A sweeping energy affordability package that cleared the state Senate earlier this month would save Bay Staters $14 billion over 10 years amid increasing energy costs by altering utility programs while maintaining the Mass Save Program. However, lawmakers still have work to do before utility and energy savings would be seen on monthly bills.
The package, Bill S.3143, passed the Senate on a 32-8 vote on July 1, charting a path for a number of energy initiatives. The Senate bill was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, vice chaired by Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, who said the legislation would bring energy and utility savings while maintaining climate goals.
“We’ve done a big sweep of climate bills mindful of a changing climate,” Comerford said. “This one focused, of course, on ways we can continue to keep our commitment while also recognizing that energy costs are just too high for constituents, and I believe the Senate’s bill is a sophisticated, highly effective piece of legislation.”
Energy policy has been a well-debated topic for state lawmakers over the past year. Members of the House of Representatives have already presented their own legislation tackling energy reform for the Bay State. Members from each branch will now hold a conference to try to sort out differences before legislation is sent to Gov. Maura Healey’s desk.
“I don’t think this is going to be an easy conference but we have good people from both chambers to get this done,” Comerford said.
Healey released her energy affordability proposal more than a year ago; it includes key reforms aimed at ensuring utilities aren’t passing unnecessary costs onto ratepayers. The governor wants legislation sent to her by July 31, but as debate continues this month, energy bills remain costly.
A decade ago, Bay State electric bills averaged $130 to $160 a month; they have since peaked at around $250 today, while a typical winter gas bill has jumped from about $140 to more than $320, according to utility filings with the Department of Public Utilities. The median Massachusetts household spent about 3% of its income on energy in 2024, slightly above the national average.
Comerford said affordability is at the forefront of the Senate’s legislation, which senators say would save $14 billion over 10 years. The House’s bill claims that it would save roughly $9 billion over a decade — a $5 billion difference between the two bills.
The Senate and House have been divided on several topics. The House bill seeks to cut about $1 billion from the Mass Save budget. Mass Save is a program funded by charges on utility bills to fund energy efficiency projects. The Senate instead makes mostly administrative tweaks to Mass Save but doesn’t touch its funding.
“We largely kept our commitment to Mass Save, which is an important program for constituents who want to get savings while going greener,” Comerford said.
Sen. Michael Barrett, D-Lexington, who helped lead efforts for the bill, said the legislation attempts to create methods to help ratepayers reduce energy consumption, in turn helping offset energy supply costs.
A few main components, the senator said, include letting utilities refinance certain grid modernization, storm recovery, and gas transition expenses at a lower cost. That is estimated to save up to $7.1 billion over 10 years. Another measure moves toward streamlining distribution planning processes, estimated to save $1.79 billion.
The largest single piece of savings for gas would come from phasing out the Gas System Enhancement Program by 2030, which is estimated to save roughly $1.46 billion. The 2014 program requires gas companies to annually submit a plan to the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to replace leak-prone natural gas pipeline infrastructure.
Barrett notes that Massachusetts can’t control the cost of supply, which is why this bill aims to reduce consumption.
“The reason you never want to go after something like Mass Save is, you never want to make the mistake of assuming that reducing consumption is responsible for the cost of fuel on the front end,” he said. “Energy efficiency can’t really do much about the initial price of fossil fuels for New England. There are some things we can do, and we undertake them in this bill, but as I say, a lot of factors bear on the initial price of energy. What we can do is help people reduce their consumption of the thing that’s become pricey.”
Comerford worked on three amendments in the bill, including one that directs the DPU to investigate the profits utilities are earning, which she said are much higher than what is necessary — reaching profit margins upward of 10%, when only a 7.9% margin is needed for investment.
Another amendment is designed to help municipalities approve or reject applications for small clean-energy projects (like solar arrays) within 12 months of an application being filed, as outlined in a 2024 law. That law requires each town to appoint someone — called a local government representative — to handle that review, but most small towns often don’t have anyone on staff who can take that on. This amendment lets them use an existing process (called “53G”) where the applicant company pays an outside consultant to do the technical review work. In this scenario, the 12-month clock doesn’t start ticking until the consultant contract is signed.
Another amendment would require all transmission companies in Massachusetts to participate in ISO‑NE, the organization that manages the regional power grid. Right now, transmission companies get extra money — an extra 0.5% on their bills, called an “RTO adder” — for voluntarily joining ISO-NE. Requiring these companies to join would let attorney general ask federal regulators to eliminate that bonus payment.
“The adder was created about 20 years ago to encourage the formation of regional transmission organizations, but ISO‑NE membership is now essential for transmission companies,” Comerford’s office said in a statement. “The RTO adder has effectively become a needless bonus for utilities, with no benefit to ratepayers.”
State Sen. John Velis, D-Westfield, said the bill is “good” overall and that he is “all about” increasing green energy, but he has reservations about the legislation tackling a wide range of energy initiatives without considering the consequences for utility costs.
“If your ultimate goal is to have complete clean energy, if you go from A to Z too fast — i.e. push out natural gas — the risk that you run is you cause a lot of pain” to constituents, Velis said. “There are opportunities to give our constituents some savings through this bill, but they’re not going to be a tomorrow thing.”
Material from State House News was used in this article.
