Massachusetts’ Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP), launched in 2014 to address safety concerns related to aging natural gas infrastructure, has come under scrutiny for its effectiveness and cost implications. The program incentivizes utilities to replace leaking and at-risk gas pipelines with the stated goal of improving public safety and reducing emissions. However, critics argue that GSEP has costly consequences for utility customers and may not be the most effective approach.
Deirdre Cummings, Consumer Program Director at MASSPIRG, has called for the program’s immediate termination, citing research from the Future of Heat Initiative that estimates customers could collectively pay $42 billion to cover GSEP-related spending over time. Cummings contends that the program has misallocated resources and argues it locks the state into continued reliance on fossil fuel infrastructure, which conflicts with Massachusetts’ stated goal of transitioning to cleaner energy sources. She advocates for ending the program now rather than waiting for a possible phase-out by 2030.
In contrast, representatives from the natural gas industry defend the program. Alana Daly, Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Policy at the Northeast Gas Association, contends that the program’s benefits have been undervalued. Daly points out that pipeline modernization can deliver long-term savings by reducing maintenance and operational costs, while enhancing system reliability and safety. She also notes that the association’s emission reduction efforts mean that natural gas distribution emissions nationwide have fallen by 70 percent since 1990. Daly further disputes claims linking pipeline replacements to increased excavation damage, suggesting such damage is caused by a wide variety of construction activities unrelated to the GSEP.
A third perspective comes from Nathan Phillips, a professor at Boston University’s Department of Earth and Environment, who supports targeting pipeline repairs rather than full replacements. Phillips argues that repairing documented gas leaks is more cost-effective and less disruptive than wholesale pipe replacement, and he suggests utilities prefer replacement projects due to higher returns on investment. He asserts that repairing leaks would also spare communities from the upheaval caused by extensive trenching and pave the way for funds to be redirected toward cleaner heating technologies such as heat pumps and thermal energy networks.
As Massachusetts considers the future of GSEP, lawmakers face competing views on how best to balance safety, cost, and environmental goals. The debate highlights broader tensions about maintaining aging natural gas infrastructure amid growing demand for clean energy transitions and fiscal responsibility to consumers.