|
The following op-ed was submitted to The Boston Globe (but not published) by Co-Director of Sustainability Ann Berwick in response to an energy bill passed by the Massachusetts House in February (H.5151). The Boston Globe reported on this bill, which is currently being considered by the Senate, in their article "Massachusetts leaders have plans to reduce utility bills. Does their math add up?"
It’s not your imagination. Your energy bills have indeed skyrocketed. ISO New England, the regional electricity grid operator, reported in July that energy prices had increased 67% between 2024 and 2025 due to an unprecedented 112% rise in the price of natural gas, which is the primary resource providing the region’s electricity.
It’s only natural to look for a scapegoat. That’s what the Massachusetts House of Representatives did recently, blaming the State’s Mass Save program. The House bill includes a crippling $1 billion cut to Mass Save’s $4.5 billion budget. That program helps residents and businesses save money by making energy efficient improvements.
Cutting funds that will help households and businesses become more energy efficient is not a plausible strategy for reducing energy bills. In fact, economist Dorie Seavey estimates that every dollar spent on Mass Save returns $2.76 in benefits.
Another frequent scapegoat for the rising energy costs is the State’s climate goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But that is not the culprit either. A study released in August by Daymark Energy Advisors concludes that if 3,500 megawatts of contracted offshore wind had been operational during the winter of 2024/25, New England ratepayers could have saved $400 million while also significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Other studies agree: offshore wind is a big money-saver. And it is more secure than fossil fuels. As both Bill McKibben and Paul Krugman point out, unlike oil and gas from the Middle East, neither solar power nor wind power has to traverse the Strait of Hormuz.
Moreover, renewable energy technology for reducing energy bills will only improve. For example, the same House bill that reduces Mass Save provides a helpful framework for a “portable solar generation device,” also known as “balcony solar” or “plug-and-play solar.” In Europe, Ikea is already selling balcony solar systems, which are less expensive and less complicated to install than conventional solar systems.
In fact, what actually accounts for the increases in electric and gas bills is the region’s dependence on natural gas, not the cost of Mass Save or the commitment to addressing climate change. New England relies on natural gas for about 50 percent of its electricity generation, and about 50 percent of households in Massachusetts depend on natural gas for heating.
This reliance on natural gas leads to competition for gas for electricity and heating, which drives up winter energy bills. Further, gas prices vary with international gas market disturbances and extreme weather, both of which increase gas price volatility. Since the war in Ukraine began, higher gas prices in Europe have incentivized New England gas producers to ship gas to Europe, reducing domestic supply and thereby driving up gas prices here at home. The war in the Middle East will exacerbate this dynamic.
Further, the winter of 2024-2025 was one of the coldest in recent years (the first in more than a decade with below-normal temperatures during the entire season). Having suffered through the last few months, readers of this newspaper likely need no reminder of this winter’s frigid weather.
It is these challenges—overreliance on natural gas and the resulting vulnerability to international turmoil, as well as unusually cold weather—that have raised energy prices. Slashing the Mass Save budget does nothing to get to the root causes of high bills and, indeed, is seriously counterproductive.
Like renewable power, energy efficiency has the further benefit of buffering us from chaos on the world stage. The Senate shouldn’t grasp at an easy scapegoat when it considers a decision regarding Mass Save. It should support Mass Save, not gut it.
| 
