The MA Senate Votes 32-8 for Its Energy Bill. So What’s In It, and What’s Next?

Yesterday, the MA Senate voted to 32 to 8 for its energy bill, setting the stage for negotiations with the House.

The chamber’s five Republicans voted NO, and they were joined by Michael Brady (D-Brockton), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Michael Moore (D-Millbury).

The following overview of the bill is adapted from a Mass Power Forward action guide.

GOOD:

  • Preserves funding for Mass Save: This is in contrast to the House bill, which cut $1 billion from Mass Save. The Senate bill caps administrative costs at 5% and removes gas companies from administering the program. It also adjusts the scope of the program to include solar, battery storage, and other clean energy technologies that save customers money. 20% of Mass Save is designated for LMI programs, codifying in law a recent equity allocation win in the latest Mass Save 3 year plan.
  • Phases Out the Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP): Instead, utilities would be required to do advanced leak repair where feasible, as opposed to costly and unnecessary full pipe replacements.
  • Increases Clean Energy Procurement: DOER (Department Of Energy Resources) is authorized to procure 20 GW (Gigawatts) of renewable energy, including 10 GW of solar and 10 GW of wind, by 2040. 
  • Regulates Predatory Third Party Suppliers: The bill enables municipalities to ban scammy third party electricity suppliers, who often rip off vulnerable communities with misleading offers. Third-party supply prices are capped for discount rate customers with bans on automatic renewals, cancellation fees, and variable rates.
  • Expands Geothermal: The bill authorizes gas companies to create thermal energy networks (networked geothermal) with worker protections. 
  • Reins in Utility Profiteering: The bill bars the use of ratepayer funds for promotional and political advertising; trade-association dues; charitable giving; lobbying; board/officer travel, lodging, entertainment, gifts, food/beverage, aircraft; tax penalties; non-regulated product marketing.
  • Bans Heat Wave Shut Offs: The bill bans electric shutoffs during heat waves, similar to the heating shutoff ban we have during cold weather. 
  • Promotes Gas Transition Planning: The bill requires DPU to conduct integrated energy planning to facilitate transition off gas and requires disclosure of how infrastructure investment decisions (e.g. substation constructions) are made and reduce them. 

BAD

  • Income Verification: Mass Save programs must verify household income for moderate-income rebates. This creates further bureaucratic hurdles for low and moderate-income customers, who can currently qualify for programs via self-attestation — which has been hugely successful. 
  • Mass Save Budget Caps: Mass Save budgets are capped for each 3 yr. Plan, preventing mid-budget increases. 
  • Corporate Representation in Mass Save Governance: The bill adds business representatives to the Mass Save Energy EfficiencyAdvisory Council) 
  • Short-Term Decrease in Renewable Portfolio Standard: The bill reduces the state’s annual RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards), i.e., the requirement for utilities to build renewables, increase from 3% to 1%, for the next three years (the bill, however, increases the RPS in the long term).

A total of 183 amendments were filed, of which 67 were withdrawn, 92 were rejected, and 24 were adopted.

Of the amendments backed by Mass Power Forward, three were adopted:

  • #1 (Comerford): Protect Constituents From Unreasonable Utility Profits, which studies studies the amount of profit utilities are being allowed to get from ratepayers
  • #25 (Gomez): Addressing Biomass, which removes highly-polluting woody biomass as an eligible fuel under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard for Municipal Lighting plants. It passed 35-4, with Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) joining Democrats.
  • #162 (Howard): Data Center Tax Credits, which conditions such tax credits on meeting various environmental, labor, and transparency standards

Two were withdrawn:

  • #37 (Creem): Prohibition on Charging Ratepayers for Goodwill or Institutional Advertising, which prevents utilities from charging their customers for institutional advertising, which is public relations aimed at enhancing the company’s image
  • #78 (Edwards): Labor Peace for Thermal Energy Networks, which would require management to stay neutral in unionization efforts on publicly owned network geothermal projects

Four were rejected without a vote:

  • #26 (Gomez): Halting Gas Expansion, which prevents the expansion of gas infrastructure near EJ communities and plans for a just transition away from fossil fuels 
  • #62 (Howard): Data Centers, which establish safeguards around data center development for energy, water, health, and people’s bills
  • #82 (Rausch): DPU Clarification, which would remove section allowing “renewable natural gas blending” in the gas distribution system for commercial customers
  • #106 (Eldridge): Self-Attestation of Income, which keeps self-reporting for low and moderate-income households in Mass Save 

Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough)’s amendment #77, which would have prevented utilities from imposing charges on all ratepayers to cover the cost of expanding natural gas lines, failed in a close vote of 19-20.

The vote was an interesting split, particularly because of the split in Senate Leadership. Majority Leader Cindy Creem (D-Newton), President Pro Tempore Will Brownsberger (D-Belmont), Assistant Majority Leader Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Assistant Majority Leader Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett), Majority Whip Mike Rush (D-West Roxbury), and Assistant Majority Whip Julian Cyr (D-Truro) voted yes. However, Senate Ways & Means chair Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport) and Assistant Majority Leader Joan Lovely (D-Salem) voted no.

Environmental groups were lobbying for the amendment, and real estate groups were lobbying against it. Most of the YES votes were from the Senate’s more progressive members. Surprise YES votes like Nick Collins (D-South Boston) and Mike Rush (D-West Roxbury) make sense in the context of them facing progressive primary challengers: primaries can do wonders for making elected officials pay more attention to their constituents. We should have more of them.

Of the two amendments MPF opposed, Sen. Fernandes’s amendment #114, which took money from crucial programs for low-income housing decarbonization and clean energy, was rejected without a vote, and Sen. Brady’s amendment #139, which removed the reforms to the GSEP program, was withdrawn.

Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment (#17) to weaken Mass Save’s next three-year plan and create a series of commissions that try to blame renewable energy for higher energy costs failed 9 to 30, with Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans.

The MA Senate Released Its Energy Bill. What’s In It?

Yesterday, the MA Senate released its energy bill (S3143), to be voted on next Wednesday.

So what is good, what is bad, and what’s left out? The following is adapted from a Mass Power Forward action guide.

GOOD:

  • Preserves funding for Mass Save: This is in contrast to the House bill, which cut $1 billion from Mass Save. The Senate bill caps administrative costs at 5% and removes gas companies from administering the program. It also adjusts the scope of the program to include solar, battery storage, and other clean energy technologies that save customers money. 20% of Mass Save is designated for LMI programs, codifying in law a recent equity allocation win in the latest Mass Save 3 year plan.
  • Phases Out the Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP): Instead, utilities would be required to do advanced leak repair where feasible, as opposed to costly and unnecessary full pipe replacements.
  • Increases Clean Energy Procurement: DOER (Department Of Energy Resources) is authorized to procure 20 GW (Gigawatts) of renewable energy, including 10 GW of solar and 10 GW of wind, by 2040. 
  • Regulates Predatory Third Party Suppliers: The bill enables municipalities to ban scammy third party electricity suppliers, who often rip off vulnerable communities with misleading offers. Third-party supply prices are capped for discount rate customers with bans on automatic renewals, cancellation fees, and variable rates.
  • Expands Geothermal: The bill authorizes gas companies to create thermal energy networks (networked geothermal) with worker protections. 
  • Reins in Utility Profiteering: The bill bars the use of ratepayer funds for promotional and political advertising; trade-association dues; charitable giving; lobbying; board/officer travel, lodging, entertainment, gifts, food/beverage, aircraft; tax penalties; non-regulated product marketing.
  • Bans Heat Wave Shut Offs: The bill bans electric shutoffs during heat waves, similar to the heating shutoff ban we have during cold weather. 
  • Promotes Gas Transition Planning: The bill requires DPU to conduct integrated energy planning to facilitate transition off gas and requires disclosure of how infrastructure investment decisions (e.g. substation constructions) are made and reduce them. 

BAD

  • Income Verification: Mass Save programs must verify household income for moderate-income rebates. This creates further bureaucratic hurdles for low and moderate-income customers, who can currently qualify for programs via self-attestation — which has been hugely successful. 
  • Mass Save Budget Caps: Mass Save budgets are capped for each 3 yr. Plan, preventing mid-budget increases. 
  • Corporate Representation in Mass Save Governance: The bill adds business representatives to the Mass Save Energy EfficiencyAdvisory Council) 
  • Short-Term Decrease in Renewable Portfolio Standard: The bill reduces the state’s annual RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards), i.e., the requirement for utilities to build renewables, increase from 3% to 1%, for the next three years (the bill, however, increases the RPS in the long term).
  • Counts Biomass as Renewable Energy: Woody biomass (trees, shrubs, etc), a highly polluting source of energy, are included as a clean energy source under the eligible Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard for Municipal Lighting plants. 

MISSING:

  • Preventing Gas System Expansion: No ban on large gas pipeline expansions by gas companies.
  • Stopping Ratepayers from Paying for LEA (Line Extension Allowances):  No ban on ratepayers subsidizing line extensions for new construction/new customers.
  • Protections from Data Centers: No inclusion of protections from data center development (the House included modest protections around clean energy and increases in costs to ratepayers)

The Mass Power Forward Coalition is backing several amendments to strengthen the bill:

  • #1 (Comerford): Protect Constituents From Unreasonable Utility Profits, which studies studies the amount of profit utilities are being allowed to get from ratepayers
  • #25 (Gomez): Addressing Biomass, which removes highly-polluting woody biomass as an eligible fuel under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard for Municipal Lighting plants
  • #26 (Gomez): Halting Gas Expansion, which prevents the expansion of gas infrastructure near EJ communities and plans for a just transition away from fossil fuels 
  • #37 (Creem): Prohibition on Charging Ratepayers for Goodwill or Institutional Advertising, which prevents utilities from charging their customers for institutional advertising, which is public relations aimed at enhancing the company’s image
  • #62 & #162 (Howard): Data Centers & Data Center Tax Credits, which establish safeguards around data center development for energy, water, health, and people’s bills
  • #77 (Eldridge): End Gas Line Extension Subsidies, which stops charging of all ratepayers for new gas line extension allowances
  • #78 (Edwards): Labor Peace for Thermal Energy Networks, which would require management to stay neutral in unionization efforts on publicly owned network geothermal projects
  • #82 (Rausch): DPU Clarification, which would remove section allowing “renewable natural gas blending” in the gas distribution system for commercial customers
  • #106 (Eldridge): Self-Attestation of Income, which keeps self-reporting for low and moderate-income households in Mass Save 

Mass Power Forward is also opposing two amendments:

  • #114 (Fernandes): Relative to energy rebate checks, which takes money from crucial programs low-income housing decarbonization and local clean energy
  • #139 (Brady): Preserving Gas System Enhancement Plan Statutory Authority, which removes critical reforms to the GSEP program

Write to your state senators here.

Follow-up Links to Spring Forward: What Beacon Hill Can Do on Energy Affordability webinar

Thank you to everyone who joined last night’s webinar! And if you weren’t able to join, you were missed!

Here is the video:

Vick shared two action alerts and one upcoming event:  

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.

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.

Testimony in Support of Language Access and Utility Accountability

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Chair Cabral, Chair Collins, and Members of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3384 / S.2125 (An Act Relative to Language Access and Inclusion) and H.3400 (An Act prohibiting the use of ratepayer funds for utility lobbying, promotions, or perks).

H.3384/S.2125: Language Access and Inclusion Act

Massachusetts is home to a vibrant immigrant community. One in six Massachusetts residents is an immigrant, while one in seven residents is a native-born US citizen with at least one immigrant parent.

Massachusetts, correspondingly, is home to great linguistic diversity: more than 1 out of 4 residents report speaking a language other than English at home, with the most common languages being Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Russian. However, as the pandemic demonstrated, our state agencies and departments have a patchwork of different policies around language accessibility, and there is no current statute to ensure that non-English speaking residents have a fair and equitable opportunity to obtain an education, apply for benefits, receive housing assistance, or represent themselves in court.

The Language Access and Inclusion Act would help our Commonwealth better meet the needs of all residents by standardizing and enforcing language access protocols and practices at public-facing state agencies. Everyone should be able to interact with and seek help from their own government, no matter what language they speak.

H.3400: Utility Accountability

Our public utilities are supposed to serve and be regulated in service of the public interest; however, gas and electric utilities are regularly using money they collect from customers’ bills to fund their lobbying, advertising, and trade association dues. Customers have no say in such decisions, and such spending can often be directly in contradiction of the public interest. Voters across the Commonwealth want strong environmental laws and robust and equitable climate legislation, and we should not be coerced into funding opposition campaigns simply because of the need to have light, heat, and electricity in our homes.

Similarly, utilities are using customer ratepayer money to subsidize the lavish expenses of their Boards of Directors—at the same time as they are raising prices.

It’s quite simple: If utilities have so much money to spend on lobbying, ads, and perks, they are charging customers too much money and investing too little in the transition to clean, green energy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts