Who’s Delaying Climate Action in Massachusetts? Twelve Findings

The report finds a stark contrast between public support for climate action in Massachusetts and the actual legislative outcomes. While approximately 90% of public testimony supports environmental priorities, ambitious legislation is frequently blocked by powerful industry coalitions—most notably regulated utilities and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). The study identifies four primary opposition coalitions: utilities, fossil and chemical companies, real estate, and power generation companies. It highlights that utilities are uniquely successful in steering policy, often opposing decentralized solar energy while supporting large-scale wind and hydro projects that benefit their business models. Furthermore, the report notes a shift in opposition rhetoric from climate denial to 'discourses of delay,' such as policy perfectionism and appeals to social justice. The authors conclude that the lack of transparency in the State House, combined with the immense spending power of corporate lobbyists, creates a hostile environment for ambitious climate policy.

• Four distinct industry coalitions routinely oppose climate and clean energy bills: those led by utilities, fossil and chemical companies, real estate companies, and fossil fuel power generation companies. Among these, the utilities coalition is the largest and contains the highest-spending groups, specifically Eversource and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
• There is an overwhelming gap between public testimony and legislative results; approximately 90% of all collected testimony on environmental priority bills from 2013 to 2018 supported the environmentalists' positions.
• Corporate actors significantly outspend nonprofits in lobbying. On average, the top ten anti-green interest groups spent $165,122 per year, compared to $47,239 per year for the top ten pro-climate action groups, representing a 3.5-fold difference.
• Regulated utilities, specifically National Grid and Eversource, exhibit a strategic preference for large-scale renewable energy (hydro and wind) that provides substantial contracts, while lobbying heavily against decentralized solar energy and net metering initiatives that reduce utility revenues.
• Utility companies are the most successful actors in the legislative process; bills they support are more likely to pass, while those they oppose are most likely to fail. Between 2013 and 2018, only 43 of 245 introduced climate and energy bills made it out of the initial joint committee, and only 9 were voted on by the full legislature.
• The Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) acts as a powerful ally to utilities, frequently lobbying against rapid climate action, carbon pricing, and natural gas regulation, while arguing that existing laws are sufficient to reach net zero.
• The fossil fuel industry, led by the Massachusetts Petroleum Council, consistently opposes divestment, fracking bans, and carbon pricing. Rather than denying climate change, they use 'discourses of delay' to argue that fossil fuels are an indispensable part of the economy.
• The real estate industry, including the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and the Massachusetts Association of Realtors, opposes residential energy efficiency regulations by claiming such mandates would hurt homeowners in less affluent communities and decrease property values.
• Power generators, primarily represented by the New England Power Generators Association (NEPGA), lobby against new large-scale renewable energy contracts and the importation of hydroelectricity from Canada, citing costs and the potential loss of in-state jobs.
• Opponents of climate action have shifted from scientific denial to 'discourses of delay,' which include 'policy perfectionism' (arguing a bill is poorly designed), 'appeals to social justice' (claiming costs hurt the poor), 'fossil-fuel solutionism,' 'premature success-ism,' and 'individualism.'
• The Massachusetts legislative structure itself acts as a barrier to climate action due to a lack of transparency, secret committee votes, and tight control by House leadership over committee assignments and the flow of information.

APA

Hall, G., Culhane, T., & Roberts, J. T. (2021). Who’s Delaying Climate Action in Massachusetts? Twelve Findings. Climate Social Science Network. https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MA-CSSN-Report-1.20.2021-Corrected-text.pdf

Chicago

Hall, Galen, Trevor Culhane, and J. Timmons Roberts. Who’s Delaying Climate Action in Massachusetts? Twelve Findings. Climate Social Science Network, 2021. https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MA-CSSN-Report-1.20.2021-Corrected-text.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hall |first1=Galen |last2=Culhane |first2=Trevor |last3=Roberts |first3=J. Timmons |title=Who’s Delaying Climate Action in Massachusetts? Twelve Findings |publisher=Climate Social Science Network |date=January 2021 |url=https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MA-CSSN-Report-1.20.2021-Corrected-text.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hall2021whos, author = {Hall, Galen and Culhane, Trevor and Roberts, J. Timmons}, title = {{Who’s Delaying Climate Action in Massachusetts? Twelve Findings}}, institution = {Climate Social Science Network}, year = {2021}, month = jan, url = {https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MA-CSSN-Report-1.20.2021-Corrected-text.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }