Viewpoint: Energy costs are a health issue in Montana

Hillery Dally, Colette Kirchhoff and Teresa Wicks

When we talk about rising energy costs, we often frame it as an economic burden. But for many Montana residents, high energy bills exacerbate something more serious: public health.

Energy costs shape how people live day to day, and in Montana, that makes the data clear. The average household in Montana spends about 3% of its income on energy, amounting to roughly $2100 per year, but that number masks deeper inequalities. Tribal communities face energy burdens closer to 6%, and low-income households can spend more than three times the state average. In some cases, some low-income families may spend more than 30% of their income just to keep the heat on. When utility bills spike, families are confronted with impossible choices between paying the energy bill and buying groceries.

These decisions don’t just strain household budgets but also affect physical and mental health. Chronic financial stress is linked to anxiety, depression, and worse health outcomes. In a place like Montana, where winters are long and the summer temperatures are intensifying, energy affordability is becoming a matter of survival.

That’s why policies like the proposed Energy Bills Relief Act deserve attention—not just from economists or policymakers, but from anyone who cares about public health.

At its center, the issue is simple: energy affordability is tied to income, and income is one of the largest predictors of health. Over time, the “energy burden” — spending a disproportionate share of income on energy — compounds, widening existing health disparities, particularly in rural and low-income communities.

Across the United States, outdated and limited transmission systems are quietly driving up costs. When the grid can’t efficiently move energy between regions, prices become more volatile and expensive. Expanding and modernizing transmission infrastructure is one of the most effective ways to stabilize and lower energy costs over time.

But building infrastructure is not exactly easy. Projects can take years to plan and permit, often slowed or halted by fragmented state and federal authorities and public uncertainty.

There are some solutions. Some states have created transmission authorities—public entities designed to coordinate planning, financing, and development—to speed up projects and reduce costs. These models have helped deliver major energy projects more efficiently while ensuring they serve the public interest. Public financing tools, like municipal bonds, can also reduce risk and provide more stable, long-term investment in energy infrastructure. What does all of this mean for everyday Montanans?

It means that addressing energy costs requires both immediate relief and long-term investment. Policies like the Energy Bills Relief Act can provide critical short-term support for households struggling right now. But to truly solve the problem, we also need to build a more resilient, efficient energy system—one that keeps costs down for years to come.

We hope Senators Daines and Sheehy and Representatives Zinke and Downing will vote for this common-sense, health-protective act!

We are members of MT Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate https://www.montanahphc.org, an organization of health professionals in the state, working together to address climate change as a public health issue, because the climate crisis threatens the health and future of our communities.