For one, state officials have turned energy bills into the main vehicle financing major environmental objectives that, while admirable, arguably have little to do with the basic business relationship between utilities and their customers. Compounding that, utilities have launched increasingly pricey infrastructure improvements that were rubber stamped by regulators, who recently moved to rein them in only after complaints from consumers reached a fever pitch last winter.

The result is a plethora of charges lumped under the category of “delivery” that have become the source of so much angst and frustration of ratepayers.

“We pay more on delivery charges than on the actual cost of energy,” said Alok Garg, who owns a four-bedroom home in Maynard.

And the web of charges has become so elaborate that some consumers find them indecipherable.

“Shouldn’t I just be paying for distribution and the actual cost of the energy itself?” said Newton resident Marisa Milanese. “I look at [my bill] and I’m like, ‘Why are there 12 items when there should be two?’ ”

Some of those extra charges, such as for energy efficiency programs, save you in the long run. For every dollar spent on Mass Save, residents will receive $2.69 back in benefits, according to an analysis by the Acadia Center, a nonprofit focused on clean energy policy.

Meanwhile, other costs end up benefiting utilities. The state awards companies an additional 7 to 9 percent on the amount they spend on infrastructure as an incentive to maintain their systems; a $100 million project, for example, might result in a $108 million payout, footed by ratepayers. So for utilities, it pays to invest in infrastructure.

Utilities aren’t allowed to make money off the actual electricity or the gas you use. What you pay is based on simple math: the cost of the fuel utilities buy on your behalf, times the amount you use — and even those prices are through the roof.

But all those add-on charges are also based on how much you use. So the more electricity or natural gas you use, the more you pay to support electric vehicle chargers or to make the power grid more resilient.

One of the largest single charges on electricity bills is increasing at nosebleed levels: The “distribution” charge that utilities assess for delivering power through their poles and wires has increased by roughly 50 percent since January 2019 for both Eversource and National Grid customers, according to a Globe analysis.

Another part of the delivery system is increasing at even higher rates. The cost to bring electricity from generators to local users along an interstate superhighway of energy has jumped more than 70 percent over in the last six years for both Eversource and National Grid. These transmission charges are overseen by the operator of the regional power grid, and regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

On the gas side, it’s similar. Your delivery charge includes costs associated with maintaining and upgrading the pipelines that bring gas to your home, as well as administrative charges. A decade ago, two-thirds of the average bill went to the fuel itself, and the smaller split paid for delivery to the home and associated charges. Today, those numbers have flipped.

Massachusetts also uses electric and gas bills to collect money to underwrite the state’s most effective tool for fighting climate change: Mass Save, the energy-efficiency program run by utilities.

“Whether you’re talking about Mass Save or other clean energy initiatives that are funded out of the ratepayer’s bill, that part of it is growing, and is growing quickly,” said Rick Sullivan, chief executive of the Western Mass Economic Development Council and former energy and environment secretary under Governor Deval Patrick.

One thing is clear: With Massachusetts facing a legal mandate to kick the fossil fuel habit, the state has no choice but to vastly expand the electric grid. Without replacements, upgrades, and additions to these elaborate and expensive networks, there won’t be adequate power delivered for all the heat pumps and electric vehicles needed to propel a cleaner-burning future.

Doug Horton, senior vice president of regulatory and strategic financial planning at Eversource, said that’s the main — and necessary — driver behind its work.

Infrastructure charges are “the component of the bill that enables everything that the Commonwealth wants to do, so that the system is able to accommodate the clean energy transition, something that we view ourselves as critical partners in achieving.”

Horton says he knows well that people aren’t happy with their high bills. But, “there are thousands and thousands of devices on our system and infrastructure in our system that is in need of repair, many of which was installed literally several decades ago — 60, 70, 80 years.”

Upgrades in recent years have also been happening at “a time when things are way more expensive — it’s ridiculous,” said Emma Nicholson, a former federal energy regulator and now a principal at Charles River Associates, a global consulting firm with headquarters in Boston. “Substations, transformers, conduit. All the inputs that are required to upgrade a transmission and distribution system are increasing, and that also drives costs.”

All this work helps ensure the lights stay on and your home stays toasty in winter. But experts in the clean energy industry say there are several ways they believe utility upgrades have gone too far.

Noah Berman, senior policy advocate and utility innovation program manager at the Acadia Center, said that when a utility goes before Massachusetts regulators seeking higher reimbursements, it “has 100 percent of the information. They can choose what to pass on, what not to pass on, and how to pass it on to make it look like their preferred option is the only option.”

One big driver of higher transmission costs is something called “asset condition projects,” essentially new upgrades to wires and transformers.

Between 2013 and 2016, utilities in New England spent less than $100 million a year on those projects. In 2018, that jumped to more than $500 million for that year alone, and by 2024 had topped $1 billion for the first time. It is expected to reach more than $1.4 billion next year, according to projections from ISO-New England. The utilities have already filed plans to spend another $2.8 billion by the end of the decade, with the possibility that more could be proposed.

Experts say it can be hard to parse what’s actually needed compared to what might be excessive. Patrick Knight, of Synapse Energy Economics, said one tactic utilities employ is “gold-plating” projects — adding bells and whistles to an otherwise necessary project that increases the total cost.

An example Knight points to: the X-178 transmission line, which runs 49 miles across northern New Hampshire.

Eversource has reported that 43 out of 594 structures along the line are deteriorating. But rather than replacing just those, it has plans to replace 578 of the lines at a cost of roughly $360 million. Because it’s part of the regional transmission grid, ratepayers across New England, including in Massachusetts, would be responsible.

Eversource says that while the entire network isn’t deteriorating yet, it will save money to do all the work now, rather than waiting and have the costs only increase. After an outcry from consumer advocates, including ratepayer advocates from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, regulators in New Hampshire have stepped in to review the project, and it’s unclear whether it will go ahead as proposed.

And for natural gas customers, one of the biggest contributors on their bills is for the so-called Gas System Enhancement Program — or GSEP — which offers incentives for gas utilities to repair and replace leaky pipes.

Most often, the pipes are replaced — which is also the costliest route.

Since 2015, utilities in Massachusetts have spent more than $5.6 billion through this program, and some $901 million this year alone, according to a recent regulatory filing. Those costs will be borne by ratepayers over the decades-long — sometimes 60-year — lifetime of the pipelines.

Complicating matters, said Dorie Seavey, a senior research scientist at The Future of Heat Initiative, is that “we’re trying to fund this increasing spending on the gas system at the same time that people are using less gas.”

As Massachusetts approaches mid-century, when the state hits its deadline for essentially zeroing out planet-warming carbon emissions, fewer and fewer people will be using gas. Yet the costs of these newly replaced pipes will remain, just spread among a smaller number of customers.

Ratepayers in Massachusetts are on track to pay some $41.8 billion for the gas enhancements program over the course of this century. That adds up to lifetime payments of $31,000 per customer, according to an analysis by Seavey.

Robert Kievra, a spokesman for National Grid, said the company prioritizes “repairs and replacements to ensure overall safety operations and minimize disruptions, especially during the winter months.”

That work focuses on the highest-risk pipe segments, and also helps lower emissions by stopping leaks, he said.

The gas improvement program isn’t the only infrastructure-related charge. In 2023, for instance, the six utilities in Massachusetts spent $789 million on GSEP projects and another $667 million on additional investments such as extending gas lines to new customers, according to an analysis by consultants for the attorney general’s office, a grand total of nearly $1.5 billion.

These big capital expenditures have only gotten bigger, one reason why delivery-related costs have increased by 15 to 20 percent a year — far in excess of inflation, according to Seavey.

State regulators have already taken steps to rein in spending for the gas system improvement program, including introducing requirements that utilities consider less expensive options before replacing pipes, and reducing how much they charge for replacing old pipes.

Governor Maura Healey has proposed an energy affordability bill that would tackle cost issues by eliminating some charges outright, stepping up oversight of utilities, and exploring new nuclear technologies as a potential energy source.

According to state estimates, if passed as is, the bill could lead to a few hundred dollars of savings per year for some customers.

Meanwhile, after years of lobbying by New England states and clean energy advocates, ISO-New England earlier this fall announced it would increase oversight of transmission projects, which historically it’s had limited involvement in.

But state officials also acknowledge an unfortunate truth: While there are ways to keep the next generation of infrastructure projects in check, there’s not much that can be done for those that have already been baked into utility charges for years to come.

So while relief may come someday, don’t expect lower bills anytime soon.

Sabrina Shankman can be reached at sabrina.shankman@globe.com.

Police body camera video can provide a full recording of any interaction an officer has with a member of the public, according to security experts.

Eight states have laws making police body cameras mandatory. Massachusetts isn’t one of them.

In fact, WBZ-TV’s I-Team found that less than half of Massachusetts law enforcement agencies have applied for state money to buy the cameras.

Police security experts believe body camera video provides a unique perspective of incidents.

“They paint a very sympathetic picture of the police action. You can really get a granular look at what that officer was being faced with at that particular point in time,” said WBZ News Security Analyst Ed Davis, a former Boston Police Commissioner. “Frankly, I think it helps police.”

A state grant program has given out $13.9 million to departments in Massachusetts to buy the equipment. However, the I-Team has learned many police departments still don’t have body cameras for their officers.

State records show since 2021, out of the 433 law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts, only 190 applied for the grant money.

“It is left up to the individual police department. That being said, the departments that have deployed body cameras have done so in the spirit of transparency and accountability and that’s what the public ultimately wants,” said Todd McGhee, a security expert and former Massachusetts State Trooper.

Recent incidents without police body cameras

Francis Gigliotti’s deadly struggle with Haverhill police last July was captured with bystander video and surveillance cameras, but there is no body camera video, because the department doesn’t have the cameras.

The medical examiner ruled Gigliotti’s death a homicide, leaving the district attorney to determine whether the actions of the officers were justified.

Last June, in North Andover, there were no cameras recording when police shot off-duty officer Kelsey Fitzimmons in her home. It happened when a fellow officer went to serve her with a court order to stay away from her fiancé and her newborn baby. North Andover police also do not wear body cameras.

Fitzsimmons was shot in the chest and is now facing criminal charges. The officer who shot her was alone when it happened. Prosecutors said Fitzsimmons reached for her gun.

“There’s no body camera. There’s no other officer up there. There’s three different stories, versions of what exactly was said,” Fitzsimmons’s attorney Tim Bradl said in court earlier this year.

Reasons for not having police body cameras

Massachusetts does not have a law requiring police to wear body cameras. Some departments said storing the video evidence can be expensive. But, the larger issue is that some police unions don’t want them.

“Cities that have buckled under the pressure from officers who don’t want cameras, or for other reasons, don’t put the cameras in place, are making a real mistake as far as the protection of their own employees,” Davis said.

The I-Team reached out to both Haverhill and North Andover about body cameras.

Haverhill’s mayor said the city is negotiating with the patrol officers union to get the cameras. North Andover’s police chief did not respond to our request for comment.