In response to the Healey administration rollout of ideologically allied local officials to push the Governor’s recently filed energy legislation (H.4144), the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance issued a warning to lawmakers and taxpayers not to be fooled by the hype.

“Governor Healey’s bill is being sold as a solution to our state’s unaffordable energy costs, but it’s little more than a political rebrand of the same failed climate mandates that drove prices up in the first place,” said Paul Diego Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.

“Massachusetts families and businesses have endured some of the highest energy costs in the nation. This bill doesn’t solve that, it entrenches it. It piles on more expensive mandates, and puts bureaucrats in charge of micromanaging how we heat our homes, power our lives, and build our communities,” said Craney.

While some local officials expressed relief that the issue is getting attention, the actual details of the legislation should paint a very different picture for ratepayers. Some of the more notable nonstarters in the bill include:

• Potentially increases charges: It allows MassSave to borrow money and recover the costs—plus interest—through your monthly bill.
• Expands bureaucracy: A new 15-member advisory council will oversee sweeping mandates. Utilities will be required to file costly modernization plans covering everything from EV infrastructure to speculative “virtual power plants.”
• Increases energy surveillance: The bill enables the tracking of homeowners’ energy audits, decarbonization steps, and participation in demand response programs. Though some of this may start as “opt-in,” the infrastructure is being laid for mandatory monitoring.
• Pushes unproven electrification programs: Proposals like Inclusive Utility Investment (IUI) will tie consumers to long-term repayment plans through their electric bills, even if the upgrades were unnecessary or unwanted.
• Signals preparation for grid failure: By requiring emergency “microgrids” for government buildings, the bill raises serious questions. If the grid was truly stable under these policies, why are we building backup systems for government facilities while leaving the average ratepayer exposed?

The bill’s attempt to get rid of some current utility bill charges is long overdue, but the estimated savings is inflated. There is one element in the bill that MassFiscal acknowledges as a step in the right direction—repealing the outdated 1982 ban on nuclear energy—but even that comes with a caveat.

“Revisiting the state’s nuclear ban is long overdue, and it shows that even Beacon Hill now realizes their extremist climate mandates are unworkable without reliable baseload power. Instead of acknowledging that the mandates themselves are the problem, this bill tries to patch holes with costly schemes and window dressing,” noted Craney.

“This isn’t an affordability bill, it’s a political cover bill. The Healey administration is trying to calm public outrage over high prices by pretending to act, while doubling down on the exact same policies that caused the problem. MassFiscal urges lawmakers instead to work toward repealing the NetZero by 2050 mandate, which is the law that is driving all of this,” closed Craney.