THERE’S A BROAD consensus in Massachusetts, affirmed by state law and policy, to accelerate the adoption of clean energy technologies as an important way to advance our climate and energy goals.  In my experience, unfortunately, the Commonwealth’s energy efficiency programs do not appear capable of supporting these goals.  I offer this brief outline of my own experience navigating the Mass Save rebate process as a real-life, practical example of how the system is frustrating, not encouraging, the consumer behavior it was established to incentivize.

Earlier this year I replaced my gas cooktop with an electric induction model. Mass Save, a consortium funded by surcharges on utility bills, offered a $500 rebate, but no one ever answered the number that I was instructed to telephone to obtain the rebate.

After my cooktop was installed, I wrote to the Executive Office of Energy and Environment Affairs for assistance. Secretary Rebecca Tepper’s staff was responsive and connected me with their Department of Energy Resources. Around the same time, the Boston Globe reported on troubles with Mass Save, which acknowledged the problems and announced that a new processor would be taking over on July 1.

This change of vendor initially appeared to be the solution to unlocking my presumably simple rebate issue, and I soon was contacted by National Grid – but there was a new wrinkle. They could not verify that my building was served by natural gas, and it took several weeks to discover the reason why.

It turns out that residents of our condominium are not individually billed for natural gas, but instead pay for these monthly charges through their common fees. Oddly, National Grid bills residential condo buildings as “commercial” and thus my residential building didn’t exist in their residential database. Since I pay for my gas through my condo fees, National Grid told me I was ineligible for this rebate.

This seemed to me an artificial distinction designed to frustrate the purpose of the Mass Save incentive, so I once again decided to loop the Commonwealth back in. Subsequently, another National Grid employee informed me that they would explore whether I was eligible for a commercial rebate, even though I am a residential user. After reviewing my receipt, a check was processed, with no clarity regarding how or even whether the residential/commercial distinction was resolved.

All told, getting this rebate took many hours of persistent effort on my part, involving me, state officials, National Grid, and Mass Save’s new processor, CleaResult. Whether other residents of the Commonwealth have the time, patience, or understanding to go through the same process I was required to endure is an open question.

Soon after receiving my induction cooktop rebate I received an ad from Eversource, promoting electric vehicle charger rebates – “Paid for by Eversource Customers!”  This was perfect timing, as I hope to purchase an electric vehicle soon to take advantage of the federal tax credits made available through the Inflation Reduction Act.  But, again, I found that access to incentives is not made easy if you live in a condo building. Eversource asked: do I live in a single-family home or a one-to-four family building?  Well, neither – I live in a 270-unit complex.

Eversource also classifies residential condominium garages as a “business” and states: “Parking spots must be either non-deeded or non-reserved, or 20 percent of deeded spaces must have EV chargers installed. All electric charging will be tied to one Eversource account for payment.”

In most residential condominiums, parking is reserved through deed or easement. To do otherwise would be chaotic. Condo owners should be entitled to at least equal installation terms and rebates as those who reside in suburban McMansions, but the current rules appear to deliberately frustrate urban condo residents.

To top things off, I was recently informed that Eversource can’t install more chargers in my residential garage since the service at our relatively new building is “maxed out.” Consequently, neighbors who were able to afford the first generation of the most expensive Teslas, for example, can continue to save by plugging in at their deeded parking spaces, but now that more rebates are available, and EVs are becoming more affordable, people like me are told that they’ll have to wait until … an unknown date.

I understand I’m describing problems experienced by many who are largely privileged. There are serious equity issues involving the transition to a “cleaner energy future.” My point in writing this is to cast some light on what I believe is a structural problem in state programs designed to incentivize clean energy behavior that favor suburbanites at the expense of many urban dwellers, who are required to subsidize rebates they are ineligible for. This is neither fair nor likely to lead to the outcomes the Healey administration has set for itself.

Those who set up (and monitor) these incentive programs need to understand how they operate in practice, and consider whether they are operating fairly, transparently, and in the best interests of the Commonwealth’s overall climate and clean energy objectives.  In my experience, the current process does not inspire confidence.

Paul Rehme has been a Boston resident since 1981.  His career has included service with the city of Boston, the Commonwealth, and the private & non-profit sectors.