Massachusetts
Massachusetts should ban third-party electric suppliers – The Boston Globe
In communities across the Commonwealth, third-party electric suppliers have preyed on those they claim to be helping. That’s why we are working with State Representative Frank Moran and State Senator Brendan Crighton to pass legislation that would ban suppliers from signing up more residential customers. To protect Massachusetts families, the Legislature should pass it this session and send it to the governor’s desk.
Today, residents can choose between receiving electricity from their utility, their local municipal aggregation program (for the towns and cities that have them), or third-party electric suppliers. Of these options, only third-party suppliers have a track record of deploying aggressive, deceptive marketing tactics, making misleading promises about savings and clean energy, and enticing residents with lower initial rates that often skyrocket after a few months.
The reality is that, during the seven-year period between 2015 and 2022, third-party suppliers have never been consistently cheaper than a utility’s basic service. Variable rates can be several times higher than promotional prices at the beginning of the contract, and just one month of a high variable rate can be enough to send a financial shock through a household’s budget, canceling out any initial savings.
And the damaging impact of third-party suppliers’ price hikes are not evenly distributed.
Forty percent of residents in Dorchester and Mattapan, two Boston neighborhoods with a high proportion of low-income residents, are enrolled with one of these suppliers. Compared to the city’s Community Choice Electricity program, residents have paid suppliers as much as $300 extra per month. Boston is one of 176 municipal aggregation programs in Massachusetts in which cities and towns supply electricity on behalf of their residents. Customers enrolled in the city’s Community Choice Electricity program, which offers residents the option to purchase 100 percent renewable energy, saved more than $111 million in the first six months of this year compared to Eversource’s basic service.
Third-party suppliers also routinely claim that the energy they sell helps Massachusetts achieve its clean energy goals. But nothing could be further from the truth: Their supply is commonly backed by cheap out-of-state energy credits that do nothing to help the Commonwealth or region achieve its ambitious and critical greenhouse gas reduction goals.
To convince consumers to sign up for what will likely be a bad deal, third-party suppliers rely on predatory, high-pressure tactics that appear to target seniors, low-income communities, people of color, students, and non-English native speakers. The volume of complaints we receive from residents reporting false claims about savings, agents pretending to represent the local utility, or harassing customers with aggressive telemarketing speaks to the scale and severity of the problem. Ten years of rigorous enforcement by the Attorney General’s Office secured approximately $19 million from suppliers — but that’s still only a little more than 3 percent of the $525 million residents have lost since 2015. And suppliers often make investigations difficult, even declaring bankruptcy to avoid accountability.
Other states with deregulated electricity markets like New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania experience the same problems with third-party suppliers. They’ve added more oversight, but the problems have persisted. Regulation has not succeeded in changing the behavior of the industry. Many, if not most, third-party suppliers continue to aggressively resist transparency reforms and attempts by regulators to hold them accountable.
Years of data and the ongoing exploitation of residents make clear that this portion of the industry cannot be successfully transformed into a business that delivers net benefits rather than net harm to its customers. The only way to truly protect consumers is to ban third-party suppliers from the Massachusetts individual residential electric market.
The Legislature is considering our bill to prohibit third-party suppliers from entering into new contracts or renewing existing ones with individual residential electric customers. Passing this legislation will protect current third-party suppliers’ customers, ensure that no more residents fall victim to suppliers’ misleading tactics, and safeguard consumer choice while advancing our clean energy goals.
Former Governor Charlie Baker’s administration supported banning suppliers, and Governor Healey’s administration has supported the legislation as well. The solution is clear. The Legislature should send the governor a bill to end this industry once and for all.
Andrea Campbell is attorney general of Massachusetts. Michelle Wu is mayor of Boston.
Massachusetts
Markey wins Mass. Dems’ endorsement as Moulton clears ballot hurdle in Senate race
U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, a moderate Massachusetts Democrat, secured enough delegate support Saturday to appear on the state’s primary ballot as he challenges incumbent U.S. Sen. Ed Markey in this year’s Senate race.
Yet even though Moulton cleared a key hurdle to continue his Senate bid, it was Markey who won the party’s endorsement after winning more than 50% of the delegation’s support.
“You have a choice, you have to decide what the future looks like and what you’re going to demand,” Markey said Saturday in front of more than 4,000 delegates.
Markey won nearly 73% of the delegates’ support, while Moulton won nearly 27% of the vote. Massachusetts Democratic Party rules require statewide candidates to get at least 15% of delegate support to appear on primary ballots.
In heavily Democratic Massachusetts, the Senate primary contest is one of the most closely watched in the country as Moulton, 47, has centered his campaign on changing the status quo and demanding a generational shift in leadership.
If reelected, Markey would be 80 before his third six-year term would begin. While Markey has touted his stamina and embrace of progressive policies, questions about age have continued to swirl around Democratic candidates as they fight to take back control of Congress.
Incumbent Sen. Ed Markey is leading Rep. Seth Moulton, but if Rep. Ayanna Pressley were to enter the Democratic primary, it would change the picture, according to a new poll from Suffolk University and The Boston Globe.
In his nomination speech, Moulton argued that the Democratic Party needed more than “incremental change” and needed to start anew.
“It’s time for the generation that grew up with the internet, and will have to live for decades with AI, to lead our way through it,” Moulton said.
Moulton only addressed his opponent briefly during his nomination speech, giving a passing nod on not waiting another six years for generational change and later calling on Markey to participate in multiple debates before the September primary. Currently, the two candidates have agreed to participate in one debate later this summer.
Markey, instead, took a more critical approach by attacking Moulton’s previous comments about transgender kids and accepting corporate PAC money.
“Massachusetts deserves better than a senator who scapegoats trans kids,” Markey said to loud cheers.
In 2024, Moulton caught flak from some members of his party for saying he didn’t want his daughters playing in sports against transgender girls. Critics said Moulton echoed Trump’s talking points against allowing transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports.
Moulton has since said his intent with that statement “was to point out that, as a party, we need to be willing to have difficult conversations.”
Moulton, who enlisted in the Marines after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and served four tours of duty in Iraq, was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014. He briefly launched a 2020 presidential campaign, but he dropped that bid after a few months.
Markey served as a Massachusetts congressman for nearly 40 years before winning the Senate seat in 2013. He fended off a challenge in 2020 from Rep. Joe Kennedy III in the Senate primary by turning to his progressive allies to overcome a challenge from a younger rival from America’s most famous political family.
The Massachusetts primary is Sept. 1.
Massachusetts
Randolph woman wins $1M lottery prize, plans to use winnings for home improvements
RANDOLPH, Mass. (WWLP) – A Randolph resident has won a $1 million prize through the final drawing of the Massachusetts State Lottery “$4,000,000 Monopoly Doubler” instant ticket game.
Brenda Mellor of Randolph claimed the game’s tenth and final $1 million prize.
She selected the cash option and received a one-time payment of $650,000 before taxes. Mellor said she plans to use the winnings to pay for home improvements, including renovations to her roof and pool.
The winning ticket was purchased at The Variety Store at 2 Mazzeo Drive in Randolph. The retailer will receive a $10,000 bonus for selling the ticket.
Local News Headlines
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Download the 22News Plus app on your TV to watch live-streaming newscasts and video on demand.
Massachusetts
Mass. is getting more granny flats. But it’s still hard to build them. – The Boston Globe
Massachusetts took a big step in 2024 when the Legislature legalized so-called “accessory dwelling units” statewide as part of an effort to rein in the state’s housing crisis. More than a year later, it’s clear that the law is working — but that it also needs tweaks before accessory units can meet their full potential.
These small units, nicknamed “granny flats,” can be constructed in someone’s backyard, or they can simply be renovated third floors, garages, or basements. They’re a popular option for seniors seeking to downsize and families looking for some rental income.
Prior to the state law, some communities allowed accessory units, but many did not. Even among those cities and towns that did tolerate accessory dwelling units, zoning often varied from one municipality to the next, making it difficult for builders who needed to decode each municipality’s rules. Some towns also included unreasonable restrictions, like requiring that only a homeowner’s family members could live in the accessory units.
Housing advocates viewed allowing accessory dwelling units statewide as a “low-hanging fruit” policy — a way to add housing that was relatively cheap and avoided some of the cost and political obstacles that housing measures often encounter. The state legislation also overrode some zoning restrictions, including those that limited accessory units to family, while leaving some other local rules intact.
One year after the law went into effect, this approach has proved fruitful: Towns across the state have approved 1,200 ADU permits and seen even more applications, in some cases up to a threefold increase from previous years.
A study published last week by Boston Indicators (the research branch of the Boston Foundation) and Abundant Housing Massachusetts found that forcing the hand of municipalities on accessory dwelling units accomplished more in one year than 50 years of zoning reform efforts at the local level.
The problem, though, is that municipalities retained too much power. As the study recommends, there should be clear, uniform state regulatory standards for ADUs, with minimal opportunities for municipal-level variation.
“A comprehensive agenda is needed to address regulatory barriers to housing production, spanning building, fire, energy, septic system, wetlands, and stormwater rules,” the study’s authors wrote. “The barriers include the fragmented complexity of the regulatory system itself.”
Making standards more uniform doesn’t have to mean lowering them — it just means moving away from patchwork rules that make it harder for companies to build accessory units at scale.
Chris Lee at Backyard ADUs, a company that designs and builds modular dwelling units in New England, says the report’s findings make sense. The inconsistent interpretations across 350 towns and cities cause builders and engineers to “struggle to design work for the town that will be accepted,” he said. (The state’s 351st municipality, Boston, isn’t covered by the law.)
The potential is significant. The report calculates that if just 2 percent of single-family homes in Massachusetts added an accessory unit, the state would see more than 30,000 new homes that advocates say are generally more affordable. Building an accessory dwelling unit inside a pre-existing house can cost between $75,000 and $100,000; and a detached unit usually runs between $250,000 to $350,000, making them much more affordable than purchasing a single-family home in most regions of the country.
“For developers of missing middle housing to benefit from an economy of scale, they have to undertake many projects, across jurisdictional lines,” according to the study. “The ADU case study has shown just how challenging this is.”
Lee estimated that he could reduce up to $30,000 of preconstruction costs such as surveying and architecture if his company could work with consistent regulations across towns, which he said could enable them to double their production.
Streamlining permitting for accessory dwelling units isn’t a panacea. Landlords still must be willing to actually build them and rent them to long-term residents. Retirees must believe it’s worth downsizing to one. But the fact that so many have been permitted over the last year point to the clear demand and makes the case for policy makers to keep refining the law.
There is precedent. California, for example, had an equally ambitious goal but has blown past it, going from only 1,300 permits approved its first year to more than 30,000 nine years later. “It is important to understand that California did not accomplish its ADU outcomes with one legislative reform,” the study’s authors wrote. “California’s success required sustained legislative attention.”
Massachusetts should be able to realize those kinds of results too. Conversely, if even the “low-hanging fruit” of zoning reform falters in the Commonwealth because of local red tape, then the state has bigger problems ahead to solve its housing crisis.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoBallots burned, vote center vandalized in possible acts of election interference, Los Angeles County officials say
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoFrontier bids to expand in former Spirit space at Detroit Metro Airport
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoVIDEO: Car crashes into SF Castro restaurant, driver flees scene
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoFree Agent Focus: Dallas Stars
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoMiami lands commitment from Rivals300 LB Noah Glover
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoFree June events: Pride Month, Father’s Day, and more – The Boston Globe
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoTwo Colorado smoke shops shut down for selling restricted products to minors
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoWEST SEATTLE SCHOOLS: Graduation season begins Monday