In a sign of just how heated the debate around the state’s energy efficiency program has become, even a relatively small proposed reform that has been uniting Beacon Hill Democrats is generating increasingly intense pushback among some advocates and prompting larger questions about the goals of Mass Save altogether.

Energy affordability legislation that the Senate passed earlier this month included language that largely mirrors a provision approved by the House, which would subject moderate-income customers in some of the state’s poorest communities to new income verification requirements in order to receive certain Mass Save benefits.

It’s a point of general agreement between the two chambers made even more notable by the otherwise sharp contrasts in their policy proposals to lower gas and electric bills for Bay Staters, which will now need to be reconciled in a conference committee.

Yet it’s prompting concerns that the people long left behind by Mass Save — whose benefits are designed to save ratepayers money — will now be subject to new rules just as those moderate-income customers have begun to participate in the program at historic levels.

“What we are seeing here is a system that is structurally unjust,” said Mary Wambui, a Lowell resident who represents residential customers on the energy efficiency advisory council, which crafts the three-year Mass Save plans that are carried out through a collaboration among the state’s utilities. “Enough is enough. This new level of scrutiny is infuriating.”

Currently, higher income customers are able to access Mass Save benefits at a higher cost, while lower income residents can receive no-cost services like energy assessments, weatherizations, and heat pump installations and are verified through their participation in other public benefits programs. Moderate income-customers have recently also been able to receive no-cost weatherizations by self-attesting their income.

The change under consideration by the Legislation, however, would impose new verification requirements on moderate-income customers — but only on those who live in one of the state’s 21 “designated equity communities,” which are generally lower-income areas with a high share of residents that have not been previously served by Mass Save.

Wambui and some other advocates are slamming the plan to treat moderate income-residents in those areas with greater scrutiny.

The dispute hits at the heart of an even broader debate about whether Mass Save should be about equity — ensuring that customers, all of whom pay into the program through a charge on their utility bills, get access to benefits like energy assessments, weatherizations, and heat pumps across demographics, geographies, and income levels. Alternatively, Mass Save could simply try to perform as many weatherizations and install as many heat pumps as possible around the state to both reduce overall energy demand and reliance on fossil fuels, without regard for targeting harder-to-reach customers like renters and those living in poorer communities.

Any incremental move in either direction threatens to trigger backlash from the other side during a high-stakes battle to rein in energy costs amid an affordability crisis — a scenario now playing out over the effort to install new income verification requirements.

More Context

• Senate energy bill seeks to end contentious gas pipe replacement program (June 2026)
• House passes landmark energy bill with deep cuts to Mass Save, sending it to Senate (February 2026)