Long distant transmission lines would help with that. Also, I want to point out we need to decarbonize, so I don’t think gas considers all externalities that it causes, like air pollution.
The problem is that people don't really want to pay for it.
When you compare the rates at which people recognize the need to decarbonize, to the rates at which people are willing to pay 20-50% more for green energy, an obvious and expected trend arises.... people overwhelming don't want to put their money where there mouth is. Or they want someone elses money to go where there mouth is.
It needs to be understood that almost all those "green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels" studies use the best case scenario to calculate those values.
To put that another way, gas meets it's ideal pretty much everywhere, whereas green energy meets it's ideal in small, often far from society, spots. Transmission can bridge the gap to a degree, but it's then a cost multiplier.
A carbon tax is a good way to balance this, but man, people vote hard to not have to spend more of their own money. (I don't want to pay for it/I only want it if billionaires pay for it)
If you make the carbon tax revenue neutral, and dividend out the whole take per capita, those below median carbon emissions should end up ahead, and it does end up resting on the wealthy, since carbon emissions generally scale with spending.
Solar is king in places like west Texas and Nevada. Massive sunny flat sprawling landscapes where the land is practically free.
It's a different story in places like Massachusetts or New York, where land is expensive and the sun is mildly sunny.
Gas becomes much more competitive because you only need 5 acres instead of 500, and the energy is 24/7.