An active debate has emerged about the political viability of market-based versus non-market-based policies to address climate change. As carbon pricing policies face significant political challenges, some have argued that regulatory policies are a better option because they do not highlight consumer energy prices and can be linked to other economic and social priorities. Yet, no study has compared communication strategies for regulatory versus price-based climate policies in practice. This paper fills that gap through a qualitative content analysis of framing strategies for Ontario's 2016 cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, and Virginia's 2020 clean energy mandate. Results largely confirm the paper's primary hypothesis that similar financial frames will be used as or more frequently for the regulatory policy as for the price-based policy, complicating any theory that regulatory policies will face an easier political path due to their different messaging options.