When Kristy Hallowell’s gas service was shut off in Greenwood Lake, New York, the consequences were immediate and punishing. After her monthly energy bill surged to nearly $1,800, Hallowell, who was unemployed at the time, fell behind on the payment.

She, her two children, and her mother spent six months without gas service, relying on a generator to heat and power their home, according to the BBC. Nearly $3,000 in utility debt still hangs over the family as winter approaches again. Hallowell’s story is often framed as personal hardship or an unavoidable side effect of energy markets.

But a new report makes the case that her experience reflects a broader, policy-driven failure that is quietly inflating energy bills across the country.

The report from Americans For Prosperity details a 21 percent increase in electricity prices between 2020 and 2024, including a four percent increase from 2023 to 2024 alone. While fuel prices, weather, and inflation all play a role, the report argues that a major, underappreciated driver of higher bills is America’s broken energy permitting system.

Rising electricity demand and infrastructure backlogs have increased costs for Americans, leading to increased pressure on lawmakers and governors in a movement referred to as energy permitting reform. Bipartisan proposals like the SPEED Act are moving through legislatures, along with support from industry stakeholders calling for reforms to get projects built faster.

Electricity demand is rising rapidly as homes, vehicles, and appliances electrify and as AI data centers add enormous new loads to the grid. Demand is projected to grow annually over the next decade and to roughly double by 2050, according to the report. Under normal circumstances, new generation and transmission would follow that demand. Instead, supply is being stifled by years-long approval processes.

The report reviewed 30 major energy projects across Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia and found that every one suffered permitting delays. Many were delayed four to five years, several for more than a decade, and the longest for as long as 17 years. Six projects were canceled outright, while others remain stalled in regulatory limbo. These delays affect fossil fuel projects, renewable energy projects, transmission lines, pipelines, and even critical mineral mines, undermining grid reliability and energy affordability across the board.

Permitting delays function as a hidden inflation tax, raising consumer prices by increasing unavoidable, system-wide costs. When projects are delayed or canceled, supply fails to keep pace with demand, putting upward pressure on prices. Older, less efficient infrastructure remains in service longer, raising operating costs. Transmission bottlenecks prevent cheaper power from reaching high-demand areas. Utilities incur legal fees, compliance costs, and financing expenses during prolonged approval processes, and regulators frequently allow those costs to be passed on to ratepayers. Even projects that never get built leave behind sunk costs that ultimately show up in higher bills.

>>>READ: Energy Price Honesty

The economic consequences are enormous. The report estimates that permitting delays have delayed or destroyed nearly $75 billion in economic benefits and at least 50,000 jobs. Canceled projects alone account for billions in lost investment and tens of thousands of foregone jobs. Those losses ripple outward, raising costs for businesses, reducing local tax bases, and constraining economic growth, particularly in rural and energy-producing communities.

Behind these delays is a permitting system weighed down by overlapping federal and state approvals, redundant environmental reviews, litigation that can continue even after agencies grant approval, excessive bureaucracy, regulatory uncertainty, and a process that often rewards delay rather than resolution. The report notes that roughly 70 percent of lawsuits brought under the National Environmental Policy Act are filed by national advocacy groups rather than individuals directly affected by projects, extending timelines and increasing costs without necessarily improving environmental outcomes.

For families like Kristy Hallowell’s, the consequences are not theoretical. Higher energy prices force impossible choices between heat, food, rent, and medical care. Utility debt accumulates quickly, shutoffs become more likely, and temporary hardship can turn into long-term instability. For small businesses and manufacturers, rising electricity costs feed broader inflation and weaken competitiveness. For the grid itself, delayed investment increases the risk of shortages during heat waves and cold snaps, precisely when energy is most needed.

The report points to permitting reform as a key lever for relief. Proposals such as the SPEED Act and the PERMIT Act aim to establish clearer timelines, reduce duplicative reviews, limit endless litigation, and clear regulatory backlogs while preserving environmental protections. Supporters argue that predictable, streamlined permitting would lower risk, reduce project costs, encourage investment, and ultimately ease pressure on consumer bills. Critics worry about weakening safeguards, but the report counters that endless delay does not equate to better environmental outcomes and may actually slow the deployment of cleaner, more efficient energy infrastructure.

Kristy Hallowell’s ordeal is a reminder that energy policy is not just about megawatts, pipelines, or regulatory frameworks. It is about whether families can afford to keep the heat on. As electricity demand rises and energy costs remain a major driver of inflation, the report argues that permitting reform should be treated as a cost-of-living issue, not merely a technical debate. 

Until the system changes, millions of Americans will continue paying inflated costs on their energy bills, whether they ever hear the word “permitting” or not.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.