GOV. MAURA HEALEY used her bully pulpit Friday to lambast the state’s utility companies amid an affordability crisis, but with the key decisions now in the hands of lawmakers who are often content to move at their own pace, she left the podium without outlining a tangible sense of when Beacon Hill may actually act to lower energy costs.

Two days after lawmakers formally started negotiating an energy affordability bill and as the House and Senate rushed to tackle myriad other loose ends on the last day for new major legislative business, Healey laid out the squeeze in which Massachusetts residents now find themselves.

She elevated her criticism of utilities like Eversource and National Grid for “repeatedly forcing ratepayers to pay even more” while they earn record profits for investors, and bashed President Trump for his moves to crack down on new clean energy projects and for launching a war in the Middle East that has raised oil and gas prices worldwide.

But finding consensus that spiraling gas and electric bills pose a problem hasn’t been an issue.

It’s what to do about it that’s deeply divided the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature.

“I talked to [lawmakers] as recently as yesterday, and we’re going to keep talking because I think we all recognize how important it is that we get this done and that we take the actions that we can take to lower people’s energy bills,” Healey said at a press conference.

Healey’s decision to speak specifically on energy policy as the Legislature scrambled elsewhere in the State House to tackle other priorities is the latest sign of urgency from the governor to respond to Bay Staters’ angst around soaring utility bills — and of the political salience of the issue as she seeks reelection this fall.

Massachusetts officials are juggling a complicated confluence of rising power demand, skyrocketing utility bills, and aggressive climate commitments that demand a swift move away from fossil fuels as a source for heating and electric generation. Electricity prices in Massachusetts have reached double the national average, turning the issue into a top household concern.

Yet her remarks Friday offered few clues about what progress is now being made after the House and Senate advanced significantly different versions of legislation aimed at saving ratepayers money. A conference committee tasked with landing on a compromise bill met for the first time earlier this week, but indicated that a potentially monthslong slog awaits before they strike a final agreement, keeping Healey in waiting mode more than a year after she originally filed her legislation that kickstarted the whole process.

Even amid all the other legislative business crammed into Friday, Healey is antsy for a deal on energy and urged members of the conference committee to get to “yes” in a new letter, writing that residents “urgently need relief” and speaking in harsher terms of the greed of utility executives as they “exponentially increase spending and squeeze out more and more profit.” Energy costs have dogged Healey throughout much of her term, prompting her to offer temporary reductions on residents’ gas and electric bills this past winter and ordering regulators to review “all charges.”

Though the letter reiterated many of the same policy points intended to save ratepayers money that were included in her original legislation, she did tip-toe into some new territory, signaling potential areas for compromise where lawmakers remain far apart.

Healey said that she wants to “cap the spending” on Mass Save, the state’s energy efficiency program that provides subsidies for home insulations and heat pump installments and is funded by a charge on customers’ bills.

A major flash point in the debate over the legislation came when, after House Democrats sidelined a push to weaken the state’s 2030 climate commitments, the chamber voted to cut Mass Save by $1 billion and limit the program’s future budget. The Senate proposal includes no such Mass Save cuts.

And Healey said that she’s “concerned about utility profits” earned through the contentious Gas System Enhancement Program, which allows gas companies to more quickly recover costs from customers for fixing leaky pipes. Spending under GSEP has ballooned since the program started in 2014.

The Senate bill would end GSEP by 2030, while the House plan doesn’t do so.

“The key here is there’s a lot of good things that we can do,” Healey said. “We know how to do it. We know what needs to happen, and we’ve got to get it done now.”

It’s unclear exactly who the “we” is in her telling, though.

A coalition of business groups and unions wrote to conference committee members on Thursday, warning them of the risks of failing to meaningfully lower energy costs in new escalatory terms: A bad deal, they said, is worse than no deal.

Specifically, the groups urge greater government transparency about how much it will cost to achieve a transition to clean energy sources and oppose some of the main pillars of the Senate plan to save $14 billion over 10 years, including by ending GSEP and financing utility electric system upgrades through bonds.

“Progress on affordability is within reach if the Commonwealth can make sensible choices,” reads the letter, which is signed by groups like the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Retailers Association of Massachusetts, and the Laborers’ International Union of North America. “Should the product of this conference report fail to lower ratepayer bills or put the reliability and safety of our energy infrastructure at risk, we would urge conferees to table any energy legislation until next session.”

The utilities, for their part, warned of well-intended legislation having the opposite effect.

Brendan Moss, a spokesperson for National Grid, said in a statement that measures that simply “shift costs to future customers” will “not deliver meaningful affordability.” William Hinkle, a spokesperson for Eversource, said in a statement that not enough attention has been paid in the legislative debate to the “costs of the central proposals” and instead “focused solely on projected savings.”

At the same time, Healey’s pledge to pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy is looking more and more likely to be put to the test.

Enbridge, a major Canadian pipeline company, doubled down on its pursuit of a significant gas expansion in New England known as Project Beacon on an earnings call earlier Friday.

If the company takes more concrete steps through the federal permitting process, it could inject new life into an already-volatile energy landscape in Massachusetts with the prospects of a resurgence of fossil fuels as the state stares down ambitious clean energy targets to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

Greg Ebel, the president and CEO of Enbridge, said that an effort to gauge interest in purchasing additional gas through an expanded pipeline from energy producers and suppliers that ended on July 1 “exceeded our initial expectations” and that more updates will come later this year.

While details are still light, Matthew Akman, the company’s executive vice president and president of gas transmission, said that Project Beacon would be “multiple times” the size of a small gas expansion currently underway that Healey supported.

“It’s very, very compelling, and we’re really pleased that our customers and all the stakeholders there are recognizing the importance of it,” Akman said. “So, it’s something we’re definitely going to pursue commercially here, as the need is very strong.”

The Healey administration isn’t taking a formal position on the proposal yet.

“We’re going to be looking at the Enbridge project like we would any other project,” said Rebecca Tepper, secretary of energy and environmental affairs. “Is it a good deal for customers?”