Massachusetts state senators are taking aim at a pipeline replacement program they say is inflating natural gas bills while doing little to make the system safer.
The Senate earlier this month passed a sweeping energy-affordability bill that aims to save consumers roughly $14 billion over the next 10 years. One way it proposes to create these savings is by phasing out a program known as the Gas System Enhancement Plan, or GSEP.
Launched in 2014, GSEP was designed to accelerate safety upgrades to natural gas infrastructure by allowing utilities to make money faster when they repair or replace leaky or leak-prone segments of pipeline. Massachusetts’ program was part of a nationwide movement to kick-start gas infrastructure improvements. Today, 43 states and Washington, D.C., have some form of similar plan.
Just about everyone agrees the Massachusetts program began as a well-intentioned attempt to upgrade aging pipes, some of which have been in the ground for more than a century. Utilities themselves say it’s a crucial tool for not only safety but also tamping down greenhouse gas emissions.
However, consumer and environmental advocates have serious concerns about how GSEP has played out. Critics note that safety incidents are higher now than they were in the years before GSEP kicked in. They also contend that the system drives up costs and leaves consumers on the hook for fossil-fuel infrastructure that the state won’t need as it transitions away from natural gas.
“It’s probably led to a lot of unnecessary spending on gas infrastructure at a time when we know we need to be winding down the gas infrastructure,” said Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at climate nonprofit Acadia Center.
Utilities have poured far too much money into GSEP-eligible work, some advocates and lawmakers say. GSEP’s costs have increased by an average of 12% each year from the program’s inception to 2024, and 2025 spending is expected to top $900 million. Critics say utilities have also spent too much time and money replacing pipes, rather than doing less-expensive repairs. GSEP costs now make up between 8% and 11% of the average consumer’s gas bill.
At the same time, Massachusetts is making a statewide push to transition away from fossil fuel use. The state is aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050, and an expansive order issued in late 2023 laid out principles and policies for how utilities will be expected to transform their businesses away from natural gas. Already, average natural gas consumption per household is on the decline in Massachusetts, dropping by 19% from 2014 to 2024, according to analysis from Dorie Seavey, senior research scientist at the Future of Heat Initiative, a nonprofit energy think tank.
This movement means that new pipes put in the ground today could become unneeded decades before the end of their useful life, and even before they have been fully paid for.
“None of us want to put new infrastructure into the ground when we don’t have to. You don’t want to pay for stuff that you might not end up using,” said Sen. Michael Barrett, (D), chair of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, and the major force behind the energy bill.
The Senate bill would lower the amount utilities can spend on GSEP projects each year from the current level of 2.5% total revenue until it is eliminated entirely on November 1, 2030. Right now, the utilities have target end dates as late as 2039. The House energy bill, passed in February, does not address the future of GSEP; its centerpiece is a controversial proposal to cut $1 billion from the budget of the state’s energy-efficiency programs.
Does GSEP make the gas system safer?
Gas utilities oppose the phaseout plan. They argue that GSEP is an essential tool for ensuring safety and lowering the amount of greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere from leaky pipes.
“We cannot sacrifice the safety and reliability of this system, and GSEP is critical to that goal,” Eversource spokesperson William Hinkle said. “Slowing the pace of this critically needed infrastructure work would be fully counterproductive — delaying emissions reductions, increasing risk to public safety, and ultimately leading to greater rate volatility for customers.”
However, the on-the-ground evidence that GSEP improves safety is mixed at best.
In the 12 states that do the most pipe replacements under such programs, including Massachusetts, the number of significant pipeline safety incidents increased between 2011 and 2018, after years of trending downward, according to Seavey’s analysis.
Systems like GSEP can also muddy the risk assessment process, she said. These programs allow utilities to claim accelerated cost recovery for replacing pipes made of materials that could be likely to leak, such as cast iron. That standard may lead utilities to replace more cast iron pipes than necessary, and spend less time on rigorous analysis of copper and PVC pipes, for example.
These programs don’t necessarily make gas infrastructure less safe, but the evidence “is at odds with the basic claim the gas industry makes — that multiyear pipeline replacement programs are critical for reducing risk,” Seavey said.
“There’s an enormous amount of money being spent in the name of safety,” she added. “But it’s really not the case that the promised safety improvements are being delivered.”
Advocates for eliminating GSEP stress the fact that maintaining safe infrastructure is simply a basic requirement for utilities. Ending the program would take away an extra financial incentive but would not weaken the obligation to keep pipelines safe, they note.
“We’re trying to gently pry the gas utilities off their addiction to bonuses,” Barrett said.
The question of whether GSEP is good for the climate is trickier. Utilities note that their work has reduced carbon emissions in recent years. Eversource’s Hinkle calls the program “the single most effective tool that we have to reduce emissions from our natural gas distribution system in Massachusetts.”
However, the reductions the utilities claim are small when compared with the total emissions generated by natural gas use in the state. Numbers shared by Eversource and National Grid suggest that each utility’s GSEP work has reduced the carbon emissions associated with natural gas by less than 1% annually in recent years. The state has already taken some steps to control GSEP costs. Last spring, utility regulators lowered the spending cap from 3% and changed the rules allowing utilities to pass on to consumers the cost of interest payments on spending exceeding that limit.
“We’re trying to strike that right balance between fixing the most high-risk pipes and affording it,” said Jeremy McDiarmid, chair of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Commission.
