
Massachusetts utility bills are climbing. Here are four possible fixes.
Advertisement
There are several other options to address the rising costs — including how we pay for the Mass Save efficiency program, low-income energy subsidies, and infrastructure upgrades. And, of course, there's the eternal question of how much utilities should be able to profit from their services. While Healey's bill touches on some of these areas, industry observers say there's much more that could be done.
Related
:
Advertisement
'There's no easy button to push,' said John Odell, Worcester's chief of sustainability who has worked in and around the utility business for decades. 'You need to streamline where you can, but also look at multiple avenues to manage costs and lower folks' bills. It's not going to be just do this one thing and you solve the problem. It'll be a whole bunch of things.'
No matter how the state chooses to regulate utilities, Massachusetts faces several nearly intractable challenges that push up energy prices. Consumers here use less electricity per capita than other states where many more homes use electricity for winter heating. That means the fixed cost of building and maintaining the electrical grid is spread over less total usage, driving up the per kilowatt charge needed to cover those costs. And the state has limited access to electric transmission lines and gas pipelines, which drives up prices when supplies get tight.
Mass Save
Mass Save, established by the Legislature in 2008 to reduce energy usage and climate-related emissions by making buildings more energy efficient, has been one factor pushing up prices.
The program pays for free home energy assessments and subsidized home improvements such as added insulation, as well as conversions from gas or oil boilers to heat pumps. The program is mainly paid for by charges on utility bills, amounting to almost 10 percent of a typical electric bill and 15 to 20 percent on gas bills.
Related
:
Spending has ballooned from $356 million in 2010, when the program started, to almost $1.5 billion in the first three quarters of 2024. In February, Massachusetts utility regulators
Advertisement
Mass Save proponents note that consumers who make their homes more efficient save money, by using less gas or electricity. And all of the savings together help lower demand for gas and electricity, reducing overall prices for everyone. 'The cheapest kilowatt hour is the one that you don't consume,' said Doug Horton, Eversource's vice president of distribution rates and regulatory requirements.
Under the governor's plan, utilities could issue bonds to stretch out
each year's bill for Mass Save and a few other programs over 20 years, instead of paying all in one year. Customers would see a much smaller charge on monthly bills, although the added interest cost from the bonds means they'd be paying more over the long run.
Hessann Farooqi, executive director of the nonprofit Boston Climate Action Network, would prefer a simpler solution: use general tax revenue instead of charges on utility bills.
'We don't need to overthink this,' Farooqi said. 'We know that tax revenue is a key way to finance anything that's important in the state.'
Low-income subsidies
There's little debate that Massachusetts should help lower-income households struggling with high energy bills, but the cost rises as other costs on the bill increase. Gas customers mainly get help from the federal Home Energy Assistance Program, funded from the federal budget (though President Trump has
Low-income electric customers qualify for a discounted rate, which is covered by a charge on the bills of higher-income customers. The program doesn't get its own line item on the bill but is included in the general
charge for distributing power. In March, the governor
Advertisement
If utilities did not provide a lower rate for low-income households, those customers might run up bills at higher rates they would be unable to pay. All of the remaining customers would have to cover those losses, Eversource's Horton said. 'We're trying to meet customers where they are, providing a critical service, so they're able to afford the bills we're sending,' he said.
Infrastructure
Another factor contributing to higher bills is a charge to pay for modernizing the electric grid to handle higher loads as more people switch to electric heat pumps and electric vehicles.
On the gas side, legislators created a program in 2014 called the Gas System Enhancement Plan allowing utilities to charge customers to pay for fixing aging, leaky pipes. With inflation pushing up construction costs and more leaks occurring, the charges have grown to represent more than 10 percent of gas bills.
So last month, regulators moved to reduce the charges by lowering annual spending limits and removing some interest payments, as well as giving the utilities incentives to deal with leaks without construction (such as by taking sections of pipe out of service). The changes could lower the charges on bills by almost one-fifth, state officials said.
'If policymakers really want to improve affordability, there's got to be much more focus on driving down... capital spending on the distribution system,' said Dorie Seavey, senior research scientist at Groundwork Data, who has analyzed systems in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.
Profits
A final factor in bills that lawmakers could influence, though one the governor did not take on directly, is the profit margin built in for utilities. Known as the return on equity, the calculation is hotly debated when the companies seek approval for their rates every few years.
Advertisement
For example, in National Grid's most recent electric rate case, decided last year, the state DPU approved a profit rate of 9.35 percent, less than the 10.5 percent National Grid wanted but higher than the 9 percent rate the attorney general and some consumer advocates argued was more appropriate.
The profit margin adds to the cost of any infrastructure projects that regulators approve, noted Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at Acadia Center, a nonprofit focused on clean energy policy.
'Return on equity is certainly something to look at,' said Murray, who has made filings asking regulators to lower the profit rate. 'They're making profits off of every additional pipeline. Every pipe that gets put in the ground, that is profit for them."
But Connecticut may stand as a warning against reducing the rate of return too much. After legislators changed the rate calculation formula, regulators there lowered several components of utility returns, which in part caused Standard & Poor's to
The utilities must be able to raise capital by borrowing money or selling stock in order to expand and update their networks, Eversource's Horton said.
'We have to be able to pay back our debt lenders and equity investors,' he said. 'There's a lot of focus, as there should be, on the amount of equity return that is built into rates, and that is a key focus of regulation.'
Advertisement
Aaron Pressman can be reached at
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
ATLANTA (AP) — Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are," said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. "For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill has not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Pairing fiery talk with action Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' 'Whatever it takes' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Fighting on all fronts Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality.


Bloomberg
5 hours ago
- Bloomberg
The Texas Quorum Drama Isn't New — Involving the FBI Is
Now that an Illinois judge has rejected the effort to arrest Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled to deny the Republican legislative majority the quorum it needs to redraw the state's electoral map, perhaps we can begin treating the episode less as a constitutional crisis and more as what it truly is: a recurring theme in the nation's history. First, as I've explained before, there's nothing new about legislators fleeing to try to block a vote. This practice of 'breaking the quorum' has been a part of US history since before the states were united. Second, there's nothing remotely strange about the legislative majority ordering the arrest of members who've fled. That, too, is a venerable tradition in our troubled republic.


Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
California approves an unprecedented plan to protect Joshua trees from climate change threats
California has approved an unprecedented plan to protect the iconic Joshua tree from climate change and development. The western Joshua tree conservation plan is a broad blueprint that compiles scientific research and traditional ecological knowledge to identify areas where the plant may thrive in a warmer future and plot out how to best protect that land. It recommends limiting development, taking steps to reduce wildfire risk like culling invasive grasses and introducing Joshua trees with genetic variations that make them more resilient to warming temperatures. The plan was required by a state law enacted in 2023 and received final approval Wednesday at a Fish and Game Commission meeting. Proponents say the effort is groundbreaking because it seeks to conserve a species that's abundant now but is projected to lose much of its habitat to climate change. 'This is the first time I've ever seen the Legislature and governor take this step to protect a species that may be imperiled in future,' said Isabel Baer, acting manager of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat conservation planning branch. The department is tasked with carrying out and enforcing regulations set by the Fish and Game Commission and providing information to inform its decisions. The forward-looking nature of the plan and underlying law has fueled controversy, with some local residents and politicians pointing out that the tree is currently ubiquitous in some high desert communities and questioning why it needs protecting. The law also requires property owners to obtain permits and pay fees to kill, damage or remove Joshua trees, which some fear will stifle growth and drive up the cost of living in some of the last affordable regions in Southern California. San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe, whose district includes communities surrounding Joshua Tree National Park, said the law has already stalled housing and infrastructure projects and driven away desperately-needed jobs and investments. 'The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is a blunt instrument that threatens the future of the Morongo Basin and other desert communities by imposing costly, inflexible regulations,' Rowe said in a statement. 'It was written and passed by legislators with no ties to our community, who have never seen how the Joshua tree thrives and is intricately interwoven into our developed areas.' The conservation plan has drawn criticism from a coalition of local water agencies, a residents' organization and trade groups representing realtors and farmers, who last month sent a letter to the state that called the plan 'untried, and in numerous respects very confusing.' The letter demanded changes in the implementation of the plan, including exemptions or expedited permitting for projects like water distribution system repairs and maintenance. 'Doing so would help reduce the disproportionate and harmful impacts on affected communities and public agencies during this experimental effort to conserve a species based solely on climate change projections,' the letter states. There are two distinct species of Joshua trees — referred to as 'eastern' and 'western' — that grow in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Mexico. The spiky succulents are revered for their cultural import, having inspired both a namesake national park and a U2 album. They have served as a guide for Indigenous people in both a physical and spiritual sense, with some tribes using their roots for basketry, their fibers for cordage and their petals and fruits for food, said Robert Przeklasa, executive director of the Native American Land Conservancy. The nonprofit was a partner in the creation of the plan, buoyed by a grant from the Wildlife Conservation Board that enabled tribal members to be compensated for their time and travel. The trees are also a linchpin of the Mojave Desert ecosystem. Dozens of animals rely on them to survive, from ladder-backed woodpeckers who nest in their trunks to desert night lizards who sleep and forage beneath their fallen boughs. Yet more than a third of the western species' range in California is private land and includes some of the fastest-growing communities in the region, according to state scientists. On top of that, climate models clearly show there won't be much suitable habitat left by the end of the century, scientists say. 'This plan is a major milestone in efforts to protect one of California's most ecologically important and iconic species that's facing a very, very difficult future,' said Brendan Cummings, conservation director of the Center for Biological Diversity. The nonprofit petitioned to list the western Joshua tree as threatened under the state Endangered Species Act in 2019. The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act was enacted after the Fish and Game Commission deadlocked on whether to do so. That law requires people who perform work that kills all or part of a Joshua tree to receive a permit and to pay mitigation fees for each tree harmed. Exactly how close a person can dig to a Joshua tree before the work triggers the fee and permitting requirements is determined by CDFW staff on a case-by-case basis depending on the project, Baer said. Those fees can add up quickly for even small projects. Alec Mackie owns three lots in Yucca Valley and wants to build his retirement home on one of them. But now he may not be able to, because there are 88 Joshua trees on the property — and his plan would require removing eight of them. The state reviewed his proposed construction project, said he must pay mitigation fees for 63 trees, and sent him a bill for $32,961.75. Mackie was also required to pay about $4,000 for the tree census, which covered two lots. And he must commission arborist reports and pay for contractor training, which he's estimating will cost another $4,000. Worse yet, Mackie said, since 55 of the trees will remain standing, he will have to pay again to dig near them if he wants to undertake another construction project in the future. He's now considering abandoning the project. Baer said the state has been working with towns and residents to address these types of concerns. They've already exempted single-family home projects from a previous requirement to relocate certain Joshua trees and are working on preparing an environmental impact analysis that will make the permitting process easier and less costly, she said. The plan is also expected to evolve, as the Fish and Game Commission is required to review its effectiveness at public meetings next year and every two years after that. In eight years, the commission will reconsider whether to list the Joshua tree under the state Endangered Species Act. 'Hopefully we'll have met our goals under the plan to where the species doesn't need that protection,' Baer said.