants—potentially leaving the grid more exposed, not less.

The political message was clear: fossil fuels are back. But the impact this will have on the market—and the grid—isn’t quite as clear. Without new pipelines, faster permitting, and support from clean energy partners, the strategy will increase volatility rather than stability, especially as electricity demand rises and coal plants continue to retire.

“The purported rivalry between natural gas and renewables is often greatly overstated because there is a lot of collaboration there,” says Dustin Meyer, a senior vice president at the American Petroleum Institute. He spoke earlier this month at a virtual press event hosted by the United States Energy Association, where I participated as a panelist, asking questions.

For nearly two decades, natural gas has powered the country’s electric grid, replacing coal and ramping up when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. It has long been considered a “bridge fuel” to a renewable future. But that cleaner future is now in doubt because the new law has withdrawn the incentives to build sustainable energy plants—ones that work in tandem with natural gas units that back them up.

This matters for gas, which increasingly relies on renewables to stabilize the grid and promote itself as clean. Undermining green energy growth removes one of gas’s most important allies—and, paradoxically, could constrain its future.

But Trump’s rollback of clean energy incentives comes amid strong backing from the fossil fuel industry, which contributed more than $74 million to his 2024 campaign, according to OpenSecrets. The new law phases out wind and solar tax credits for projects starting after June 2026 and rescinds billions in climate-related investments authorized under President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Princeton University’s REPEAT Project estimates that the rollback alone could reduce future clean power capacity by over 70,000 megawatts—roughly enough to power 50 million homes.

A Fragile Victory for Natural Gas

And while fossil fuels gained new financial incentives, natural gas didn’t get the one thing it arguably needs most: infrastructure.

Pipeline bottlenecks and sluggish permitting have already hampered the ability to deliver gas where it’s needed—especially as coal plants are phased out and we continue to decarbonize. According to the Department of Energy, U.S. pipeline capacity is projected to grow by just 38 to 42 billion cubic feet per day between 2015 and 2030—about a third of the pace seen in the 15 years before.

“The permitting process is fundamentally broken,” says Meyer. “It’s impacting oil, gas, and renewables—infrastructure across the board.”

Even successful projects illustrate the problem. A long-delayed Columbia Gas Transmission pipeline expansion in West Virginia just won final approval in June—eight years after it was first proposed. Climate is the chief concern. Environmentally-friendly plans are on the drawing board, but so far, many ideas remain elusive.

The long-term outlook for gas also depends on how quickly emerging technologies mature. If green hydrogen, utility-scale batteries, or next-generation nuclear become cost-competitive, natural gas could face stiff competition not just from renewables, but from cleaner, dispatchable alternatives.

“People are looking at CCS and hydrogen-ready designs to future-proof gas plants,” Michael Caravaggio of the Electric Power Research Institute said at the USEA event, referring to carbon capture and hydrogen integration as possible ways to square gas with climate goals. Still, he admitted, the transition is anything but simple.

The federal push for natural gas also clashes with more ambitious domestic and international climate agendas.

In California, for example, natural gas still powers more than half the grid—but the state is working to cut emissions by 48% by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2045. That goal is likely incompatible with a long-term reliance on gas, says Austin Hastings, PG&E’s vice president of gas engineering.

“California is going to flatly reject anything that comes from the federal government labeling natural gas as green,” Hastings said. “Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, but the state is going to look at it as a fossil fuel.”

Global Leaders Push Back On New Gas Policies

Globally, the signals are just as mixed. The European Union aims to slash fossil fuel use by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. Even as it imports American liquefied natural gas to offset the loss of Russian supplies, many countries on the continent—such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands—are scaling up wind, solar, and battery storage. Local protests frequently stall new gas projects.

Branko Milicevic, with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, captured the dilemma in blunt terms at the press event, referring to the ways that Germany is scaling back projects related to nuclear power, coal, and Russian gas.

“They’ve settled on natural gas as good,” Milicevic said, at least as a temporary solution. “Now, whether it’s green, I don’t say. But it’s simply the only choice—and the only rational choice.”

The irony of Trump’s energy strategy is that it strengthens natural gas politically while weakening the clean energy system that helps make it viable.

Globally, investors are betting big on renewables. According to the International Energy Agency, clean energy investment is projected to hit $2.2 trillion this year—more than double what’s going into fossil fuels. These aren’t just good business bets; they’re climate imperatives.

Natural gas, meanwhile, might be better served by embracing its role as a partner with renewables, not their competitor—at least as far as the electricity sector is concerned.

But without new pipelines—and renewable energy sources to help offset its emissions—the global gas boom could sputter out. That would undermine both economic growth and climate goals. Worse, it could make the U.S. grid more brittle and more dependent on aging fossil fuel systems.

“My job is to maintain a reliable system, and natural gas plays a vital role,” Rudy Garza, CEO of CPS Energy in San Antonio, told the audience. “But the people who put pressure on us to decarbonize aren’t going to buy the renewable nature of natural gas.”

The U.S. has now placed a major bet on natural gas. But without pipeline investment, permitting reform, and a coordinated clean energy strategy, this approach could backfire—exposing the grid to greater fragility and leaving utilities with limited long-term fuel strategies.

That’s like building a bridge without guardrails. And without such protections, the road ahead may be more dangerous than advertised.