Costs of Heating Your Home this Winter

By Christine Rasmussen

The cost of staying warm this winter in the Berkshires is being decided in Boston. Many people remember the program that was first launched in 2008 and was designed to conduct home energy assessments, distribute LED lightbulbs, and ensure homes and businesses were weatherized and well-insulated. It was called Mass Save.

It has become one of the few tools available to the state to drive decarbonization for a sector of the economy that accounts for 35 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Helping households switch from their oil or gas heating system to an electric heat pump is much more expensive than a traditional insulation job. Mass Save also expands rebates and incentives toward renters, moderate-income customers, and customers living in designated equity communities — populations that have historically been left out even though they also pay into Mass Save.

Since its adoption, Mass Save has become one of the largest energy efficiency programs in the country, with a $4.5 billion budget for the current three-year cycle; the costs are added as a fee on customer bills, and those costs have become a point of contention between the House and Senate.

As you may remember, earlier this year the House wanted to cut the Mass Save Program budget by $1 billion, and the Senate rejected that proposal. Lawmakers are now negotiating whether the program’s budget should be cut, capped, or left to program officials to figure out. A conclusion should be reached before the deadline of January 3, 2027, when, under the FY 2027 rules, the legislature must adjourn the present session and any bills not passed will need to begin the process again.

Adding to this complication is a requirement that the utilities administering the program submit, by the end of March, a draft plan that will chart the course for what Mass Save will seek to accomplish between 2028 and 2030. The Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (EEAC) is weighing two primary paths forward under tighter fiscal constraints:

• The Broad Approach (Lower Cost): Focus on traditional, less expensive weatherization and insulation. This would reach more homes and offer immediate bill relief but deliver fewer long-term emissions reductions.
• The Deep Approach (Higher Cost): Continue aggressively funding expensive electric heat pumps and solar installations while prioritizing low-to-moderate-income and designated equity communities. This yields higher climate benefits but reaches fewer households overall.

However, all the work on the plan that is overseen by the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council may be upended without a legislative compromise authorizing the program’s budget. Governor Maura Healey, who is up for reelection, has avoided taking a definitive stance on the proposed $1 billion cut, though she previously embraced a future budget cap.

Proponents of Mass Save warn that cutting the budget is counterproductive. They point to data showing the program’s long-term value: an analysis by the Acadia Center found that $8.4 billion in ratepayer investments between 2016 and 2024 yielded $16 billion in savings. In addition, a $1 billion cut to the program would result in $4.5 billion in lost benefits to consumers. And on the hottest day of 2025, the program saved $2.6 million in a single hour by reducing strain on the electrical grid.

Opponents point out that Massachusetts residents already pay some of the highest electricity and gas bills in the country. Because Mass Save is funded directly via mandatory customer surcharges (amounting to 7 to 14 percent of gas and electric charges), critics argue that the program’s massive $4.5 billion budget is actively driving up the state’s cost of living. Mass Save has also largely stopped offering rebate incentives for upgrading heating oil, propane, or natural gas systems, shifting its focus almost entirely toward electrification. As a result, millions of ratepayers who still heat their homes with traditional fossil fuels continue to pay into the program through mandatory fees but are structurally unable to take advantage of the rebates.