Reducing Massachusetts residents鈥� electric and gas bills has been a top priority on Beacon Hill this session. But as pressure mounts to lower energy costs, the House and Senate are eyeing different targets for cuts.
In March, the House passed an that would cut about $1 billion from , the statewide energy efficiency program that subsidizes home upgrades such as heat pumps and insulation. The program is funded by surcharges on utility bills, which all ratepayers pay, regardless of whether they opt into the upgrades.
Sen. Michael Barrett, D-Lexington 鈥� who chairs the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee 鈥� is looking for savings elsewhere as he crafts the Senate鈥檚 energy affordability bill. He said he hopes the Senate鈥檚 legislation can save ratepayers more than the House鈥檚 bill while preserving the state鈥檚 energy efficiency strategy.
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 throw the strategy out when you need to help people with their bills. You get smart,鈥� Barrett said. 鈥淵ou keep your mid- and long-term strategy intact, and you find a way to still provide people with shorter-term savings.鈥�
To do this, Barrett proposes phasing out the Gas System Enhancement Plan, or GSEP.
GSEP was created as part of the 2014 Gas Leaks Act. The program encourages utilities to replace leak-prone natural gas pipelines by allowing them to recover replacement costs more quickly.
Gas customers pay for GSEP as part of their monthly bill. The charge is a line item in the Maintenance and Infrastructure Investment section of the delivery charges.
Barrett鈥檚 proposal
According to Barrett, GSEP seemed justifiable in 2014 because gas leaks were upsetting residents. But now, he said, the program has gone too far.
鈥淣ow, GSEP鈥檚 program spending outranks regular utility maintenance,鈥� Barrett said. 鈥淓ssentially, we created a special case, but made it too tempting for the gas utilities.鈥�
At this point in the GSEP program, utilities are focusing on lower-priority pipeline projects, Barrett said. Sunsetting GSEP would not mean that utility companies can鈥檛 complete these projects, but rather that they would do so under the state鈥檚 original cost-recovery scheme. The utilities would make less profit, but customers would save money.
To help inform the Senate鈥檚 legislation, Dorie Seavey, senior research scientist with , presented GSEP data to Barrett and several of his colleagues. Seavey also shared the data with The Light.
In 2026, GSEP鈥檚 planned cost is $817 million, according to Seavey, up from $292 million in 2015.
Seavey鈥檚 data shows that since 2014, GSEP pipe replacements have cost $6.2 billion. She added that if spending continues at the pace utilities proposed to the state in 2022, the total cost would reach $42 billion by the time the final pipeline is replaced sometime in the next decade.
As GSEP spending increases, the program鈥檚 cost-effectiveness has decreased, Seavey found. In 2015, utilities spent $1.3 million to replace one mile of gas main. The estimate for 2026 has ballooned to $3.7 million per mile.
Meanwhile, customers are using less gas, even as their bills continue to rise, Seavey said.
Seavey said she supports Barrett鈥檚 proposal to discontinue the program altogether.
鈥淭he GSEP statute effectively created an open-ended capital program in the Commonwealth with limited economic discipline,鈥� she said. 鈥淏illions of dollars of infrastructure spending are quietly shaping what people in Massachusetts pay to heat their homes.鈥�
Barrett said it鈥檚 up to the entire Senate to decide whether to include any cuts to Mass Save in its final bill. He declined to predict a timeline for the legislation.
Local lawmakers weigh in
All five New Bedford representatives voted in favor of cutting the Mass Save budget. Still, Rep. Mark Sylvia, D-Fairhaven, and Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-New Bedford, said they are not opposed to reforming GSEP.
鈥淲e still have to replace gas infrastructure, but let鈥檚 make sure that it鈥檚 not on the backs of ratepayers,鈥� Sylvia said. 鈥淭o the extent that we can do that with some reform of GSEP, I am supportive of that.鈥�
He added that the solution to rising energy costs likely lies 鈥渟omewhere in the middle鈥� of the two proposals and that the Mass Save cut is important regardless of what happens to GSEP.
House members said the Mass Save cut and won鈥檛 affect energy programs. Mass Save would still be the second-largest such program in the country, they said.
Hendricks said he has been critical of GSEP 鈥渟ince day one鈥� of the energy affordability talks.
鈥淚 think perhaps the House could have done something with GSEP,鈥� he said. 鈥淚鈥檓 glad the Senate鈥檚 looking at it. Whether phasing it out completely, or drastically adjusting it 鈥� that鈥檚 obviously where rubber will meet the road.鈥�
Rep. Christopher Markey, D-Dartmouth, told The Light he鈥檚 opposed to eliminating GSEP. Rep. Steven Ouellette, D-Westport, said the Senate would have to propose an 鈥渁lternative plan鈥� to address gas leaks. Ouellette noted that in the past three years, he鈥檚 identified five gas leaks in his neighborhood without actively searching.
In a written statement, Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral told The Light that it is premature to comment on the Senate鈥檚 bill.
In a statement to The Light, Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, indicated he hopes to see cuts to both programs.
鈥淢ass Save began as a straightforward energy efficiency program focused on reducing our energy consumption and protecting our environment, but it has morphed into a multi-billion-dollar inefficient and unaffordable program,鈥� Montigny said. 鈥淕SEP is now just another subsidy for the utility industry, with costs ballooning at an exponential rate. It鈥檚 not acceptable and needs to be reformed back to its original intent or scrapped entirely.鈥�
Eversource defends GSEP
William Hinkle, a spokesperson for Eversource, acknowledged that the cost of replacing gas pipelines has increased over the span of the program. But he said there鈥檚 a good reason. The cost of materials and equipment has risen, and paving requirements are 鈥渕ore stringent鈥� today than when the program began, he said.
Eversource provides gas and electricity to New Bedford customers. The city is one of Eversource鈥檚 NSTAR territories. According to Olessa Stepanova, Eversource鈥檚 external communications manager, GSEP costs equate to 5% of an NSTAR gas bill for typical residential heating customers.
Stepanova and Hinkle contested Seavey鈥檚 claim that gas usage is declining across the state. They said that this past winter, Eversource Gas Company of Massachusetts and NSTAR recorded their highest volume of gas delivered to customers during any winter in the last decade.
Hinkle said cuts to Mass Save would save more people money because gas and electric customers pay the Mass Save surcharge, whereas only gas customers pay for GSEP. However, Hinkle said Eversource is not advocating for cuts to Mass Save.
The current 2025-27 Mass Save plan budget is about $4.5 billion, following the Department of Public Utilities鈥� in February 2025. The was around $4 billion, still enough for a 鈥渘ation-leading program,鈥� Hinkle said.
Hinkle said any policy that would cut GSEP is 鈥渟hortsighted鈥� because the program is an essential safety measure.
He added that gas leaks are an environmental hazard and GSEP is one of the 鈥渕ost impactful鈥� programs addressing carbon emissions. Since 2014, Eversource has removed around 44,930 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year through GSEP, equivalent to removing more than 10,400 cars from the road, he said.
鈥淭he energy transition that鈥檚 underway in Massachusetts is not happening overnight,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e cannot compromise the safety and reliability of that (gas) system as long as our customers rely on it.鈥�
Barrett argued that maintaining the program isn鈥檛 necessary to ensure safety.
鈥淪afety has always been responsibility No. 1 for the gas utilities by virtue of state law. It鈥檚 not as if, if you lighten up on the loophole, you prevent the gas utilities from fulfilling their safety mandate,鈥� Barrett said. 鈥�(We can) insist the utilities keep us safe without handing them the keys to everybody鈥檚 wallet.鈥�
Advocates favor GSEP cuts
Environmental advocates have Mass Save cuts.
Vick Mohanka, director of Sierra Club Massachusetts, said Mass Save is 鈥渙ne of the biggest programs in the state to help with climate change and pollution.鈥�
He argued that in the short term, the cut wouldn鈥檛 meaningfully reduce customers鈥� bills.
In the long term, the increased demand on the energy grid would lead to rising supply and distribution costs, Mohanka said. According to the Department of Public Utilities, Mass Save has saved ratepayers $16 billion in electric and gas supply and infrastructure costs in less than nine years.
Katharine Lange, Conservation Law Foundation鈥檚 government relations manager, echoed Mohanka, saying a $1 billion cut to the program would be 鈥渄isastrous.鈥�
Mass Save has previously been criticized for
According to a 2025 report from State Auditor Diana DiZoglio鈥檚 office, residents in Gateway Cities such as New Bedford pay 24% more per person to Mass Save than residents in non-Gateway Cities, but get little to no return on that investment.
of New Bedford residents are renters who can receive benefits, such as guides to assess their energy use and rebates for energy-saving products. Homeowners are entitled to more benefits, such as windows, heating and air-conditioning systems.
Mass Save operates on a three-year planning cycle. Lange and Mohanka said the is the first to expand equitable access, including more benefits for renters. To cut the budget just as the program is beginning to address those disparities would be a 鈥渟lap in the face,鈥� Lange said.
Both advocates said eliminating GSEP is the better option for delivering savings. The Sierra Club supported the program at its outset out of concern for the environmental impact of gas leaks. Now, the environmental group is focused on decommissioning the gas system in favor of clean energy sources.
鈥淲e鈥檝e seen extremely large public health impacts from gas appliances, including water heaters, furnaces, stoves and ovens,鈥� Mohanka said. 鈥淚 would love to see more thought put into the air that people are breathing inside of their homes, rather than purely just a cost analysis.鈥�
Americans struggle to pay utility bills
Massachusetts is not the only state facing rising utility prices. Since 2021, electric rates have increased by nearly 40% nationwide. Nearly 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills, and 13.5 million customers had their utilities shut off in 2024, according to .
More than 68% of Americans reported their electric or gas bill had increased since last year, according to a PowerLine poll released this week. Over 77% of respondents said they are concerned that their bills will continue to rise. In the Northeast, those numbers rise to 77% and 83%, respectively.
The poll also found that, nationwide, only one in six ratepayers think their utility company puts consumer interests above the company鈥檚 interests.
___
This story was originally published by and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
