THE SENATE ON WEDNESDAY takes up a sweeping energy bill aimed at affordability, one that boosters say will save ratepayers more than $14 billion over a decade. But first, senators have more than 180 ideas to reshape it.
The bill (S 3143), which the Senate Ways and Means Committee released last week as a response to the bill (H 5175) the House passed in February, leans on squeezing utility “overspending and overcharging,” according to leadership. Its greatest projected savings come from: up to $7.1 billion from letting utilities securitize certain costs, $1.7 billion from consolidated grid planning, nearly $1.5 billion by winding down a gas pipe replacement program, and about $780 million and $750 million from procurement and reconciling-charge reforms.Sen. Michael Barrett, the primary energy-policy architect of the bill, told reporters last week that “there was spirited debate in several caucuses” and “pretty healthy participation on the part of senators” as the legislation was being written. By Friday’s deadline, senators proposed 183 ways to change the bill that is expected to pass Wednesday.
“We’re going to see some floor amendments, and the bill might materially change. Ideally, it will be a better product when the debate is done. So, stay tuned,” Barrett said. “But we’re in a good, solid place. And we can save people serious money if we move with a large enough toolbox, and I hope we do.”
Gas System Enhancement Program
The bill from the Senate Ways and Means Committee phases out the Gas System Enhancement Program entirely by 2030. Until then, the legislation would narrow the program to leak-prone pipe, ending the wholesale replacement of all old pipe that critics say inflated costs.
By winding GSEP down, the committee bill is estimated to save ratepayers about $1.46 billion, the largest single chunk of savings on the gas side of the Senate’s ledger.
A senator from each party — Republican Patrick O’Connor of Weymouth and Democrat Michael Brady of Brockton — want to scrap that part of the bill entirely. Their identical amendments (#97 and #139, respectively) would maintain the status quo payments, funded by customer surcharges, the GSEP program provides to utilities for replacing aging and leak-prone pipes.
O’Connor named his amendment “Protecting Existing Infrastructure and Jobs,” and the GSEP program has regularly been defended by underground utility contractors and gas workers’ unions.
Barrett said last week that concerns that eliminating the GSEP program could mean less work for the unions “were voiced” during Senate caucus while the bill was being developed. But he said he thinks “everyone recognizes that gas isn’t going to be replaced on the schedule that climate hawks hoped four or five years ago.”
“I think everyone acknowledges that we’re not getting off gas anytime soon. We need to transition off because it’s too expensive,” Barrett said. “So you want to move away from gas, from over-dependence on gas, but you need to acknowledge that you’re going to be dependent on gas. That means those jobs are going to stay there. Those jobs are not going away in the accelerated fashion that some climate advocates may have hoped. The process is going more slowly.”
Barrett said the savings will come from timing. Once GSEP is phased out, utilities can still earn their return but must wait to recoup it through a regular rate case. That lag, plus a review based on whether the infrastructure will be “used and useful,” discourages unnecessary construction that the current real-time reimbursement incentivizes.
GSEP spending has reached $6.2 billion since the program was created in a 2014 gas leaks law and is projected to total $42 billion by the time the work is fully paid off, according to research from the Future of Heat Initiative.
Sen. Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat, wants to go the other direction and phase out GSEP a year sooner than the committee bill, by Nov. 1, 2029. He named his amendment (#175) “Immediate GSEP phase out for ratepayer savings.”
Ratepayer Rebates
Direct ratepayer savings are the goal of another bipartisan pair of amendments, these from Sen. Dylan Fernandes of Falmouth and Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester.
The committee bill includes no provision like the House bill’s plan to return 70% of alternative compliance payments that electricity suppliers make to the state when they do not meet a clean energy quota to ratepayers over the next few years. Both Fernandes and Tarr want to change that.
Fernandes proposes (#114) to have the state return at least 70% of ACP money to electric ratepayers with household incomes of up to $200,000 and who do not have discounted rates as an annual “Massachusetts Energy Rebate Check.” Tarr’s amendment (#20) would direct at least 50% of ACPs to be credited back to ratepayer bills in the same service territory within 90 days “on a per kilowatt-hour basis or other equitable crediting method.”
The money utilities pay as ACPs has generally been directed to fund the Mass. Clean Energy Center and clean energy programs.
Sen. Robyn Kennedy, a Worcester Democrat, filed an amendment (#163) to specifically task the Department of Energy Resources with spending ACP funds “on programs to serve ratepayers, including but not limited to programs that serve energy efficiency services to low and moderate income households, programs that encourage the adoption of electric vehicles, & programs that support decarbonization efforts.”
Scrutinizing Mass Save
Representatives relied on a roughly $1 billion cut to the Mass Save energy efficiency program to assemble a package of about $9 billion in 10-year savings. The Senate’s approach instead focuses on capping the program’s planning and administration spending, eliminating mandatory payouts to utilities, and imposing a new, temporary five-person oversight board to scrutinize the program as a whole.
Sen. Michael Barrett, the primary energy-policy architect of the bill, told reporters last week that “there was spirited debate in several caucuses” and “pretty healthy participation on the part of senators” as the legislation was being written. By Friday’s deadline, senators proposed 183 ways to change the bill that is expected to pass Wednesday.
“We’re going to see some floor amendments, and the bill might materially change. Ideally, it will be a better product when the debate is done. So, stay tuned,” Barrett said. “But we’re in a good, solid place. And we can save people serious money if we move with a large enough toolbox, and I hope we do.”
Gas System Enhancement Program
The bill from the Senate Ways and Means Committee phases out the Gas System Enhancement Program entirely by 2030. Until then, the legislation would narrow the program to leak-prone pipe, ending the wholesale replacement of all old pipe that critics say inflated costs.
By winding GSEP down, the committee bill is estimated to save ratepayers about $1.46 billion, the largest single chunk of savings on the gas side of the Senate’s ledger.
A senator from each party — Republican Patrick O’Connor of Weymouth and Democrat Michael Brady of Brockton — want to scrap that part of the bill entirely. Their identical amendments (#97 and #139, respectively) would maintain the status quo payments, funded by customer surcharges, the GSEP program provides to utilities for replacing aging and leak-prone pipes.
O’Connor named his amendment “Protecting Existing Infrastructure and Jobs,” and the GSEP program has regularly been defended by underground utility contractors and gas workers’ unions.
Barrett said last week that concerns that eliminating the GSEP program could mean less work for the unions “were voiced” during Senate caucus while the bill was being developed. But he said he thinks “everyone recognizes that gas isn’t going to be replaced on the schedule that climate hawks hoped four or five years ago.”
“I think everyone acknowledges that we’re not getting off gas anytime soon. We need to transition off because it’s too expensive,” Barrett said. “So you want to move away from gas, from over-dependence on gas, but you need to acknowledge that you’re going to be dependent on gas. That means those jobs are going to stay there. Those jobs are not going away in the accelerated fashion that some climate advocates may have hoped. The process is going more slowly.”
Barrett said the savings will come from timing. Once GSEP is phased out, utilities can still earn their return but must wait to recoup it through a regular rate case. That lag, plus a review based on whether the infrastructure will be “used and useful,” discourages unnecessary construction that the current real-time reimbursement incentivizes.
GSEP spending has reached $6.2 billion since the program was created in a 2014 gas leaks law and is projected to total $42 billion by the time the work is fully paid off, according to research from the Future of Heat Initiative.
Sen. Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat, wants to go the other direction and phase out GSEP a year sooner than the committee bill, by Nov. 1, 2029. He named his amendment (#175) “Immediate GSEP phase out for ratepayer savings.”
Ratepayer Rebates
Direct ratepayer savings are the goal of another bipartisan pair of amendments, these from Sen. Dylan Fernandes of Falmouth and Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester.
The committee bill includes no provision like the House bill’s plan to return 70% of alternative compliance payments that electricity suppliers make to the state when they do not meet a clean energy quota to ratepayers over the next few years. Both Fernandes and Tarr want to change that.
Fernandes proposes (#114) to have the state return at least 70% of ACP money to electric ratepayers with household incomes of up to $200,000 and who do not have discounted rates as an annual “Massachusetts Energy Rebate Check.” Tarr’s amendment (#20) would direct at least 50% of ACPs to be credited back to ratepayer bills in the same service territory within 90 days “on a per kilowatt-hour basis or other equitable crediting method.”
The money utilities pay as ACPs has generally been directed to fund the Mass. Clean Energy Center and clean energy programs.
Sen. Robyn Kennedy, a Worcester Democrat, filed an amendment (#163) to specifically task the Department of Energy Resources with spending ACP funds “on programs to serve ratepayers, including but not limited to programs that serve energy efficiency services to low and moderate income households, programs that encourage the adoption of electric vehicles, & programs that support decarbonization efforts.”
Scrutinizing Mass Save
Representatives relied on a roughly $1 billion cut to the Mass Save energy efficiency program to assemble a package of about $9 billion in 10-year savings. The Senate’s approach instead focuses on capping the program’s planning and administration spending, eliminating mandatory payouts to utilities, and imposing a new, temporary five-person oversight board to scrutinize the program as a whole.
“Mass Save exists to drive down consumption. But despite its apparent success relative to other energy efficiency programs, we know there is significant public discontent,” Barrett acknowledged last week. “We know that the people perceive it as costly without yielding related benefit. And it’s not just a matter of correcting the perceptions, we want to get to the core of people’s complaints. And so we propose to set up a five-person Energy Efficiency Management Review and Financial Oversight Board, in order to take a fresh look, soup to nuts, at the way Mass Save is organized, the way it sets its budget, and the results it gets.”
As created by the Ways and Means Committee, the bill’s oversight board would live “within the Department of Public Utilities, but not subject to the control or authority of said department,” and would have authority to review and make recommendations about the program’s statewide plan through 2030.
Tarr (#90, #91, #93, #95 and #132) and Springfield Democrat Sen. Adam Gómez (#136 and #138) appear most engaged around shaping the bill’s Mass Save policy. Both have proposed to make the oversight board permanent and to expand it from the committee’s five seats to seven, including two program contractors actively installing decarbonization, efficiency or weatherization measures. Tarr, Gómez and Brady (#161) have all proposed to replace the utilities with a single competitively procured independent administrator for the Mass Save program.
Gómez is also looking to push the Senate further, proposing to give the oversight board binding authority over the Mass Save plan, budgets and ratepayer charge, plus the power to supervise the program’s administrator.
Climate Mandate Rollbacks
As has become standard with any legislation that deals with energy, Republicans have proposed amendments to the Senate committee bill that would roll back Massachusetts’s decarbonization and climate mandates.
State government here has committed to reducing carbon emissions by at least 50% compared to 1990 baselines by 2030, by at least 75% by 2040 and by at least 85% by 2050, with tag-along policies to get the state to net-zero emissions by the middle of the century. Based on 2022 data, which the state says is the most up-to-date it has, Massachusetts has seen a 26% reduction in statewide gross emissions since 1990.
Sen. Ryan Fattman of Sutton proposes to turn the state’s binding greenhouse gas limits into “aspirational goals” by changing “shall” to “should” and “shall promulgate regulations” to “may adopt policies” throughout state climate law, and to direct state agencies to relabel targets as nonbinding (#119).
Taunton Sen. Kelly Dooner has a similar amendment (#149), which goes further to also prohibit gas bans, electrification mandates or denials of service based on fuel choice.
Fattman also filed a more narrow amendment (#122) that appears intended to delay the state’s deadline for achieving net-zero status from 2050 to at least 2060 (it’s titled “Delaying Net Zero to 2060”), though as drafted its language would actually require that the state’s net-zero deadline “shall be a limit set earlier than 2060.” He also proposes (#123) to sever the Bay State’s longstanding link to California vehicle-emissions standards by banning Massachusetts agencies from adopting, enforcing or relying on California Air Resources Board standards, a key part of the state’s electric vehicle and clean truck strategy.
Data Centers
The amendments senators filed to the bill show a clear interest in tackling policy around data centers, which are coming under ratepayer scrutiny for contributing to higher energy costs for homeowners and other businesses. Gov. Maura Healey last week put a freeze on the state’s 2024 sales and use tax exemption for data center projects and released her administration’s framework for their development here.
The Senate’s energy bill does not address data centers directly. But Sen. Michael Moore, a Millbury Democrat, is looking to add (#2) a statewide moratorium on permitting any data center drawing 20 megawatts or more until Nov. 1, 2027. His amendment would also create a Data Center Coordination Council to study ratepayer, grid, water and community impacts, with a report due Oct. 1, 2027.
On the data center front, the most comprehensive proposals were filed by Sens. Vanna Howard of Lowell (#62 and #162), who represents a community that hosts and fields complaints about a data center, Fernandes (#108), and Sen. Brendan Crighton of Lynn (#180).
Howard’s comprehensive data center amendment would require new or expanded data centers to use their own sources of clean energy, phase out fossil fuel backups, pay their own gas infrastructure costs, meet water protection and cumulative impact standards, sign project labor and community benefit agreements, report energy and water usage publicly, and forfeit the state tax exemption if not in compliance.
Fernandes’ amendment would rewrite the 2024 tax exemption to include a detailed application and certification process, labor and community benefit conditions, clean energy and water reporting requirements, annual fees, and revocation for noncompliance. Data centers would be required under the amendment to pay an annual fee of $750,000 if they draw between 20 MW and 75 MW of energy, or $3 million per year if they require more than 75 MW.
Howard’s second data center amendment and Crighton’s proposal both condition the tax exemption on standards to be set by the Healey administration, covering much of what the administration’s recently-released framework addresses. They also seek to have regulations put in place within 60 days with a pause on processing applications until rules are in effect, similar to Healey’s announcement last week.
Other Flashpoints
Beyond the marquee fights, Dooner filed a 15-amendment package (#142-#156) reworking how delivery charges appear on customer bills, including one (#143) that would bar utilities from charging residential customers any delivery or distribution charge at all. Other clusters worth watching include competing net metering amendments (#22, #32, #61 and #111) and dueling solar consumer-protection proposals (#51 and #59).
Senators have also filed a handful of amendments only tangentially related to the bulk of the energy policy in the bill.
Sen. Jason Lewis of Winchester proposes (#29) a K-12 climate-literacy program with a new open-ended trust fund to “achieve, promote and support the instruction of interdisciplinary climate literacy education for K-12 public school students.” Moore filed an amendment (#63) to overhaul the state’s crane and hoist licensing board, and Sen. Jamie Eldridge of Marlborough proposes (#86) a “water banking” measure that would let municipalities levy new fees on water withdrawals.
