Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell this week issued a strong critique of the state’s Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP), which aims to fix gas pipes prone to leaks and safety issues. Campbell argues that the program has become an expensive project that drives up costs for consumers and that gas companies must change their approach to reduce these costs.
The GSEP, launched a decade ago, was initially intended to address safety concerns by replacing faulty pipes. However, Campbell believes it has evolved into a massive construction initiative that benefits gas companies at the expense of ratepayers.
“Ratepayers should not have to bear the cost of widespread gas line replacements, especially as we work toward transitioning to clean energy,” Campbell said in a statement to GBH News. “These blanket replacements only serve to strengthen the gas distribution system and increase profits for gas companies.”
In a 49-page brief filed this week with the Department of Public Utilities (DPU), Campbell argued that gas companies should focus on targeted repairs instead of costly new pipes. She also called for gas companies to demonstrate how they are exploring clean energy alternatives to replace natural gas infrastructure.
The cost of the program has surged significantly. In 2015, the program’s spending was $291 million, but it is expected to reach $880 million in 2025. This represents an average annual increase of nearly 12%. Critics, including clean energy advocates, say the program is an inefficient use of funds, with rising costs impacting consumers.
Originally designed to quickly replace aging, leak-prone pipes, the program has grown into a comprehensive rebuilding effort. Critics argue this rebuilding is unnecessary, particularly as the state aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift to cleaner energy sources by 2050.
Dorie Seavey, a senior research scientist at Groundwork Data, points out that the program could cost nearly $42 billion by the end of the century. She compares this to the infamous “Big Dig” highway project in Boston, which exceeded its original budget. Seavey notes that the rising costs of the program are directly contributing to higher gas bills for consumers.
Campbell is calling for the DPU to reduce the scope of the program and prevent gas companies from passing on the full cost of pipe replacements to ratepayers, especially when repairs could be done at a lower cost.
Supporters of clean energy, like Sarah Krame of the Sierra Club, agree with Campbell’s stance. Krame argues that continuing to invest billions in the gas distribution system only delays progress toward clean energy goals.
Despite the program’s original intent to address safety, gas companies are now allowed to recover the cost of new pipes from ratepayers. These pipes, made of durable plastic, have a lifespan of about 40 years. Critics argue that these costs will burden ratepayers long into the future, even as the state moves toward cleaner energy.
State Senator Michael Barrett likens the situation to an ongoing “big dig,” noting that while utility companies and labor unions support the program, it is creating an affordability crisis for consumers. He warns that the program is not only financially draining but also at odds with the state’s climate goals.
The GSEP program is expected to cost between $2 million and $4 million per mile to replace pipes in 2025. Gas companies submit their planned improvements to the DPU for approval each year. Campbell claims that many of these projects are not strictly related to safety, suggesting that some may be unnecessary.
To address what she sees as excessive spending, Campbell is urging regulators to reduce the amount gas companies can charge ratepayers for the program. She advocates for cutting the recoverable costs by 50%, forcing companies to focus on the most critical repairs.
Furthermore, Campbell wants gas companies to better evaluate alternatives to gas pipelines and provide detailed reports on how they are meeting the state’s clean energy targets. Five out of six gas companies failed to sufficiently explore alternatives in their 2024 projects, according to Campbell’s brief.
While most gas companies did not comment on the attorney general’s recommendations, National Grid and Unitil said they were reviewing the brief and would respond by the end of the month.
The attorney general has criticized the current system as unfair to ratepayers, who are being burdened with conflicting programs—one aimed at replacing outdated gas infrastructure and another meant to reduce reliance on natural gas.
At a recent protest in Boston, many people expressed frustration with high gas prices. Plympton resident Michelle Ruxton, a single mother, said she is struggling to make ends meet and wants more transparency about her gas bills.
As the state grapples with balancing safety, affordability, and climate goals, there are concerns about the future political landscape. Barrett worries that federal policies under President Donald Trump, who supports the gas industry, could derail efforts to reduce gas reliance.
“We’ve created a perpetual ‘big dig,'” Barrett said. “We need to deal with the affordability issue and the implications for climate change, but we may face new challenges ahead.”
Related Topics:
- Natural Gas, Not Oil, Could Be the Biggest Beneficiary of Trump’s EPA Overhaul
- High Operating Costs Keep Europe’s Floating LNG Terminals Idle
- Germany and France Push for More Flexible EU Gas Refill Targets