House energy bill gives beleaguered ratepayers relief – Lowell Sun

In response to affordability concerns expressed by the state’s gas and electric utility ratepayers, and an acknowledgement of the governor’s cost-cutting agenda, a bill in the House seeks to rein in continually rising energy prices.

At the expense of the state’s long-term, clean-energy objectives.

The House energy bill marks a sharp shift away from the clean energy push that has run into the reality of the unsustainable financial burden it places on consumers.

In also citing federal actions impeding the state’s clean energy transition, including the loss of $446 million in funding, House Democrats have assembled an omnibus bill that appears to represent a response to Gov. Maura Healey’s energy affordability bill proposed earlier this year.

The governor’s ambitious bill, “Energy Affordability, Independence, and Innovation Act,” aims to tackle a host of affordability and green-energy transition issues.

For instance, it would increase the state’s energy supply by $13 billion to drive down costs, prohibit utility shutoffs during heat waves, expand moderate-income discounts to gas customers, and reform programs like Mass Save.

At the same time, the legislation would accelerate clean energy, promote non-gas heating, expand EV access, and support multi-state clean energy procurements.

In essence, the governor’s bill proposes to provide significant relief for high heating and electricity bills, make Massachusetts more energy independent and resilient, and create jobs while supporting the state’s transition to clean energy.

It remains under review by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy.

Meanwhile, House members of that joint panel faced a Wednesday deadline to vote on the 105-section bill sponsored by Braintree Democrat Mark Cusack, who just happens to be that committee’s House chairman.

The legislation would tie clean energy transition regulations and requirements to a new “affordability and competitiveness standard.”

According to the bill’s summary, it would reorient the Mass Save rebate program from its greenhouse gas emission reduction focus to its original mission of cost effectiveness and energy efficiency.

If passed, the bill would also lift the ban on customers receiving Mass Save rebates for efficient gas heating systems, and cap the 2025-2027 Mass Save program at $4 billion, down from its current $4.5 billion budget.

It would also temporarily reduce the amount of new power that suppliers must sell from renewable energy sources, and extend from 2027 to 2029 the deadline for the state to contract for 5,600 megawatts of offshore wind power.

As expected, the bill has generated an immediate, critical response from environmental groups.

The Conservation Law Foundation said the bill would “gut the state’s climate law and cut energy efficiency programs that help reduce pollution and utility bills for Massachusetts families.”

And the Green Energy Consumers Alliance has urged people to ask lawmakers to “oppose any legislation that would weaken the state’s emissions reductions targets or reduce the budget of the Mass Save program.”

The House bill represents an energy-affordability reality check. It reflects the economic pain unrealistic, costly clean-energy mandates have inflicted on the average citizen.

We hope this common-sense approach passes favorably through the joint committee in the House and eventually receives the approval in a vote before its entire membership.

October’s haul keeps fiscal year revenue  estimates on track

State government, no longer enjoying the halcyon days of robust revenue receipts, has nonetheless managed to meet expectations so far in this fiscal year.

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder recently disclosed that preliminary October revenue figures totaled $2.927 billion.

That’s $241 million or 9% more than actual collections in October 2024, and $162 million (5.9%) above estimates.

Fiscal 2026 year-to-date collections now total approximately $13.010 billion — $550 million, or 4.4% more than actual collections in the previous fiscal year, and $99 million (0.8%) above the year-to-date forecasts.

“October revenue included increases relative to October 2024 collections in withholding, non-withheld income tax, sales and use tax, and ‘all other’ tax”, said Commissioner Snyder.

The increase in withholding — $1.530 billion, $53 million or 3.6% above benchmark — is due, in part, to mergers and acquisitions activity. That figure surpasses October 2024’s take by $117 million or 8.3%.

In large part, the increase in non-withholding income tax — $108 million, $20 million or 22.1% above benchmark — is driven by a favorable decrease in refunds and an increase in estimated payments. That’s $22 million or 26.2% more than in October 2024.

The increase in ‘all other’ tax — $252 million, $44 million or 21.2% above benchmark — can be partly attributed to an increase in estate tax, a category that tends to fluctuate. That exceeded October 2024’s total by $44 million — 21.3%.

A barometer of economic health, corporate and business taxes were virtually flat with October 2024 collections, totaling $68 million — $1 million or 1% below benchmark, but 0.2% more than October 2024 — due to a decrease in estimated payments, offset by a favorable decrease in refunds and an increase in return payments.

In general, October ranks among the lower months for revenue collection, because neither individual nor business taxpayers make significant estimated payments during the month.

Historically, October’s collections account for only 6.5% of annual revenue.

Given that context, predicting revenue totals for the rest of the fiscal year shouldn’t be based on October’s results, but rather on the totality of year-to-date results.