Save Mass Save
Dear Editor,
I read Ed Gaskin’s op-ed in the Boston Herald regarding the proposed $1 billion cut to Mass Save. My wife and I are living proof of this program’s value.
In 2020, Mass Save helped us replace a wasteful 1982 boiler and an older stand-alone water heater with a high-efficiency “on-demand” unit via a no-interest loan. They also sealed our attic and insulated our exhaust fan ductwork, significantly cutting our gas bills.
While the program was a game changer for us, it is even more critical for lower-income homeowners. For those working hard to make ends meet, these efficiency upgrades aren’t “options”—they are impossible without the support Gaskin highlights. Cutting this funding effectively locks lower-income residents into high energy bills and crumbling infrastructure.
The state frequently touts its “green” leadership, but it is time to “put up or shut up” on climate goals. You cannot claim to lead on the environment while stripping away the only tools that make the transition affordable for everyone, regardless of income.
If you support the Mass Save program for ALL residents, please contact your lawmakers and tell them we must protect Mass Save funding to ensure all residents can afford a more efficient future.
Sincerely,
Brad Onken
Cedarwood
Comments (2)
Comments are closed.
I beg to differ (a bit) with the writer and the editorial he referenced. I, too, am all in favor of Mass Save and have benefited greatly through the subsidy of our solar panels that now deliver us a $0 electric bill every month. What’s not to like?
However, the funding model of Mass Save is absurd and only exacerbates income inequality. We all pay for it through a large surcharge on our utility bills instead of an explicit appropriation by the legislature. If public policy deems Mass Save to be valuable, then fund it like we do all other state programs.
Instead, as the Gaskin editorial points out, predominantly lower-income folks and renters subsidize higher income homeowners who have the time and capital to take advantage of Mass Save subsidies. This is nuts as (a) it’s unfair and (b) we have among the highest utility bills in the country.
I appreciate your perspective; however, the claim of unfairness to “lower income folke and renters” overlooks the 2022 Department of Public Utilities overhaul. That year, we became the first state to adopt an Equity Performance Incentive, legally holding the system accountable for reaching renters and low-income households. This worked: by 2025, incentives for these residents jumped from 30% to 53% of the total.
Cutting $1 billion now targets the very families relying on these funds to survive high energy costs. While the surcharge is visible, the real burden is inefficiency. Without these rebates, working families are permanently locked into high bills they can’t afford to fix. I’d encourage you to look at the equity commitments in the new plan, which dedicate over $600 million specifically to renters to ensure they aren’t left behind.
As the 2025 Annual Impact Report shows, every $1 invested returns $2.76 in benefits by reducing grid demand which we need. Slashing the budget will force expensive infrastructure upgrades that drive rates even higher for income levels. We shouldn’t dismantle the only tool that secures long-term affordability for renters and working families.