By Eva Morgan
Background:
On Wednesday, July 1st, the first day in a historic heatwave across Massachusetts, the Senate voted 32-8 to pass a bill aimed to cut our utility bills and pave the way for a cleaner, cheaper, grid. Responding to affordability concerns across the state, energy bills proposed by Governor Healey back in May of 2025, passed in the House in February, and now passed in the Senate have attempted to lower energy bills in a variety of ways. The bottom line is that the bill that just passed the Senate is far better than the House bill– it protects funding for Mass Save, phases out the GSEP program, and maintains the public right to vote on new nuclear facilities in Massachusetts, among many other provisions.
This difference between the Senate and House versions of the bills was in part because of advocates like you. In just four days, Sierra Club members, supporters, and volunteers sent 372 emails to their State Senators advocating for a variety of amendments to make the bill as strong as possible. Led by Mass Power Forward, we joined other advocates at the statehouse on July 1st to sing, chant, and let our senators know that we’re there watching. With conference committee looming – where the house and senate compromise on their respective bill versions – the fight isn’t over. We have to work hard in the next few weeks to have the final bill that comes out of this committee reflect our priorities. Below you’ll find a summary of the process, the bill, and what’s next.
Process:
The initial language of the 163 page senate energy bill S. 3143 was released on Wednesday, June 24th, and by the 4pm amendment deadline on Friday, 183 amendments were filed. Sierra Club and our coalition partners supported and advocated for many of these amendments, focusing on a variety of measures to stop expensive gas expansion and prioritize a just transition. On July 1st, the Senate voted on amendments and the final bill, taking almost 10 hours.
A note on transparency and the bill process:
The rapid timeline of this bill is not uncommon in the Massachusetts statehouse, but it illuminates the pattern of non-transparent and undemocratic processes. This bill contains extremely complex regulations, some that never had a public hearing, and speeding through the process blocks advocates and constituents out. With such a tight timeline, it is difficult for constituents to engage with and understand the full impacts of the bill in order to advocate with their legislators.
The speed of the bill is not the only issue present throughout the process. Senators typically vote along party lines, with legislator’s offices explicitly telling advocates that they will vote the way that leadership tells them. Legislators will withdraw amendments if they’re told by leadership that it won’t pass, in order to maintain a winning track record, and voting records for amendments are only public if a “roll-call vote” is called. Out of the 183 amendments filed, only 5 roll call votes were tallied. Although we ended with a bill far better than the House’s version that protects funding for Mass Save, phases out the GSEP program, and maintains the public right to vote on new nuclear facilities, we’re disappointed about yet another quick and opaque process, you can read more here (coming soon).
A (very) close amendment vote:
One of the amendments we strongly advocated for was #77, End Gas Line Extension Subsidies. This amendment, proposed by Senator Eldrige, would prohibit the current practice of charging existing ratepayers for the cost of hooking up new housing to the gas system, saving ratepayers $160 million per year. Notably, this policy is one that Sierra Club has seen some success pushing through the Department of Public Utilities, and regardless of this vote, could still achieve it through our administrative advocacy and Environmental Law Program. The vote for this amendment differed from the typical party line vote, and after a few floor speeches, the amendment ultimately got rejected by just one vote (20-19). Many who work in the state house have expressed just how uncommon a vote like this is, with a real floor debate and a contentious vote. Even though the amendment didn’t pass, it shows the power of our movement and what a real democratic process could look like.
A summary of S.3143
The Good
- Protects our climate goals and energy efficiency program: does not cut funding to our state’s premier energy efficiency program, Mass Save. This program was a target for the House, who cut $1 billion dollars from its funding.
- Prevents some unnecessary utility charges: includes language to prohibit utilities from using ratepayer money (money from our energy bills) for memberships to trade organizations and lobbying.
- Earlier phase out of an expensive gas infrastructure program: the gas system enhancement program has been exploited by utilities for over a decade, driving up costs and creating future stranded assets.The language in this bill sunsets the program by 2030, saving ratepayers $1.46 billion.
- Health and safety protections: prohibits shutoffs when the temperature is over 85 degrees for 3 consecutive days.
- Protections from competitive electric retail suppliers: allows individual cities and towns to ban these suppliers as well as other protections from their predatory practices.
- Maintains the public right to vote on new nuclear in the state: departing from the parallel House bill that repealed this democratic power.
- Stops the biomass “loophole”: currently Municipal Light Plants are able to count burning biomass towards their clean energy targets, despite it causing an array of health and environmental harms. Amendment #26, proposed by Senator Gomez and adopted into the bill closes this loophole.
- Increases clean energy potential and more grid efficiency: through smart solar permitting, authorizing DOER to procure 20 GW of renewable energy by 2040, introducing flexible interconnection, and requiring utilities to adopt virtual power plants.
- Initiates a study of utility profit margins: which recent analyses have argued are far out of line with what is just and reasonable. This provision was adopted through Amendment #1, proposed by Senator Comerford.
- Authorizes plug in solar.
Mixed
- Introduces some protections from data centers: through the adoption of Amendment #162, proposed by Senator Howard, but ties these protections to the tax incentive. We would have liked to see the original language of Amendment #62 pass, which provided strong protections against the increased energy rates, noise pollution, air pollution and water consumption that data centers bring for any data center over 20 MW.
Bad
- Introduces greenwashed solutions for gas: allows utilities to create a new rate to sell Renewable Natural Gas (a harmful false solution) to commercial and industrial customers. An amendment was proposed to strike this language, but ultimately failed.
- Reforms Mass Save, creating barriers and increasing corporate control: removes the self-verification for low and moderate income households within this program, creating a huge unnecessary hurdle. An attempt to remove this language and return to self-attestation was proposed in Amendment #106 by Senator Eldridge, which was rejected. This bill also adds big business presence to the Mass Save advisory council.
- Reduces the targets for the Renewable Portfolio Standard: instead of the target percentages growing 3% per year, this reduces it to 1% for the next couple of years, then increases it to 2% representing a long-term increase. This short term reduction would result in decreased alternative compliance payments which fund important clean energy and housing decarbonization programs.
What’s missing?
- Preventing gas buildout and related costs: this bill does not include language to stop gas expansion within 5 miles of Environmental Justice communities, which organizations across the state have been fighting for. And it also does not codify the prohibition of having all ratepayers cover the cost to hook up new gas customers to the gas system. These provisions were proposed in amendments #26 and #77*, proposed by Senator Gomez and Senator Eldridge respectively, but were ultimately rejected.
- Stronger protections from utility profiteering: although the bill includes some protections from utility spending, it does not go far enough to prohibit them from recovering the costs of institutional advertising and rate cases from customers. It also doesn’t include any reporting requirement for utilities. Amendment #37, proposed by Senator Comerford, would have prohibited the use of ratepayer money for institutional advertising, but was ultimately rejected.
Stronger protection from the explosive growth of data centers: for ratepayers, communities, and the environment. Although amendment #162 was passed, it only applies to data centers using the tax exemption. We would have liked to see the original language of Amendment #62 pass, which provided strong protections against the increased energy rates, noise pollution, air pollution and water consumption that data centers bring for any data center over 20 MW. - Protecting funding for low income housing decarbonization and renewable energy production. At the moment, alternative compliance payments, payments made in lieu of meeting APS, RPS, and CPS goals, can go to crucial programs that promote low income housing decarbonization and renewable energy development (see page 43 of the 2025 DOER Annual Report for all of the programs that it funds). Gov. Healey and the House have both attempted to divert this funding away from those programs.
What are our priorities and next steps?
With the House and Senate’s versions of the energy bill passed, the next stop in the road to the governor’s desk is conference committee, where three senators and three reps compromise on their respective versions of the bill. This is when the process gets even more opaque as these conversations happen behind closed doors. We know very little about when the conference committee will end and which legislators will take their places there. What we do know is that now is the time to contact your legislators and continue to fight for the best bill possible. Here’s what we want to see in the final bill
- No budget cuts to Mass Save and ACP funding (in the Senate version)
- A Phase Out of GSEP (in the Senate version)
- Stronger data center protections (the House’s more inclusive approach to which data centers must comply with the regulations, and the Senate’s more widespread protections).
- Maintaining the public’s right to vote on new nuclear facilities (in the Senate version)
Representatives and Senators who are not on the conference committee may tell you that this process is now out of their hands. This is not true. They can still make a difference by talking to the committee members, Senate and House leadership, and applying pressure to their colleagues. Your state representatives and senators are supposed to represent you throughout the entire legislative process, including the final stages of the bill, so ask them to do so.