The Massachusetts State House. (Jennifer Smith/CommonWealth Beacon)

HIGH PRICES AT the pump and rising utility bills mean that energy affordability is top of mind right now. At the same time, the recent heat dome over New England is a dire reminder that the climate crisis is only getting worse – while it drives those utility bills even higher.

Luckily, lawmakers are considering commonsense steps we can take in Massachusetts to make our energy more affordable while addressing climate change. The energy bills recently passed by the House and Senate — and now being reconciled on Beacon Hill — show great potential to save households money while protecting our climate and our children’s futures.

There are good aspects in both the House and Senate bills. Some common elements, such as cracking down on third-party energy suppliers – which have cost consumers nearly $740 million over the last 10 years — and making it easier for the state to invest in clean energy, are great steps. What is important is where these bills differ and how they can be reconciled.

Most importantly, the Senate version preserves the Mass Save budget. Mass Save is a crucial program for achieving energy efficiency, saving consumers money, and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Acadia Center estimates about $3 in economic benefits for every $1 dollar spent on Mass Save and $12 billion in consumer benefits over the lifetime of the program.

Before the program was reformed in 2022, low-income electricity customers paid into Mass Save while receiving little benefit. It is unconscionable to cut Mass Save now that it is finally benefiting low-income households. And, as the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030 points out: “Mass Save is currently the best resourced and farthest-reaching policy tool that the Commonwealth can leverage to achieve [greenhouse gas] emissions reductions from the Buildings sector.” Mass Save is an investment that generates payoffs, so slashing its budget, as the House bill proposes, makes no financial sense.

Another key provision in the Senate bill that is not present in the House version would reform GSEP, a program that provides large incentives to the utilities to broadly replace natural gas pipelines. This leads to over-investing in a natural gas infrastructure that is rapidly becoming obsolete as more households switch to electric cooking and heat pumps.

Reforming GSEP won’t impact safety – utilities are still required to repair and replace leak-prone pipe – but it will save consumers about $1.46 billion. Two studies from the Energy Transition Institute, using Holyoke as a case study, illustrate that it is much more economical to strategically decommission natural gas pipes through electrification (and possibly some propane tanks) rather than continuing to lock ourselves into unneeded natural gas infrastructure.

A key point in the House version, which echoes Gov. Healy’s proposal but is missing in the Senate version, is to reverse the restriction on nuclear power. Since 1982, Massachusetts has required a series of onerous steps to approve any nuclear project, essentially acting as a ban. This reflects longstanding concerns about safety and the long-term environmental impacts of nuclear waste.

But in recent years, many environmentalists have been changing their position on nuclear power, since it doesn’t emit the greenhouse gases that cause climate change and it provides a stable, predictable source of power. The emerging technology of small modular nuclear reactors has been attracting interest with some promising characteristics, including the potential for lower costs and safer designs.

Repealing the 1982 restriction doesn’t mean that Massachusetts will build new nuclear, but it opens up an important option for our state to consider in the fight against high prices and climate change.

Taken together, these three provisions — preserving Mass Save, minimizing wasteful investment in natural gas infrastructure, and removing the restriction on nuclear – offer a potential pathway for compromise between the House and Senate versions. If these provisions make it to the final bill, each chamber can claim a win, costs can come down for consumers, and we can protect our planet and the future of our children.

As we suffer sky-high prices and record-breaking temperatures, let’s hope our legislators will seize this opportunity.

Erin Baker is a distinguished professor of industrial engineering and the faculty director of the Energy Transition Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Jared Starr is a sustainability scientist and the executive director of the Energy Transition Institute.