As the world intensifies its push toward net-zero carbon emissions, natural gas utilities are confronting an existential dilemma: how to stay relevant in a decarbonizing economy. Once hailed as a “bridge fuel,” natural gas is increasingly under scrutiny for its climate impacts—especially methane leakage, which contributes to short-term global warming far more than CO₂.
In response, many utilities in the U.S. and Europe are rebranding themselves as partners in the energy transition. They are investing in renewable natural gas (RNG), hydrogen blending, and infrastructure modernization. Some advocate for these technologies as low-carbon pathways, while others argue this is a greenwashing strategy aimed at protecting legacy assets and deferring electrification.
This article examines the evolving role of gas in net-zero plans, compares regulatory responses in the U.S. and EU, and unpacks the tension between innovation and inertia that defines the gas utility landscape today.
Utilities across the U.S.—including major players like SoCalGas, CenterPoint, and National Grid—have begun repositioning themselves as climate solution providers. In their public statements, investor materials, and regulatory filings, the narrative has shifted from defending gas to promoting "renewable molecules."
Two technologies dominate this rebranding:
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG): Methane captured from landfills, agricultural waste, or wastewater treatment, processed to meet pipeline quality standards. Utilities claim it is carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative.
Hydrogen Blending: Mixing green or blue hydrogen (produced using renewable electricity or natural gas with carbon capture) into the gas supply to reduce carbon intensity.
For example, SoCalGas has committed to delivering 20% renewable gas by 2030, and its parent company Sempra touts RNG as a "cornerstone" of its climate strategy (SoCalGas Climate Commitment). Similarly, National Grid has piloted hydrogen blending trials in New York and Massachusetts.
But critics argue these solutions are technically limited and economically inefficient. RNG supply is inherently constrained—less than 5% of current U.S. natural gas demand could be met with existing RNG potential, according to a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (NREL RNG Report). Hydrogen blending also faces safety, compatibility, and efficiency challenges, particularly beyond 20% volume.
Governments are deeply divided on whether gas has a future in a net-zero economy. In the European Union, regulators are aggressively scrutinizing gas infrastructure and questioning continued investment in gas pipelines and distribution. The EU Taxonomy excludes natural gas from being classified as “green” unless it meets strict carbon intensity thresholds.
In countries like Germany, gas utilities are under pressure to phase out residential gas heating, with incentives and mandates favoring electric heat pumps. The REPowerEU Plan, introduced in response to both climate goals and energy security needs, aims to reduce fossil gas use by 30% by 2030 (European Commission – REPowerEU).
Meanwhile, the United States presents a more fragmented picture. While states like California and New York have moved to ban natural gas in new buildings, other states such as Texas and Oklahoma have passed “preemption laws” that prohibit cities from restricting gas hookups.
At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides tax credits for clean hydrogen and carbon capture, creating a potential lifeline for gas utilities seeking to decarbonize. But critics say these subsidies risk prolonging gas use without delivering meaningful emissions reductions.
Despite the rebranding efforts, serious obstacles remain. On the economic front, RNG and hydrogen are significantly more expensive than conventional natural gas. RNG can cost 4–7 times more, and green hydrogen production is currently around $3–$6 per kg, compared to about $1.50 per therm of natural gas. Even with subsidies, the business case is shaky—especially for low-income households and small businesses.
Technically, both RNG and hydrogen require major infrastructure upgrades. Hydrogen, in particular, is corrosive to pipelines and reduces appliance efficiency. Utilities face billions in investment costs to retrofit or replace pipelines, compressors, and meters.
And then there’s the issue of public trust. Recent high-profile gas explosions and climate litigation have eroded confidence in gas utilities. Critics argue that utilities are using climate commitments as cover to justify continued expansion and investment in fossil fuel infrastructure—investments that could become stranded assets under stringent net-zero regulations.
A 2024 report by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) concluded that gas utilities must reduce gas throughput by 30–50% by 2040 to align with national climate goals, suggesting that blending or substituting fuels won’t be enough (RMI Gas Utility Decarbonization Report).
As scrutiny intensifies, many experts argue that full electrification—rather than fuel substitution—is the most viable long-term path. Technologies such as:
are increasingly cost-effective and widely available. Studies by BloombergNEF and IEA show that electrification can reduce emissions more efficiently and cost-effectively than decarbonized gases in most applications.
Some U.S. gas utilities are beginning to pivot. Consolidated Edison in New York, for instance, has begun winding down its gas investments in favor of electrification programs and non-pipeline alternatives. Meanwhile, regional grid operators are working to ensure the electric system can handle the added load from gas-to-electric conversions.
The future may lie in hybrid systems, where gas utilities evolve into multi-energy providers offering heat pumps, backup generators, storage, and grid services. But this transformation requires a fundamental shift in business models, regulatory frameworks, and stakeholder engagement.
The role of natural gas in a net-zero world is not binary—but it is narrowing. While RNG and hydrogen may play niche roles in hard-to-electrify sectors like aviation or heavy industry, their use in buildings and power generation is increasingly difficult to justify on climate and economic grounds.
Utilities that embrace transparency, innovation, and electrification can become key players in a cleaner energy system. Those that cling to outdated infrastructure and questionable offsets risk regulatory backlash, stranded assets, and loss of public trust.
The race is on—not just to decarbonize gas, but to redefine what a gas utility is in a net-zero future.
References
Over 200 companies are quietly pausing or revising their SBTi targets in 2025. This article investigates whether this trend reflects a strategic ESG recalibration amid regulatory pressure, scope 3 complexity, and greenhushing concerns—or signals a broader shift in corporate climate accountability.
