Climate and consumer advocates are calling on Massachusetts lawmakers to preserve the state’s energy efficiency programs as legislators work to develop an energy affordability bill in response to high gas and electricity costs over the past winter.
Advocates have expressed concerns that lawmakers may roll back efficiency spending to provide short-term relief to ratepayers. They defended the state’s Mass Save efficiency program at a hearing held by the legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (TUE) on Sept. 25.
While Massachusetts’ energy efficiency programs frequently rank among the best in the country — with the state placing second on the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE’s) 2025 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard — the programs have drawn increased scrutiny over the past year amid increased affordability concerns.
Over the past winter, sustained lower-than-average temperatures drove high energy prices across New England. In Massachusetts, higher gas supply rates coincided with increased distribution rates, which were driven largely by investments in Mass Save and a state program to replace leaky gas pipes.
Following public pressure for immediate rate relief, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in late February ordered $500 million in cuts to the Mass Save budget. The utility-administered program is funded through charges on gas and electricity rates, and it offers rebates and incentives for building insulation, efficient appliances and heat pumps.
While the 2025/27 budget — totaling $4.5 billion after the cut — still is higher than the $4 billion for 2022/24, the reduction drew some criticism from efficiency advocates, who argued it would reduce the long-term benefits of the investment.
The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources estimated the original $5 billion investment would return $13.6 billion in overall benefits, including $5.4 billion in direct energy savings. The 2025 ACEEE scorecard estimated that Mass Save investments have returned $3.50 for every dollar invested since 2013.
Political battles over energy efficiency funding are not limited to Massachusetts; Rhode Island Energy has proposed to cut its program’s funding by 18% in 2026 compared to 2025 levels.
Meanwhile, the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminates significant tax credits for HVAC equipment — including heat pumps, electrical upgrades and insulation — at the end of 2025.
At the TUE Committee hearing Sept. 25, advocates argued that additional efficiency spending must not be put on the chopping block as lawmakers look for near-term rate savings.
Amy Boyd Rabin, vice president of policy and regulatory affairs at the Environmental League of Massachusetts, advocated for legislation to “create a mechanism to fund energy efficiency and decarbonization efforts beyond our electric and gas bills, taking the burden of Mass Save off of ratepayers’ backs, without hurting the programs or the benefits they can deliver for consumers and the climate.”
She estimated that Mass Save “has reduced Massachusetts’ energy use by 13.9 billion kWh annually, or 28% of current electricity sales. That’s equivalent to the annual production of all our renewables in ISO-NE each year.”
Boyd Rabin added that, since its inception, the program has provided “$40.3 billion in benefits” from $11.8 billion in spending, a 3.4-to-1 return on investment.
“No financial adviser on Earth would urge us to pull out of a fund returning $3.40 for each dollar you put in,” Boyd Rabin said.
Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at the Acadia Center, emphasized the regionwide wholesale markets price suppression benefits of these investments.
He pointed to the ISO-NE capacity scarcity event June 24, when locational marginal prices spiked to $1,110/MWh between 6 and 7 p.m., and highlighted an Acadia analysis estimating that demand reductions associated with behind-the-meter solar saved the region $19.4 million during the day. (See Extreme Heat Triggers Capacity Deficiency in New England and Behind-the-meter Solar Shines in ISO-NE Capacity Deficiency Event.)
“ISO-NE does not similarly track the impact of energy efficiency. However, make no mistake: But for those critical investments we have made in energy efficiency over the years, those price spikes would have been dramatically worse,” Murray said.
Responding to public comments, Sen. Mike Barrett (D), TUE co-chair, spoke favorably about energy efficiency investments, noting that, by statute, Mass Save spending is justified only “when it’s the least expensive alternative” to meeting power demand.
He expressed concern that, while the costs associated with Mass Save are outlined on electricity bills, the savings are not easily apparent to ratepayers, masking the program’s benefits.
“Mass Save is not Robert Redford; Mass Save is a character actor that gets lost in the scene precisely because they’re effective,” Barrett said.
Rep. Mark Cusack (D), who is in his first year as the House co-chair of the TUE Committee, largely did not respond in substance to the public comments at the hearing, which were overwhelmingly supportive of preserving or expanding the state’s energy efficiency and building decarbonization programs.
Rep. Jeffrey Turco (D) appeared more skeptical about efficiency investments, saying that “to the consumer, we keep hearing that we’re saving $3.41 for every dollar invested, but the cost of electricity is going up every year, and it’s by design.”
Increasing the cost of electricity in the short term in pursuit of long-term benefits causes consumer frustration “because the utility keeps going up, and despite saying, ‘Yes, we’re saving you money,’ the proof is not in the pudding on a monthly basis,” Turco said.
In response, Murray said, “One of the most difficult challenges of energy efficiency is that it’s difficult to prove a negative.”
He stressed that while the value of efficiency can be hard to quantify precisely, “if we don’t continue to do this, you’re asking constituents in five, 10, 15, 20 years to bear significantly higher costs.”
