Last night, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed H.5151, its latest response to the energy affordability crisis gripping the Commonwealth. With utility bills straining household budgets and small businesses alike, lawmakers clearly felt pressure to act.

But despite the rhetoric, this bill does little to affect energy bills and does not address the core driver of Massachusetts’ sky-high energy costs: the state’s legally binding Net Zero mandates. In several respects, the bill passed by the House risks deepening the long-term problem while offering only temporary relief.

To be clear, there were some provisions that acknowledge the cost pressures ratepayers are facing due to emissions reduction policies. However, they in turn admitted that by cutting or pausing these policies, that the renewable energy transition is costly:

• Roughly $1 billion in reductions to the administrative and marketing costs of the Mass Save program
• Returning 70% of alternative compliance payments, charges utilities must pay for not meeting renewable energy mandates, to ratepayers through mid-2029
• Reforms to certain charges and adjustments to net metering credits which are some of the most generous in the country
• A two-year delay of offshore wind contracting deadlines
• Repeal of a decades-old voter approval requirement for new nuclear facilities

Supporters argue that some of these changes will provide billions in short-term relief and some provisions, such as trimming wasteful spending within Mass Save, may temporarily lower bills.

However, the central cost driver and reason all these costly programs exist in the first place, remains untouched: the Commonwealth’s binding emissions mandates, including the Net Zero by 2050 requirement and the upcoming 50% emissions reduction mandate by 2030 deadline. As long as those mandates remain law, policymakers will continue forcing the market to meet unattainable aggressive timelines regardless of cost, ensuring that affordability remains secondary to compliance.

According to the state’s own data, we are only about halfway to meeting the upcoming 2030 emissions reduction mandate. That means the most aggressive and expensive compliance measures are still ahead. Without revisiting that mandate, the policies that produced today’s affordability crisis will continue to pressure rates tomorrow.

In fact, expanding procurement authority and doubling down on long-term contracting structures will further lock ratepayers into costly energy deals for decades. Delaying offshore wind contracts by two years does not change the underlying economics of projects that have already required repeated renegotiations, and under this bill, the ratepayers will now be on the hook for pre-development costs for future projects. Nor does returning alternative compliance payments solve the structural imbalance created by mandates that distort supply and pricing.

Even the Mass Save reduction was described by House leaders as a “pause.” A pause is not reform. If the mandate remains in place, spending pressures will inevitably return with a vengeance.

Meanwhile, other states in New England are beginning to recalibrate. Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee recently delayed Rhode Island’s 2030 emissions requirements in recognition of affordability and reliability concerns. Massachusetts lawmakers, by contrast, declined to reconsider their own timeline, even as residents face some of the highest energy costs in the nation.

The bill now heads to the Massachusetts State Senate, where leaders have already indicated they intend to preserve the 2030 mandate. It’s shaping up that this is an election year bill with myopic short-term provisions they can point to in order to show they are taking action regarding record high energy bills, while baking in some new costly policies that won’t hit until after the election.

Short-term relief without long-term correction will only guarantee that this crisis resurfaces again and again.

There were moments in last night’s debate that show the conversation is shifting. We saw some of the most vigorous debate in that chamber in years, with key speeches being delivered by Rep. Marc Lombardo, Rep. Kelly Pease, Rep. Mike Soter, and Rep. Ken Sweezey.

Opponents to the bill forced roll calls on key amendments that forced lawmakers to take positions against common sense measures like expanded gas pipelines and making the upcoming 2030 emissions reduction mandate an advisory goal. Even the lawmakers pushing for the bill openly acknowledged that affordability is a serious political and economic issue. Programs once treated as untouchable are now being scrutinized. That shift did not happen on its own.

The advocacy that you engage in when called on is having a real effect on the conversation on Beacon Hill. It may not seem like much, but each time we ask you to share a video or send an email in to your local lawmakers, it has a snowballing effect that ultimately helps steer the conversation on Beacon Hill away from radical activist driven climate ideology towards practical policies rooted in reliability and affordability.

But the work is far from finished.

Massachusetts cannot regulate, mandate, and subsidize its way to affordability. Until Beacon Hill addresses the statutory mandates driving costs upward, meaningful relief will remain out of reach.

We will continue pressing for policies that prioritize reliability, economic competitiveness, and genuine affordability for ratepayers across the Commonwealth.