The Hidden Cost of Cutting MassSave: Impacting Communities and Climate Goals

Nothing should be incentivizing a double-time march towards the energy transition than images of oil refineries ablaze, tankers stalled, oil soaked neighborhoods and skyrocketing gasoline price signs.  Days prior to the Israeli-US attacks on Iran the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a well-intentioned Bill (5151) to address the increasing cost of energy in the state.  It preserved the Commonwealth’s originally mandated decarbonization and energy transition goals, despite significant efforts to curtail them.  Yet, in an effort to confront rising energy unit rates, they drastically cut the funding going into the MassSave program.   This translates to a $1B haircut to a $4.5 Billion three year budget.  

The Bill’s architects have stipulated that cuts to the program must be directed at marketing and administrative activities and should not impact any actual decarbonization work.  How the $1B in savings is achieved with the current MassSave marketing budget at $150M is therefore a question.  A primary and justifiable complaint about the MassSave program was that higher income folks were taking more advantage of the benefits than lower income ones.  Ironically, inadequate marketing resources applied to that sector was deemed a primary culprit.  A re-allocation of these funds to lower income communities applied over the recent year + was starting to make a real difference - not just for reducing lower income energy burden, but in creating job opportunities and workforce development for critically underserved businesses (CUBs).

A recent study by the Arcadia Center shows annual savings of $2.6 - $3.2 Billion per year from the MassSave program.  The spate of energy rate increases have been caused by increased cost and uncertainty of conventional energy sources, the drastic cut in federal support for renewable energy resources and increase in investor owned utility profits.  MassSave and Renewable Trust charges have remained stable during this time.  The best way to counter rate increases of this nature is to use less energy more wisely from different sources.  That is the intent of the MassSave program.  Like many programs, it can be run much more effectively.  By all accounts that message was received by MassSave and efforts were well underway to improve its effectiveness.  Draconian cuts, especially at this vulnerable moment of our energy history, run counter to the energy imperatives that we face.  The Massachusetts Senate should recognize the House’s well-intentioned but flawed approach and present a bill that speeds, not slows, the Commonwealth’s course towards a more stable, sustainable and affordable energy future.

Moneer Azzam

Principal, Beacon Climate Innovations