Support CleanTechnica's work through a Substack subscription, on Patreon, or on Stripe. Help us produce all of the high-quality, original content we publish week after week despite the challenges of content-scraping AI, antisocial media, inflation, and other hurdles.
Massachusetts lawmakers are working to make electricity more affordable. Both the Massachusetts House and Senate passed energy bills (S.3166 and H.5175) this year that would support grid reliability and lower electricity costs through measures such as flexible interconnection, a retail storage program, and modernized residential solar permitting. These smart reforms can cut red tape and make it easier for residents and businesses to install rooftop solar and other distributed energy resources.
As the conference committee works to reconcile the two versions before sending a final bill to Governor Maura Healey, lawmakers should take a close look at proposals to mandate new fixed charges. This under-the-radar policy could work against the bill’s thoughtful reforms and make it more difficult to achieve the goal of lowering electricity costs for Massachusetts residents and businesses.
Proposed fixed charges would:
- Raise electricity bills for at least ~60% of Massachusetts ratepayers
- Hit small businesses and households using less electricity the hardest
- Reduce the savings customers get from rooftop solar, battery storage, and energy efficiency
Fixed Charges Would Make Electricity More Expensive for Those Who Use the Least
Under the proposal, Massachusetts would shift some utility bill costs from volumetric charges, which are based on how much electricity a customer uses, to fixed charges that apply regardless of how much electricity they consume.
Under a fixed charge, Massachusetts’ smallest energy users will effectively subsidize the homes and businesses who use the most.
SEIA’s review of data from Eversource, which serves more than 1.4 million Massachusetts residents, shows what that could look like in practice:
- The bottom 25% of residential energy users, often low-income households, would see their bills increase by more than 10%, collectively paying about $13.4 million more each year.
- The top 25% of residential energy users—who on average consume more than 10 times as much electricity as the bottom 25%—would see their bills fall by about 2.5%, saving roughly $25 million annually.
- For small businesses, the impact could be even more dramatic: the bills of the lowest-use customers would nearly double, while the largest energy users would see their bills decline.
SEIA’s review of data from National Grid, the state’s second largest utility serving 1.3 million residential and commercial customers, shows similar findings. National Grid’s residential customers using the least electricity will see their electricity bills increase by 13.8%, while the biggest users will see bill reductions.
Fixed Charges Undermine Customers’ Ability to Lower Their Bills
Fixed charges would also weaken the financial benefits of investments that help customers reduce their electricity costs, including rooftop solar, battery storage, and energy efficiency.
When more of a customer’s bill is shifted from a volumetric charge to a fixed charge, using less electricity saves less money. That reduces the value of investing in solar and storage.
That is the wrong direction for a state trying to make electricity more affordable. Massachusetts should be giving residents and businesses more ways to take control of their energy costs, not creating new charges that make it harder to save money.
A Broad Coalition of Diverse Interests Opposes Fixed Charges
In late 2025, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities opened a comprehensive review of all delivery charges on electric and gas utility bills.
A diverse coalition of consumer advocates, low-income organizations, business groups, environmental organizations, and clean energy companies filed public comments opposing or expressing concerns about the possibility of the DPU increasing fixed charges.
The DPU itself has recognized that the issue is complex, stating that it will “carefully evaluate this issue” before deciding whether and how existing charges should be made fixed or partially fixed.
The DPU has the expertise, data, and regulatory process needed to evaluate how changes to rate design would affect different types of customers. The legislature should allow that work to continue rather than mandating an outcome before the process is complete.
Massachusetts Can Get Energy Affordability Right
Massachusetts lawmakers are right to make energy affordability a priority, and they have already included important reforms in the House and Senate bills that—combined with Gov. Healey’s Executive Order to build more affordable and reliable solar and battery storage—will provide ratepayers with much-needed relief.
The legislature should not undercut the bills’ many positive reforms by mandating fixed charges that raise bills for the customers least able to absorb them.
The conference committee and Healey Administration have an opportunity to get this right: amend the bill to allow the DPU to consider fixed charges, rather than mandate them.
Article from SEIA.
Sign up for CleanTechnica's Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott's in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and follow us on Google News!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one on top stories of the week if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
CleanTechnica's Comment Policy
Facts Only
* Massachusetts House and Senate passed energy bills (S.3166 and H.5175) this year.
* Bills support grid reliability and lower electricity costs via flexible interconnection, a retail storage program, and modernized residential solar permitting.
* Lawmakers should examine proposals to mandate new fixed charges during the conference committee review.
* Proposed fixed charges would raise electricity bills for at least ~60% of Massachusetts ratepayers.
* Fixed charges would affect small businesses and households using less electricity the hardest.
* Fixed charges would reduce savings from rooftop solar, battery storage, and energy efficiency.
* SEIA review of Eversource data showed the bottom 25% of residential energy users would see bills increase by more than 10%, paying about $13.4 million more annually.
* The top 25% of residential energy users would see bills fall by about 2.5%, saving roughly $25 million annually.
* National Grid data showed the lowest-using residential customers would see bill increases of 13.8%, while the biggest users saw bill reductions.
* A coalition of consumer advocates, low-income organizations, business groups, environmental organizations, and clean energy companies opposed increasing fixed charges.
* The DPU is evaluating how existing charges should be made fixed or partially fixed.
Executive Summary
Massachusetts lawmakers passed energy bills in 2024 to support grid reliability and lower electricity costs through measures like flexible interconnection, a retail storage program, and modernized solar permitting. The conference committee is working to reconcile two versions of these bills before sending a final version to Governor Maura Healey. A key point of contention is the proposal to mandate new fixed charges. Opponents argue that fixed charges would negatively impact energy affordability by raising bills for most ratepayers and reducing savings from investments in solar and storage.
Analysis based on data from SEIA's review of Eversource data indicates that fixed charges would cause bill increases for the bottom 25% of residential users, potentially adding over $13.4 million annually to their bills. Conversely, the top 25% of residential energy users would see bill reductions of about 2.5%, saving approximately $25 million annually. Similar findings were observed in National Grid data, where the lowest-using customers faced a 13.8% increase while the largest users experienced bill reductions. Furthermore, fixed charges weaken customer incentives to invest in rooftop solar and battery storage because using less electricity results in less money saved.
A broad coalition of diverse interest groups, including consumer advocates, low-income organizations, and environmental groups, opposed the DPU's review regarding fixed charges. The Department of Public Utilities acknowledged the complexity of the issue and stated it would carefully evaluate rate design changes before deciding on fixed charges. The proposed solution for reconciliation involves amending the bill to allow the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to consider fixed charges rather than mandating them.
Full Take
The core tension in this policy discussion rests on the structure of utility costs: shifting from volumetric pricing (based on usage) to fixed charges (regardless of usage). The data presented from SEIA and National Grid demonstrates a direct, regressive impact of fixed charges, where the intended benefit—affordability—is directly undermined for the most vulnerable users. The proposed mechanism systematically shifts the financial burden onto those with lower consumption, simultaneously penalizing energy-saving investments like solar adoption. This suggests that an ostensibly neutral administrative change can create significant inequity by negating existing economic gains for consumers.
The political dynamic involves a choice between mandate and deliberation. Lawmakers faced the option to impose a fixed outcome or allow regulatory bodies, specifically the DPU with its expertise and data, to conduct a nuanced evaluation of how rate design changes affect different customer classes. The demand for flexibility in the legislative process—allowing the DPU to complete its assessment rather than mandating an outcome prematurely—points toward a principle that expert deliberation should precede binding policy implementation when complex financial outcomes are at stake.
The resistance from diverse coalitions indicates a recognition across groups that imposing fixed charges creates disparate impacts on low-income households, small businesses, and energy savers. The pattern suggests that without careful accounting for differential impacts, reforms aimed at increasing reliability may inadvertently exacerbate existing economic disparities. The critical question is whether the process of legislative expediency outweighs the necessity of equitable cost distribution as demonstrated by utility data.
What steps can be taken to ensure that mandates are not imposed when expert review is ongoing? How can the regulatory framework prioritize protecting the financial gains achieved through efficiency investments for all user segments, especially those with low usage? What structural checks are necessary to prevent future rate design changes from automatically imposing negative externalities on lower-income populations?
Sentinel — Human
The article analyzes proposed Massachusetts energy reforms, focusing on the potential negative impact of mandating fixed charges on low-income residents and renewable energy investments.