Press Release: 2/26/2026

Without Fixing Net Zero, House Energy Bill Just Rearranging Deck Chairs



Tomorrow, the Massachusetts House will vote on H.5151, titled “An Act relative to energy affordability, clean power and economic competitiveness.” While that title sounds promising, the substance tells a very different story.



Last May, Gov. Maura Healey filed an energy bill claiming it would address affordability, independence, and innovation. It accomplished none of those things.



The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy House Chairman, Mark Cusack later released a version that at least attempted to confront one of the root causes of soaring bills: the rapidly approaching 2030 emissions reduction mandate. But after intense pressure from the climate lobby, that reform to change the 2030 legally binding mandate into a goal was stripped out.



Now House leadership has rushed out a new 100+ page version, filed Tuesday afternoon, with amendments due the next day and a floor vote scheduled for Thursday. The rapid turn-around time expected for such a dense bill is not by mistake. There is a lot buried inside the bill, including some limited cost-shifting measures that admit current renewable energy schemes are driving up your bills, alongside brand-new programs that could lock in even higher costs for years to come.



What the bill gets partially right



Beacon Hill is tacitly acknowledging that policy-driven energy mandates are inflating rates.

The bill:




  • Cuts $1 billion from the MassSAVE program, largely from marketing, advertising, and administrative spending.

  • Requires 70% of Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) penalties to be returned to ratepayers through 2029.

  • Reduces certain net metering credits, effectively trimming a costly solar subsidy.



These steps are projected to save ratepayers nearly $3 billion according to House leadership. While we believe many of these programs should be eliminated outright, this is an admission that renewable energy mandates and subsidies have real, measurable costs for families and businesses.



Where the bill doubles down on failure



Despite those limited reforms, H.5151 expands state-driven energy central planning and allows for and creates new mechanisms for future ratepayer charges to prop up renewable energy:




  • A new battery storage incentive program to subsidize industrial-scale battery buildouts, funded by ratepayers.

  • A new offshore wind pre-development and project acceleration program that shifts initial private project risks onto ratepayers.

  • A new statewide solar incentive program that will add further costs to electricity bills.

  • A new central procurement fund, funded in part by revenue collected from distribution companies pursuant to DPU-approved tariffs. In plain English, this means a new charge on ratepayers to finance long-term renewable energy contracts.

  • Creation of a Division of Clean Energy Procurement to develop solicitation plans and negotiate contracts, placing even more power in the hands of state planners with little accountability to the people paying the bills.

  • New requirements for load management, virtual power plants, and vehicle-to-grid systems, meaning utilities will increasingly manage when and how you use electricity and may draw power from home batteries and EVs during peak demand.



Most concerning, this bill does not include the key reform that would have made the 2030 emissions mandate a non-binding goal rather than a legal requirement.



Without that change, everything else is cosmetic.



As long as Net Zero remains a rigid legal mandate with aggressive benchmarks, Massachusetts will be forced to meet unrealistic timelines regardless of cost. Lawmakers can shuffle programs and redirect penalties, but they cannot deliver long-term affordability while the mandate remains intact.



Without making Net Zero a goal instead of a mandate, this bill does little for ratepayers in the long term, and may actually make things worse.



By centralizing procurement authority within state government, the bill removes one of the last safeguards protecting ratepayers from unchecked cost increases. Today, utilities are often the only entities pushing back on contract terms and pricing because they must answer to regulators and ratepayers for the costs they pass along. If the state becomes the primary negotiator and contract manager for clean energy projects, the incentive to control costs weakens dramatically. Political pressure to secure projects and meet climate mandates will outweigh affordability concerns, leaving taxpayers and ratepayers with little protection against overpriced contracts and long-term financial obligations.

 

Key Amendments to Watch




  • Amendment #7 (Rep. Lombardo) would restore language turning the 2030 emissions mandate into an advisory goal. This is the most important reform under consideration.

  • Amendment #8 (Rep. Lombardo) would require a solicitation to increase firm interstate natural gas capacity into Massachusetts to improve winter reliability and mitigate price volatility.



These amendments go directly to the root causes of high energy costs: unrealistic mandates and constrained supply.



Until Beacon Hill is willing to confront the Net Zero mandate itself, lawmakers are rearranging deck chairs while families and businesses struggle to pay some of the highest energy bills in the country.



If you haven’t done so yet, please take our Call to Action calling on your Representatives to prioritize affordable and reliable power: https://www.votervoice.net/MASSFISCAL/Campaigns/123074/Respond



We will continue monitoring the vote and keep you informed.