Did Your State Rep Vote to Save Mass Save?

As we wrote yesterday, MA House Democrats were preparing to gut the state’s energy efficiency program Mass Save, scapegoating it for rising utility bills while doing nothing to prevent the gas infrastructure expansion that is really behind the increase.

Energy efficiency investments are the quintessential win-win: they save residents money, they create jobs in weatherization, and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But when state representatives had the opportunity to restore the $1 billion in cuts to Mass Save yesterday, only 17 of them voted yes (see the recorded vote below). That’s right: only 17.

If you’re happy with how your state rep voted, you should thank them​. If you aren’t happy with how your state rep voted, make sure they know about it​.

State representatives are defending their cuts to Mass Save by saying they are just cutting a marketing budget. But let’s be clear: these cuts go far deeper than that, and marketing is how Mass Save ensures that its programs can actually reach equity goals and deliver real savings to working-class, POC, and immigrant communities across the commonwealth.

The House voted 128 to 27 to pass the underlying energy bill (H.5151). Every Republican voted no, and progressive Democrats Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) and Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voted no in protest of the bill’s deep cuts to the Mass Save energy efficiency program.

There are good things in the bill to expand solar, wind, and geothermal and to rein in predatory third-party electricity suppliers. And it’s a win that the House is no longer trying to eliminate the state’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets.

But here’s the problem: if we gut energy efficiency programs, we are setting ourselves up to miss these targets by even more, and we are already far behind. Targets need to be matched with action. Make sure your state senator​ knows you want bolder action than what the House passed. 

More Solar, But Little Sunshine

The process around the bill was illustrative of Beacon Hill’s top-down, closed modus operandi.

The bill was only released to representatives and the public on Tuesday. Members of the Ways and Means Committee didn’t even have a full hour to read a 100+ page bill before casting a vote. Representatives had to then scramble to file amendments, which were due the next day, followed by a vote yesterday (Thursday).

How many people actually read the bill? Your guess is as good as mine.

In the lead-up to the vote, representatives filed a total of 126 amendments, but very few received any actual public discussion.

3 amendments were withdrawn, and 3 were rejected via a voice vote. (For one of those voice votes, the amendment’s filer asked for a roll call vote, but not enough people stood to allow it.)

11 amendments received recorded votes requested by Republicans, and 1 amendment (the Mass Save amendment shown above, filed by Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven) received a recorded vote requested by a Democrat.

The remaining 108 amendments were fed into the sausage-making machine known as the “Consolidated Amendment” process. In this process, House Leadership gathers together amendments, sets them all aside, and then picks from their carcasses what, if anything, they want to include in the bill. By virtue of this process, 108 amendments were grouped into 3, with little of their original text still standing.

The 11 aforementioned Republican amendments were rightfully rejected, on party line or almost party line votes.

  • Amendment #7, which would make the state’s 2030 emissions targets non-binding, as the House’s original energy bill tried to do 
  • Amendment #8, which would require the state to expand gas pipeline infrastructure 
  • Amendment #13, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #21, which would create bureaucratic hurdles for renewable energy generation (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #24, which seems to be an attempt to allow bootlegged propane  (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #38, which would strike the increased solar and wind procurement targets 
  • Amendment #46, which would decrease the yearly Renewable Portfolio Standard (i.e., % of renewables that utilities must supply) increase from 3% to 1% indefinitely (The House’s original energy bill wanted to do this through 2022; the new bill made no changes) 
  • Amendment #78, which would ban stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards for five years (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #101, which would outsource our clean energy and climate policies to corporate lobby groups 
  • Amendment #105, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance 
  • Amendment #109, which would eliminate minimum renewable energy standards for electric suppliers

US House Republicans Just Voted to Attack Energy Efficiency. Why Are MA House Dems Joining Them?

Yesterday, down in DC, before the garbage fire of Trump’s State of the Union address, House Republicans voted — yet again — to roll back energy efficiency standards and programs. It’s clear why: they know that energy efficiency means less in profits for the dirty energy CEOs who fund their campaigns.

But then why are Massachusetts House Democrats doing the same?

Yesterday, Massachusetts House Democrats advanced a redrafted version of their formerly corporate-lobbyist-written energy bill.

Although there are some good things in the bill (more on that below), there’s a big poison pill: a $1 BILLION cut to the Mass Save budget.

This would effectively shut down Mass Save in 2027, taking with it the tens of thousands of clean energy jobs that are supported by energy efficiency and electrification work. It would immediately strip Massachusetts families’ ability to get the energy efficiency and electric upgrades that can result in healthier, more affordable homes while likely causing enormous cost to restart the program. Let’s be clear: when the Legislature cuts that much funding from a program, it’s never just temporary.

Meanwhile, gas bills have been increasing 10% each year thanks to continued gas pipeline spending, something the bill does nothing about.

Can you call your state representative today and urge them to stop scapegoating Mass Save while utilities spend billions on fossil fuel infrastructure and lobbying?

Here’s a sample script from our friends at Mass Power Forward:

“Hello, I am your constituent [YOUR NAME] calling from [YOUR ADDRESS]. I am calling about H.5151, the Energy Omnibus Bill. While there are some exciting provisions in the bill that we have advocated for around solar energy and clean heat, as well as curbing toxic biomass, I urge you to oppose the $1 billion cuts to Mass Save. Mass Save is saving us $2.72 for every dollar invested. We need to take on the biggest sources of high utility bills: utility companies spending billions on dirty, expensive fossil fuel infrastructure and millions on lobbying and executive salaries.”

Calling is more valuable than emailing (find your rep’s number here), but if you only have time to send an email, we’ve got you covered with an email template here as well.

Bad Process and Bad Outcomes

The House’s energy bill exemplified the perennial problem of bad process leading to bad policy. State representatives on the House Ways & Means Committee had only 45 minutes to read a 100+ page bill and decide whether to vote yes, vote no, or reserve their rights.

Many didn’t even have the time to vote due to the quick turnaround. Thank you to Rep. Natalie Higgins (D-Leominster) and Rep. Sam Montaño (D-Jamaica Plain) for voting to reserve rights, sending a message at the very least of “let me read this before I put my name to it.”

And the turnaround to a floor vote is similarly quick. They are voting on Thursday. Never mind that parts of the state are still without power due to the recent storm, and some representatives will have difficulty even getting to the State House.

But Some Rays of Sunshine

Although the bill needs the massive poison pill removed to be worth voting for, there are a few good things to highlight:

  • No changes to the 2030 climate goals (a major win!)
  • No more subsidies for toxic biomass
  • Removes the “pipeline tax” from the November House energy bill which would have allowed electric bills to pay for gas infrastructure
  • Positive regulations around labor and network geothermal clean heat generation
  • Positive regulations around balcony solar panels and vehicle-to-grid technology
  • Stronger regulations around reining in scammy third-party electricity suppliers

But at a time when the federal government is sabotaging climate action across the country, we shouldn’t be settling for poison-pilled climate legislation that leaves us committed to a dirty energy future.

PM in the News: “Mass. Sierra Club takes unprecedented step to call for removal of House energy chair”

Jordan Wollman, “Mass. Sierra Club takes unprecedented step to call for removal of House energy chair,” CommonWealth Beacon, January 27, 2026.

Not everyone agrees that Sierra Club’s move has drawbacks. Jonathan Cohn, policy director at the advocacy group Progressive Mass, said it’s clear from Cusack’s November version of the energy affordability bill that he isn’t taking his cues from groups like Sierra Club anyway.

“From the universe of not wanting to deny yourself access, if you never had access to begin with, there’s at least not as much in the way of real loss,” Cohn said. “And evaluating how back in November environmental groups across the state were able to rally members and make enough representatives scared to vote yes on his bill, it showed that power lies in that ability to have an organized and mobilized grassroots base. Trying to defeat that bill on the basis of only talking to the highest people in the building was not going to be a viable strategy.”

Take Action: It’s Climate Week at the MA State House

Last November, the MA House tried to ram through a MAGA energy bill that would have rolled back our Commonwealth’s commitments to clean energy, energy efficiency, and climate action.

Because of an outpouring of opposition from people like you, the House pressed pause.

This week, the House Ways and Means Committee and House Leadership are holding listening sessions for state representatives to weigh in on what changes they would like to see to the bill.

This bill could be the vehicle for stopping costly gas infrastructure expansion and reducing bills with clean energy. But for that to happen, we need state representatives to be climate champions and advocate for bold action in these listening sessions.

Mass Power Forward has laid out a vision of what a real agenda for energy affordability and climate justice would look like. Your rep can help make it a reality.

Can you share these priorities with your state rep?

Email Your State Rep

As the bill moves forward, we need to be ready for quick action. Sign up here to be on deck for actions, such as showing up to the State House or contacting your legislator to support/oppose amendments.

Testimony: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Mass Ready Act

Progressive Mass joined a coalition testimony in support of including the Zero Carbon Renovation Fund in the environmental bond bill.

January 13, 2026

Senator Paul W. Mark, Acting Chair

Representative Michael J. Finn, Chair

Representative John H. Rogers, Vice Chair

Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Attn: Gabrielle Hanson, 24 Beacon St Room 504

Boston, MA 02133

Re: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Mass Ready Act

Dear Acting Chair Mark, Chair Finn, Vice Chair Rogers, and Members of the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony concerning S.2542, An Act to build resilience for Massachusetts communities (the Mass Ready Act). Our Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition is supportive of this bill and believes it can be strengthened by including additional decarbonization funding for frontline communities. Luckily, H.3577/S.2286, An Act establishing a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund, sponsored by Senator Gomez and Representatives Vargas and Cruz, would do just that.

The Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition has over 200 member organizations representing 80,000 units of affordable housing, and working at the intersection of housing, health, community, and climate. We are united in the idea that equitable building decarbonization is critical for the health, wealth, and safety of our communities long-term.

Decarbonization involves improving a building’s envelope, transitioning it to clean energy sources, adding on-site power generation, and using less energy-intensive building materials. These practices make buildings more resilient in the face of floods, heat waves, and other extreme weather events,while mitigating climate change.

The state has started to invest in decarbonization for affordable housing and other priority sectors through programs at DOER, HLC, and Mass Save. Current and expected decarbonization sources for Massachusetts’ affordable housing sector total approximately $500M. But this is not enough.

The cost to decarbonize affordable housing units is currently tracking between $50K-$150K more per unit than a business-as-usual retrofit. Scaled up to over 200,000 units of multifamily affordable housing in MA translates to at least $10B-$30B of investment that will be needed for the affordable housing sector alone to meet our state’s climate goals by 2050.

The inclusion of H.3577/S.2286 will provide funding to catalyze an equitable transition to a clean

energy future that simultaneously advances climate resiliency and improves physical and financial security for frontline communities. It will prioritize Environmental Justice communities, Gateway Cities, low-and moderate-income housing, municipal buildings, and minority-and women-owned businesses. As existing buildings in Massachusetts contribute nearly one third of all carbon emissions, a focus on making this clean energy transition is essential if we are to create a sustainable and resilient future for our children. While H.3577/S.2286 allocates $300 million in funding for these retrofits, we believe that $50 million would be an adequate investment to start this crucial work.

We encourage you to include this language in the version of the Environmental Bond Bill that this Committee reports, so we can move a step closer to the clean and resilient energy future our communities and neighbors deserve. If you have questions, feel free to reach out to ZCRF Committee Chair Emily Jones at ejones@lisc.org. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Democracy in Action: House’s MAGA Energy Bill Delayed

Because of calls and emails from people like you, the House delayed their MAGA energy bill that would have rolled back our climate, clean energy, and energy efficiency commitments.

The House will be redrafting an energy bill to vote on in the new year, so pressure will still be needed to ensure that we move forward, not backward. Stay tuned.

THE FIGHT CONTINUES: Tell the MA House: Don’t Do Trump’s Dirty Work

On Wednesday, the MA House’s Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy (TUE) advanced a bill that would gut the state’s commitment to clean energy.

WHAT’S IN THE BILL?

Here’s what the bill does:

  • Rolls back 2030 climate goals rollback
  • Guts Mass Save, removing decarbonization and electrification from its directive, reducing its budget, and adding incentives for gas furnaces back into the bill
  • Reduces the Renewable Portfolio Standard (clean energy requirement) from 3% to 1% growth each year
  • Removes a moderate-income discount electric rate that would save people money
  • Adds ‘cost effectiveness” tests to everything, and removes the social cost of carbon from calculations, putting a finger on the scale against climate solutions
  • Prevents pollution reduction payments (alternative compliance payments) from going to clean energy projects
  • Creates a “pipeline tax” – charging electric customers for gas pipeline supply
  • Repeals a landmark protection from new nuclear power facilities

Despite all of that, the vote was 7-0.

HOW DID THE COMMITTEE VOTE?

The 7 Democrats who voted to roll back our clean energy and energy efficiency commitments were House TUE Chair Mark Cusack (D-Braintree), Vice Chair Michael Kushmerek (D-Fitchburg), Bill MacGregor (D-West Roxbury), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Chynah Tyler (D-Roxbury), and Sean Reid (D-Lynn). If your state rep is on that list, make sure they hear your disappointment.

Two Democrats on the committee–Rep. Natalie Higgins (D-Leominster) and Rep. Margaret Scarsdale (D-Pepperell)–refused to join the bad policy bandwagon. In State House jargon, they “reserved their rights.” In plain language, they sent a clear message of “I’m not willing to support this bill as written.” If you are in their districts, make sure to thank them.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

We need to redouble our commitment to climate action, not walk it back. And the State House needs to hear that.

Can you let your state rep know it’s time to strengthen, not weaken, our climate commitments?

Testimony: Say No to Gas, Yes to a Just Transition

Thursday, November 13, 2025 

Chair Barrett, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3547/S.2290: An Act preventing gas expansion to protect climate, community health and safety. 

As we speak, the 30th COP conference of the United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in Brazil. Countries from across the world are discussing how to make their climate pledges into climate realities and how to muster collective global action to address the climate crisis. Notably absent, of course, is the United States. 

This year so far, we have seen the Trump administration take countless steps to sabotage our response to the climate crisis and our transition to clean energy. The Trump administration is seeking to rig the future for heavy-polluting fossil fuel companies and deny present and future generations the blessings of cleaner water, cleaner air, and good-paying jobs. We need you to not join them and, instead, to chart a different path in line with our commonwealth’s promises and values.

This bill would prevent new gas facility construction or expansion near environmental justice neighborhoods because we know that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground (and have known that for decades) and that the communities that have borne the burden of pollution for decades should not be forced to continue to do so. 

But this bill is not just about saying NO. It is about saying YES to what the future can be. 

It centers a vision of a just transition, one in which we usher in a clean energy economy with good-paying jobs that does not leave people behind. The bill requires gas companies to submit just transition plans, including not only measures to meet zero-emissions goals but also measures to do right by their workforce through workforce development, training, staffing, pension system solvency, and other steps. It creates a training fund for workers in the clean energy economy. And it creates a Just Transition Office to guide this energy and economic transformation. 

Time and time again, when Massachusetts voters are surveyed, they say that they want strong action on the climate crisis, and they know that our future is with clean energy. 

We need to continue the progress from recent years on that front, not do Trump’s dirty work for him with more fossil fuels and abandoned commitments. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Tell Your State Rep: Don’t Cave on Climate Action

Tuesday’s election had inspiring results in Massachusetts and across the country. In election after election, we saw that voters want their elected officials to stand up to the chaos, cruelty, and corruption of the Trump administration. Voters want elected officials who fight, not back down.

That memo needs to get to Beacon Hill.

On Friday, the Massachusetts House Energy Chair, Rep. MarkCusack (D-Braintree), told Commonwealth Beacon that he is considering repealing our critical state commitments to climate pollution reductions in an upcoming energy bill.

This is unacceptable and dangerous, especially as we see the Trump administration sabotage any recent federal progress on climate action. State leadership is even more important than it was before.

We need to redouble our commitment to climate action, not walk it back. And the State House needs to hear that.

Can you let your state rep know it’s time to strengthen, not weaken, our climate commitments?

Testimony: We Need to Scale Up Solar

Wednesday, October 15, 2025 

Chair Barrett, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy: 

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3559/S.2296: An Act to Encourage Solar Development on Buildings and Disturbed Land.

Massachusetts has set important climate goals, but meeting those climate goals will require a far faster transition to clean and green energy. 

These bills would incentivize the siting of solar projects on buildings and disturbed lands, where doing so has the least environmental impact. We can scale up solar and protect our forests at the same time. 

What does this mean in practice? More solar installations on parking lot canopies, brownfields, and roadway cuts. More solar on rooftops of residential, commercial and industrial buildings.

The incentives that currently exist have been mainly targeted at the small-scale solar of a household but do not meet the needs of such larger installations. 

This bill would fuel the solar energy economy in Massachusetts, which will help us create jobs, reduce energy costs, and ensure a livable planet for all. 

As the federal government abandons its commitment to climate action and sabotages progress on environmental justice, it is up to states to lead the way. These bills would help us do so.

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts