Mass. Senate passes sweeping energy affordability bill

As the temperature shot past 90 degrees Wednesday, the Massachusetts Senate passed a wide-ranging energy affordability bill, estimated to save ratepayers at least $14 billion over 10 years while combating climate change. The legislation is a major redraft of a bill the House passed in February, which projected $9 billion in savings over the next decade.

The House and Senate energy bills take very different approaches. The House bill proposed cutting $1 billion from Mass Save — the state’s energy efficiency program — a move that drew strong criticism from environmental activists. The Senate instead targets the Gas System Enhancement Plan — a program to replace deteriorating gas pipes — and more broadly, utilities themselves. 

During the debate, Sen. Michael Barrett, D-Lexington, chair of the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee, said the $14 billion figure is a conservative estimate, and ratepayers could see upward of $16 billion in savings. But senators have yet to predict how much an average customer can expect to save or when they might see a noticeable decrease in their monthly bills. 

Environmental advocates prefer the Senate bill, which they say takes many of their concerns about the House version into account. 

The House and Senate will now form a conference committee to negotiate a compromise bill. As long as the bills go to conference before July 31, the chambers can continue talks throughout 2026. 

Cutting pipeline money, not energy efficiency 

Rather than cut the Mass Save budget, the Senate bill would phase out the Gas System Enhancement Plan, or GSEP, by 2030. The program, which gas customers pay for as part of their monthly bills, encourages utilities to replace leak-prone natural gas pipelines by allowing them to recover costs for replacements more quickly. 

GSEP’s budget has ballooned since its initiation in 2014. In 2015, the program cost $292 million. The proposed 2026 budget was $817 million — about 8% to 11% of a customer’s monthly bill. 

Barrett previously told The Light that while GSEP seemed justifiable at its outset, the program has gone too far. 

“Now, GSEP’s program spending outranks regular utility maintenance,” Barrett said. “Essentially, we created a special case, but made it too tempting for the gas utilities.” 

After 2030, gas companies would have to complete their repair projects under the state’s original cost recovery scheme. This process includes reviewing whether the project is necessary, which will encourage the companies to “keep costs down and avoid unneeded work,” the Senate fact sheet says. 

In the meantime, the bill would narrow GSEP’s scope. Instead of continuing to replace all old pipes, gas companies could repair only leak-prone infrastructure, saving customers about $1.46 billion. 

The House bill didn’t address GSEP in any way.

Instead of cutting the Mass Save budget, the Senate bill would cap the program’s planning and administration funds at 5% of the total budget, prohibit mid-term budget increases unless there is a corresponding decrease elsewhere, and make mandatory “performance incentives” to utility companies optional. To oversee these changes, the bill would establish a temporary five-person Energy Efficiency Management Review and Financial Oversight board, appointed by the governor, attorney general and the inspector general. 

During the Senate debate, Barrett said Mass Save has “proven to be an investment that pays off.”

“We know that [constituents] can distinguish between a cost and an investment,” Barrett said. “A cost is money you lose, and an unnecessary cost is just that. An investment involves putting a buck in today in order to save two and a half bucks tomorrow.”  

Where do the biggest savings come from?

Besides cutting the pipeline program, the Senate proposes four more ways to trim costs on utility customers’ monthly bills.

About half of the savings in the Senate bill — $7.1 billion — result from allowing utilities to refinance certain costs related to electric grid modernization, storm recovery and gas system transition. In these cases, companies would only use bonds for borrowing, saving customers money. 

According to Barrett, this will only happen on rare occasions when the governor uses her authority to negotiate with a utility for a major project.

The bill is estimated to save ratepayers $1.7 billion by simplifying state approval of energy distribution plans. Currently, when utilities are planning system upgrades, they must go before multiple state agencies, which can lead to “redundant or unnecessary infrastructure spending,” according to a Senate fact sheet. In response, the bill would require the Department of Public Utilities to take over “comprehensive” approval of energy distribution upgrades. 

Senators hope to save ratepayers up to $1 billion through investigations of the electricity market. 

From 2015 to 2024, electric customers in Massachusetts paid an estimated $3.4 billion more than what the companies paid generators for the power they sold, according to the fact sheet. Though the companies are required to provide a basic default service without marking up the cost or making a profit, senators argue that the companies might not “shop aggressively” among power generators to find the best rate. 

To address this, the bill would task the Department of Public Utilities with investigating the difference between what customers pay and the market cost if the companies had shopped for the best rate. 

Senators estimate their bill will save ratepayers another $750 million by requiring the Department of Public Utilities to review and reform certain “reconciling charges” — companies’ way of recovering investment, operations and programming costs. The charges, which appear as multiple line items on gas and utility bills, are currently each reviewed separately, according to different standards. Some charges are fixed, while others depend on volume and usage, the fact sheet says. The department would examine each use-based charge that spikes during peak months. 

The Senate bill also adopts an idea that’s in the House bill: It would give utilities more flexibility when they buy electricity. Currently, the basic supply procurement process requires companies to purchase their supply every six months, resulting in seasonal price jumps. By changing this system, customers would save $780 million. 

South Coast legislators 

Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, voted against the bill, arguing it wouldn’t give ratepayers immediate relief. 

In a written statement to The Light, Montigny said he was pleased that the bill would phase out, and ultimately eliminate GSEP. But an amendment he filed that would have eliminated GSEP starting this year was rejected, and “other reforms to generate significant savings in Mass Save were left out of the final bill.” 

“Without immediate cost savings to these programs, this bill will not provide meaningful relief to my constituents now, and unfortunately I could not support it,” Montigny said. “I care deeply about our environment, and it is a legacy I and other parents leave to our children and grandchildren.  However, balance is needed. The people I represent are demanding immediate relief, and this wasn’t enough for me to bring home to my constituents.”

Rep. Mark Sylvia, D-Fairhaven, declined to comment on the substance of the Senate bill before reviewing the proposed amendments. 

“Ultimately, I hope the Senate bill is similarly focused on much-needed utility bill relief for ratepayers, like the House version of the bill is,” he told The Light in an email. 

Rep. Christopher Markey, D-Dartmouth, and Rep. Steven Ouellette, D-Westport, also declined to comment because they hadn’t reviewed the Senate bill. 

Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-New Bedford, told The Light in a written statement that he supports the Senate’s proposal to eliminate GSEP as a “complement” to the House’s recommended cut to the Mass Save budget. 

“I hope that the final version of the bill takes both approaches into account to provide maximum savings for people in Massachusetts,” he said.

Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, did not respond to requests for comment.  

What else would the bill do?

The Senate bill also aims to fight climate change with several clean-energy programs. 

Senators want to make it easier for Massachusetts residents to install rooftop solar systems and to use plug-in or balcony solar panels.

They propose that Massachusetts join seven other states — New Jersey, California, Maryland, Connecticut, Texas, Florida, and Virginia — in establishing an automated solar permitting system. Currently, each city and town has its own permitting process, and residents can spend weeks or months waiting for a permit to install rooftop solar systems, according to the organization Permit Power. 

One in seven solar projects in Massachusetts is canceled due to permitting delays, according to the organization, and each project costs $5,540 more than it would with an automated system. 

Automated permitting systems such as SolarAPP can check for compliance and issue solar permits instantly, Nicole Gentile, Permit Power’s advocacy director, said in an interview. 

“This is one of the ways that you can directly allow families to save on their utility bills by adding rooftop solar and home batteries,” Gentile said. “[The Senate] bill is directly cutting that soft cost and that time tax that comes from how long a permitting process can take.”

An amendment to the bill, which failed during the Senate debate, would have allowed solar systems to be inspected remotely via photo or video. Gentile described the amendment as a “no-brainer.”

The House bill proposed automated solar permitting, but not remote inspections.

Like the House bill, the Senate’s version would also make it easier to use plug-in or balcony solar panels, which connect to an outlet and supply power to the home. Residents, including renters, would be able to install systems up to 420 watts without utilities’ permission. Only licensed electricians could install a system up to 1,200 watts, and residents must notify the utility company. Utilities would be required to sign off on any compliant installation and be prohibited from requiring studies, approvals or fees. 

As climate change fuels more extreme heat in Massachusetts, senators are pushing to protect all residents, regardless of income. The bill would prohibit electric companies from shutting off service to customers who have trouble paying their bills during periods that are expected to reach over 85 degrees for three consecutive days. The ban would apply between May 15 and Sept. 15. 

A few of the other provisions include allowing third-party investment in power lines, allowing customers to finance energy projects by repaying costs in future electric bills, bringing geothermal energy to large facilities such as hospitals or college campuses, lowering the cost for utilities to comply with the state’s renewable energy mandate, and allowing the state to purchase clean energy generation without using utility companies as a middleman. 

Despite its focus on combating climate change, two sections of the Senate bill would scale back clean energy requirements. 

Currently, utilities must increase their clean energy purchases by 3% a year for 2027, 2028 and 2029. The bill would reduce this to 1% a year, to be “realistic in the face of the Trump Administration’s attack on offshore wind development,” the fact sheet says. 

The bill would also reduce the net-metering credits — which provide rebates for sending excess energy back to the grid — given to large-scale solar and wind facilities. Homes and businesses with rooftop solar panels wouldn’t be affected. The House version would also adopt this measure. 

Advocates prefer Senate bill 

Several environmental advocacy groups are staunchly opposed to the House’s proposed Mass Save cuts, and have instead pushed to eliminate GSEP. 

Katharine Lange, Conservation Law Foundation’s government relations manager, said the Senate’s legislation is a “really strong bill,” pointing to only one “glaring issue.” 

Mass Save offers programs for moderate and low-income households. Currently, residents can self-attest their income, but the Senate bill repealed that policy. 

“[Self-attestation] was a great way to remove barriers, so that more folks take advantage of the program,” Lange said. “It doesn’t make sense to unstreamline that program. We want to make sure that folks can continue to very easily get the benefits that are available to them.”

Vick Mohanka, director of Sierra Club Massachusetts, echoed Lange’s sentiment. He said the organization “doesn’t love” the Senate’s proposed changes to Mass Save, but that they are preferable to the House’s approach. 

In addition to phasing out GSEP, the Senate bill includes two other priorities of the Sierra Club, Mohanka said.

The first is banning “utility profiteering,” which is already illegal in several states. Currently, utilities can charge customers to recover costs from advertising, tax penalties, lobbying, charitable or political donations, private airplanes and entertainment or gifts for their board members. The first draft of the House bill prohibited this practice, but the final version didn’t. 

“Why should we pay for the utility companies to lobby for higher rates?” Mohanka said.

Sierra’s second top priority for the final bill is maintaining a 1982 law that requires voter approval for new nuclear power plants and low-level radioactive waste facilities. The House version — along with Gov. Maura Healey’s May 2025 energy affordability plan — proposes repealing the law, but the Senate bill keeps it intact.

Mohanka also praised the Senate’s proposed consumer protection measures. Although local utilities deliver electricity, customers have the option to purchase it from third-party suppliers, a market that Mohanka said “often becomes predatory.” These include prohibiting non-consensual automatic renewals, cancellation fees and frequent rate adjustments. The House bill proposed similar protections. 

The Conservation Law Foundation and the Sierra Club were tracking several amendments ahead of the Senate vote. 

An amendment sought to remove a section of the bill that would allow utility companies to create a new rate to offer renewable natural gas, which the Senate fact sheet described as “a sustainable and cost-effective fuel” that would reduce reliance on fossil fuel gas. 

But according to Lange, renewable natural gas is “tremendously expensive.”

“Promoting it at all in an affordability bill doesn’t make sense,” Lange said. “It’s not an affordability policy, and it’s certainly not a climate policy.” 

The amendment, which also would have banned the expansion of gas distribution infrastructure within five miles of environmental justice communities, was rejected.

The organizations were also tracking two amendments that would regulate data centers — one related to tax credits and the other to environmental and labor requirements — and one amendment that would require developers of certain thermal energy projects to enter into labor peace agreements with unions. 

The amendment related to labor peace agreements was withdrawn. The data center tax credit amendment was adopted, but the other was rejected.

“This bill is our biggest and best opportunity at delivering savings to customers … We’re really relying on conference committee members to do the math, do their homework, and make prudent decisions about savings, not just in the short term, but in the long term too,” Lange said. “People are really looking for cheaper and cleaner energy, and we can, in fact, have both.”

Jamie Perkins is a graduate student in journalism covering state government for The Light as a summer intern. Email them at jperkins@newbedfordlight.org.