The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance said the Massachusetts House’s newly released energy affordability proposal acknowledges serious cost drivers within the state’s energy system but fails to reform the binding climate mandates that continue to push utility bills higher.

House leadership says the bill will save ratepayers $9 billion over ten years by cutting $1 billion from the Mass Save program, returning a portion of alternative compliance payments to residents, and reducing certain net metering credits and charges. However, the legislation does not alter the state’s statutory net zero emissions requirements, the first major benchmark of which takes effect in 2030.

The $1 billion reduction to Mass Save is expected to come largely from marketing, advertising, and administrative spending. House leaders have also ordered an inspector general review to examine why the program has grown significantly over the past decade.

“Beacon Hill is now admitting that $1 billion in Mass Save spending was unnecessary and that ratepayers were funding bloated marketing and administrative costs. Lawmakers approved this billion-dollar spending year after year, and families are only hearing about 'inefficiencies' after their electric bills reached record highs. That is not oversight. That is damage control,” said Paul Diego Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.

The bill would return 70 percent of Alternative Compliance Payments to ratepayers through 2029, with a future trigger tied to hardship. These penalties are paid when suppliers fail to meet renewable energy purchasing requirements, used to meet state mandates.

“If Alternative Compliance Payments generate enough revenue that the state now feels compelled to rebate them, that is clear evidence that compliance mandates are inflating monthly bills. Instead of rebating penalties after the fact, lawmakers should repeal the policies that created the penalties in the first place,” said Craney.

The legislation expands the authority of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources to procure clean energy, codifies the SMART solar incentive program, allows for a statewide battery storage incentive program, and extends the offshore wind procurement timeline while creating a new state partnership structure with developers.

“Expanding procurement authority, codifying subsidy programs like SMART, and creating new energy storage incentives is just expanding on the same approach that helped create this affordability crisis in the first place. These programs guarantee above-market compensation backed by ratepayers. Without repealing the upcoming 2030 climate emissions reduction mandate, this bill will be doing nothing but smoothing out the sticker shock while locking in the structural drivers of high energy costs,” said Craney.

MassFiscal noted that the bill repeals a 1982 voter approval requirement for new nuclear facilities, calling it a positive step toward diversifying reliable energy supply as the technology has matured greatly since then. However, the organization emphasized that meaningful long-term relief will require repealing the NetZero climate mandate.

“As long as the 2030 mandate remains untouched, policymakers are simply kicking the can down the road. Massachusetts families need structural reform that prioritizes affordability and reliability over rigid climate mandates,” concluded Craney.