Advocating for a Sustainable Residential Trade Ecosystem.

The Office of the State Auditor released in September of 2025 a report on Mass Save entitled “Who Pays and Who Gains? Analyzing Contributors and Beneficiaries of the Mass Save Program”. This Municipal Impact Study expressly recommended that the state utility companies serving the Mass Save program in Massachusetts should not be stewards of the program. The MCIG agrees with the state auditor’s recommendations and supports efforts to enact systemic change to Mass Save’s program structure for the betterment of contractors’ livelihoods.

Excerpts from “Who Pays and Who Gains? Analyzing Contributors and Beneficiaries of the Mass Save Program” published September 29th, 2025:

Recommendation #1: Utility companies should not administer Mass Save.

“Public utilities in Massachusetts receive compensation for the transmission and distribution of electricity and natural gas to residents and businesses across the Commonwealth. They are paid for these services on a per unit basis, meaning that they are paid more for each unit of electricity or natural gas they deliver. While their compensation does not directly flow from the commodity (i.e., electricity or natural gas), it is directly linked to how much commodity is used; essentially, the more they deliver, the more money public utilities make.”

“ … public utilities [are not incentivised to act for the betterment of the public or properly administer this program as they] get paid no matter the success or failure of those programs. This lack of incentive may have a negative impact on the companies’ commitment to diligently execute the requirements of the Mass Save program.”

“It is critical that this program be focused on its mission, structured appropriately, and administered effectively, without the significant financial overhead charged to the program by utilities. For example, Mass Save diverts a large portion of its budget (over 30%, according to available data) from direct energy improvements to marketing, outreach, training, administration, and the incentive payouts to utility companies for meeting goals, which are sometimes self-set.”

Recommendation #2: The Legislature should consider oversight hearings.

“Given the size, scope, and importance of Mass Save—as well as the problems identified in this report and by others with the program—we recommend that the Legislature use its authority to provide appropriate oversight, including holding hearings regarding the program.”

We agree with the recommendation that there should be legislative oversight over the Mass Save program. As the auditor report notes, “...if the administration of Mass Save were a state government agency, it would be the 26th largest agency by cost…”. While there may be some opportunities for contractors to voice their concerns, they are simply not being taken seriously by program administrators or the lead vendors. Key representatives of the program, who have significant power to make systematic change, are not even present in these meetings where contractors take significant time and effort to attend for the chance to have their input be considered. Contractors are prohibited and actively prevented from speaking with the program administrators by the lead vendors. These lead vendors do not seem to have the best interest of the contractors in mind as time and time again, policies that are anti-contractor move forward and leave behind the valid and now publicly audited concerns of MA contractors.

MA contractors are the back-bone of the Mass Save program. We need sustainable change before it breaks.