LAWMAKERS AND ADVOCATES on all sides of the climate issue are gearing up again after the holiday slumber to advance a contentious energy affordability bill that left Beacon Hill scrambling during the waning days of last year’s session.

House leaders are now planning a rare series of closed-door meetings for lawmakers next week totaling six hours divided between two days to discuss the path forward for legislation aimed at lowering the costs of energy that have animated residents across the state, according to an invitation viewed by CommonWealth Beacon.

Those meetings will be led by Rep. Mark Cusack, a Democrat from Braintree who co-chairs the Telecommunications, Energy, and Utilities Committee, and House Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz. House Speaker Ron Mariano also plans to be in attendance, according to his spokesperson, Ana Vivas.

The discussions will occur as the House looks to hash out the details of a complicated and sweeping policy proposal first kicked off by Gov. Maura Healey, who introduced her landmark energy affordability bill last spring after soaring energy costs prompted an outcry from residents around the state that continues to reverberate around the State House.

The political pressure to lower energy prices in the Bay State, home to the third-highest electricity costs in the country and rising gas bills, has only intensified since then and will likely continue to escalate in an election year for both Healey and the Legislature.

That pressure is coming from all corners.

Cusack in November rewrote much of Healey’s original bill to use it as a vehicle to weaken the state’s ambitious 2030 climate commitments amid consternation about President Trump’s moves to rescind permits for clean power infrastructure. Cusack’s measure would also cut Mass Save, the state’s energy efficiency program, and reduce the amount of green energy that utilities are required to procure. That bill, which cleared his committee, exposed divisions within the Democratic supermajority and triggered a fierce backlash from environmental advocates.

While Michlewitz threw cold water on touching the underlying climate goals and House leadership declined to rush Cusack’s legislation to a floor vote before lawmakers broke for the year, other pieces of the bill appear to be alive.

There is genuine appetite among House lawmakers to cut or cap the Mass Save budget, according to one industry lobbyist and one lobbyist representing environmental groups, both of whom were granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing legislative negotiations.

Mass Save, which is funded through ratepayers and appears as a line item on utility bills, is seen as one of the levers that the Legislature has in its control to immediately lower costs on bills, though the program is credited with saving substantial money and energy consumption over the long run through upgrades to homes. Cusack proposed capping the Mass Save budget at $4 billion, which would be a $500 million cut from the current budget approved by state regulators. (If approved, that cut would be in addition to the $500 million state officials removed from the program’s budget last March.)

Such a move would have real consequences. Brian Swett, Boston’s first chief climate officer, said that cuts to Mass Save would directly impact the city’s ability to deliver on its Boston Energy Saver program that rolled out last year that aims to install thousands of heat pumps and provide free consultations to help lower gas and electric bills for residents. The crux of that effort relies on Mass Save.

“We want to see Mass Save continue to be supported at the levels that we were reaching in the spring,” Swett said in an interview. “Fundamentally, we want to reinforce and not challenge the idea that the best thing we can do for Boston residents and ratepayers in all of Massachusetts, when it comes to energy affordability, is to reduce their need for energy.”

Then there’s the question of who, at this point, has ownership over the legislation. The industry lobbyist said they are not sure who is actually finalizing the measure, noting that Cusack, Michlewitz, and Rep. Jeff Roy, who formerly led the House energy panel and now serves as a Mariano deputy in leadership, appear to be all vying for influence over the bill.

Others don’t necessarily see that as a problem but rather an inevitability with an endeavor of this magnitude and consequence.

“It makes sense there are several people involved because it’s complicated, technical, and the more heads you have on these types of issues to make sure we do it right, the better,” said the lobbyist representing environmental groups.

Cusack, Michlewitz, and Roy all either didn’t respond to requests for comment or declined to comment on the record.

Beacon Hill insiders likened the process playing out now over the energy affordability bill to the 2024 gun reform law. In that process, an initial gun reform bill in 2023 generated significant opposition, prompting a pair of closed-door, member-only meetings in July of that year. Mariano proceeded to punt further action until the fall, when a redrafted version – which limited the presence of firearms in public spaces, cracked down on “ghost guns,” and updated the state’s so-called red flag law – was released alongside a public hearing.

Ultimately, after the Senate approved its own bill in 2024, negotiators agreed months later on what is now law following Healey’s signature.

Earlier this week, Republicans released their own energy affordability measure focused on capping Mass Save’s budget, reforming utility contracts, and returning more money to ratepayers. In some respects, it isn’t wildly different from Cusack’s version, but it does serve to needle the majority party on how long the Democrats are taking to move on an issue seen as urgent and demonstrates an effort from the GOP to stake a claim in the efforts from Democrats to lower energy costs.

“The majority has not rushed to come up with solutions,” said Rep. Brad Jones, the House Republican leader who co-sponsored the recently-released GOP energy bill. “The governor filed a bill many, many, many months ago. We’ve done nothing in response to her bill. Obviously the chair put out a bill, now we’re a couple months after that, and we’re now sitting down and having conversations. Look, we need to do something. Doing nothing doesn’t seem to be the best solution to a problem.”

The fact that the House is even planning such a robust set of meetings on the issue next week, Jones said, shows that the Democratic caucus is “sort of all over the place” — but that there’s ultimately a hope that this process can produce something “consensus-driven.”

Environmental groups are also looking to continue to shape the bill after they successfully beat back attempts to weaken the 2030 climate commitments. The Environmental League of Massachusetts posted on Wednesday that it is “actively engaged” at the State House on the legislation and is working to “ensure Massachusetts delivers real affordability solutions, accelerates clean energy progress, and stays firmly on track to meet its climate commitments.”

Ultimately, though, the way the process has played out in just one chamber so far signals a long road ahead for any legislation that can tackle high utility bills.

“If past is prologue,” Jones said, “it will certainly be many months before something is done, probably well after the heating season.”