1. United States
2. Mass.
3. Letter

I am writing as a constituent to urge you to strengthen S.3143, An Act to save people money, repair the climate and grow the economy, as it comes before the Senate this week. Massachusetts families urgently need lower energy bills, but that relief must come from cutting wasteful utility spending, protecting consumers, and accelerating clean energy—not from weakening Mass Save or retreating from climate leadership. While the House bill (H.5175/H.5151) relied heavily on a $1 billion cut to Mass Save and a diversion of clean energy funds, the Senate bill appropriately focuses on hidden fees, price spikes, and unnecessary infrastructure costs. As you debate S.3143, I urge you to (1) protect and strengthen programs like Mass Save, (2) put people over energy profits, (3) expand clean, affordable energy responsibly, and (4) advance a new public‑interest approach to grid financing that can permanently lower bills. First, please put people over energy profits and rein in costly gas expansion. That includes: stopping new intrastate gas pipeline expansion near Environmental Justice communities, phasing down Gas System Enhancement Plan spending on unnecessary pipe replacement, and preventing utilities from using ratepayer money for lobbying and advertising. These reforms align with the bill’s goal of cutting overspending and shifting away from expensive fossil fuel infrastructure. Second, please strengthen, not weaken, Mass Save. The House’s approach of cutting Mass Save and diverting Alternative Compliance Payments would undermine one of the most effective tools we have for reducing bills. I urge you instead to maintain and codify the 2025–2027 Mass Save equity and affordability commitments, and to support updating the standard audit to a comprehensive Zero Carbon Assessment that includes solar and storage recommendations, along with new tenant‑focused incentives. Third, please expand clean, affordable energy while protecting forests and communities. That means eliminating unnecessary caps and permitting barriers to solar and battery storage so municipalities and residents can access low‑cost clean energy; ending subsidies for toxic biomass; and preserving Massachusetts’ 1982 democratic protections around new nuclear power instead of following the House in repealing them. It also means strengthening protections against the environmental and financial impacts of large data centers and ensuring that new build‑out does not drive up residential rates. Fourth, I urge you to include an Affordable Grid Plan study and framework amendment that begins to tackle one of the biggest drivers of long‑term costs: how we finance the transmission grid. Right now, private utilities finance new transmission at higher, private‑market rates and recover every dollar of those financing costs—plus a guaranteed profit—from ratepayers for decades. The infrastructure is necessary; the excess financing cost is not. A growing body of analysis by the Acadia Center, Clean Air Task Force, and Power Advisory shows that using public, tax‑exempt bond financing for new transmission—much like we already do for roads, schools, and water systems—could cut new transmission financing costs by roughly 40 percent and save Massachusetts ratepayers on the order of billions of dollars over the life of those lines. Their modeling suggests the potential for approximately a 43 percent reduction in financing costs and around $8.3 billion in ratepayer savings under modeled scenarios, with savings compounding over 50 years or more as new lines stay in service. For this bill, I am asking you to support a modest, first‑stage amendment that would: Direct the Department of Public Utilities, working with MMWEC, MassDevelopment, ISO New England, the Attorney General’s Office, and stakeholder groups, to conduct a one‑year study on public transmission financing options for Massachusetts. Require the study to develop draft enabling legislation and analyze how public financing can operate alongside existing federal regulation and utility ownership. Evaluate a “Ratepayer Savings Test,” community benefit agreements, and workforce development requirements as core design principles for any future public financing framework. This is not a call for a state‑owned utility or for the state to take over grid operations. Utilities would still own and operate the infrastructure; ISO New England would still plan the regional grid; the DPU would still regulate. The question is simply whether Massachusetts families get the same low‑cost, accountable financing model for the electric grid that they already get for highways and schools. If you have not yet reviewed the Acadia Center / Clean Air Task Force / Power Advisory report on affordable grid financing, I strongly encourage you to do so. It offers a detailed, data‑driven roadmap for cutting long‑term transmission costs while supporting clean energy build‑out, and it would be an invaluable resource as you consider how S.3143 can deliver durable, generational savings on utility bills. Finally, I urge you to advance additional priorities that protect public health and climate resilience—such as stronger outdoor and indoor air quality standards and “polluter pays” legislation—so that energy affordability goes hand in hand with clean air and a livable climate. This week’s Senate debate is a pivotal moment. By strengthening S.3143 along these lines, you can deliver real, structural affordability for ratepayers, protect Environmental Justice communities, and keep Massachusetts at the forefront of climate leadership. Thank you for your leadership and for considering these requests. Sincerely,