Finding 2 - Mass Save Municipal Impact Study

Residents of Gateway Cities and municipalities with Environmental Justice Communities contribute significantly more to Mass Save than others.

The concept of an EJ community is rooted in the EJ movement, which emerged in the United States in the 1980s as a response to the disproportionate impact that environmental policies and practices have placed on communities with lower incomes and communities of color.⁴⁶ EJ populations are identified by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs at the level of census block groups, meeting at least one of the following conditions: ⁴⁷

1. the annual median household income is 65 percent or less of the statewide annual median household income;

2. minorities make up 40 percent or more of the population;

3. 25 percent or more of households identify as speaking English less than “very well”;

4. minorities make up 25 percent or more of the population, while the annual median household income of the municipality in which the neighborhood is located does not exceed 150 percent of the statewide annual median household income.

As of 2022, there were 186 municipalities having at least one EJ block group, ranging from Bedford with 0.7% of its population living in such groups to 16 municipalities consisting entirely of EJ block groups.⁴⁸ For the purposes of this report, an EJ municipality refers to a municipality containing at least 90% EJ block groups.

Residents of EJ municipalities have a per capita net contribution to Mass Save 1.5 times higher than residents of municipalities with no EJ block groups. As illustrated in Figure 6, approximately half of the 351 municipalities in Massachusetts have no EJ block groups (see first row). The remaining municipalities are separated into deciles, in increasing order of EJ population. While the distribution is uneven, the contributions from EJ municipalities (municipalities with more than 90% of their populations in EJ block groups, as highlighted in the last row) are the highest, with a net average contribution of $90.67 per capita.⁴⁹

Figure 6. Mass Save Net Contributions per Capita by EJ Population 
(2019–2023)

Municipalities’ Percentage of Population Living in EJ Blocks	Number of Municipalities	Total Population	Total Net Contributions	Net Contributions per Capita
0%	150	1,168,056	$70,130,092	$60.04
0.01–10%	24	601,653	$49,626,181	$82.48
10.01–20%	35	530,316	$23,021,453	$43.41
20.01–30%	28	539,182	$19,555,106	$36.27
30.01–40%	18	439,462	$15,669,025	$35.66
40.01–50%	12	256,333	$14,128,439	$55.12
50.01–60%	7	274,070	$14,682,070	$53.57
60.01–70%	5	147,887	$5,857,135	$39.61
70.01–80%	13	624,906	$37,390,545	$59.83
80.01–90%	8	991,430	$78,167,538	$78.84
90.01–100%	24	1,414,162	$128,215,114	$90.67

The disproportionately higher net contributions observed among EJ municipalities are one example of the broader socioeconomic challenges impacting their residents. This issue is also evident in the Commonwealth’s 26 GCs, which are midsize urban centers that have historically served as immigrant gateways.⁵⁰

The concept of GCs emerged in the early 21st century and was formalized by the Legislature in 2010.⁵¹ These cities were built on manufacturing and trade, but as manufacturing declined in the United States, GCs experienced large economic downturns, leading to population and social welfare decline. Compared to statewide averages, GCs, by definition, have experienced lower income and lower educational achievement.⁵² Furthermore, GCs also face challenges of aging infrastructure and attracting investment.⁵³

Residents of GCs have a per capita net contribution to Mass Save that is 24% higher than residents of other municipalities. Figure 7 shows the net contribution of residents in GCs to Mass Save over the 2019–2023 period. Residents of GCs contributed $77.76 per capita, versus $62.96 for non-GC residents. This is particularly concerning as the average per capita income for GC residents ($28,867) is approximately 61.5% lower than the average per capita income for non-GC residents ($74,955). As a proportion of income, GC residents contribute to Mass Save approximately 3.2 times more than non-GC residents.⁵⁴

Figure 7. Mass Save Net Contributions by Residents: Comparison of GCs to Non-GCs (2019–2023)

	Net Contribution	Total Population	Net Contribution per Capita
Residents of GCs	$142,874,125	1,837,313	$77.76
Residents of Non-GCs	$313,568,573	4,980,677	$62.96

46.     Bullard, Robert D. “Environmental Justice in the 21st Century: Race Still Matters.” Phylon (1960-) 49, no. 3/4 (2001): 151–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/3132626.

47.     Source: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/environmental-justice-populations-in-massachusetts.

48.     The sixteen municipalities where 100% of the population is designated EJ are: Aquinnah, Ashland, Avon, Boxborough, Brockton, Charlemont, Chelsea, Hawley, Lawrence, Malden, Monroe, Randolph, Rowe, Savoy, Springfield, and Sunderland.

49.     Note that at Finding 1 we used the state median to represent the typical Massachusetts municipality in terms of income, given the fact that income is a highly skewed variable. Contributions to Mass Save, however, are not as skewed, and it is therefore appropriate to use the average as a representation of the typical contribution.

50.     These GCs are Attleboro, Barnstable, Brockton, Chelsea, Chicopee, Everett, Fall River, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Leominster, Lowell, Lynn, Malden, Methuen, New Bedford, Peabody, Pittsfield, Quincy, Revere, Salem, Springfield, Taunton, Westfield, and Worcester. Note that the list has not been updated since 2013.

51.     The concept was first formulated in policy papers developed by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, a research nonprofit organization. See https://massinc.org/about-us/ for more information. For the current definition, see Massachusetts General Court. MGL Chapter 23A, Section 3A. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/ ​GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter23A/Section3A.

52.     See Footnote 17.

53.     See Brookings (2007), Reconnecting Massachusetts Gateway Cities: Lessons learned and an agenda for renewal, for a description from nearly two decades ago, and Institute for Global Sustainability (2021), Prioritizing Gateway Cities in Massachusetts’ transition to renewable energy for a more recent assessment.

54.     See full calculation in Footnote 6. 

Date published:	September 29, 2025