Five Gigawatts on a Deadline

Governor Maura Healey’s Executive Order 654, signed March 16, directs Massachusetts to reach 5,000 MW of battery storage online or under development by 2035. The order caps permitting timelines at 15 months for solar and storage projects, compressing a process that currently averages over three years. It is the most operationally specific storage directive any governor has issued.

The storage target is not new. Massachusetts enacted a 5,000 MW-by-2030 procurement mandate in its 2024 Clean Energy Act, with duration requirements that pushed the industry toward longer discharge: 3,500 MW at four to ten hours, 750 MW at ten to twenty-four hours, and 750 MW at twenty-four hours or more. What the executive order adds is a parallel track of administrative pressure, directing the Department of Public Utilities to expedite interconnection planning, accelerate time-of-use rate adoption, and fast-track virtual power plant program reviews.

The procurement math. The staggered schedule under the 2024 law calls for 1,500 MW of mid-duration storage procured by July 2025, followed by 1,000 MW tranches in 2026 and 2027, with the remainder by 2030. Eversource, National Grid, and Unitil filed a draft RFP for the first 1,500 MW tranche; an independent evaluator found it “likely to attract competition and provide a cost-effective result for ratepayers.” In December 2025, the state awarded 1.3 GW across four projects in its first large-scale storage tender. The pipeline is moving.

The demand case. The executive order frames storage and demand-side resources as affordability tools, not climate instruments. The administration estimates the combined 10 GW supply plan could save residents and businesses $10 billion. That framing reflects a state where electricity costs rank among the highest in the country and where electrification and data center load growth are placing new demands on an already constrained grid.

The 10x10x10 framework. The 5 GW storage target sits alongside a broader 10 GW resource goal spanning 4 GW of in-state solar, 2.5 GW of new grid-connected generation (gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydro), and 3.5 GW of demand-side resources including virtual power plants, energy efficiency, and electric vehicle charging management. The generation mix is deliberately agnostic. The order directs the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to “accelerate licensing and certification pathways” for nuclear and geothermal alongside renewables, a signal that Healey is hedging against any single technology pathway.

Permitting as bottleneck. The 15-month cap is the provision most likely to determine whether the targets are met. Massachusetts permitting has historically fragmented across local boards, each with its own review timeline and appetite for delay. The new Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting Council consolidates oversight. For context, the state’s 150-plus local moratoriums on energy infrastructure (a national pattern, not unique to Massachusetts) have made siting the binding constraint for projects that are otherwise financeable and interconnection-ready. A 15-month ceiling does not guarantee approvals, but it guarantees decisions.

Interconnection reform. The order directs the DPU to require electric distribution companies to submit interconnection capacity plans and to update tariffs so that solar developers can pay grid interconnection costs over time, secured by letters of credit or bonds. This addresses a specific financing friction: upfront interconnection deposits that strand capital during multi-year review processes. Flexible interconnection programs, also mandated, would allow projects to connect to the grid at reduced capacity during congested periods rather than waiting for full network upgrades.

The political frame. Republican gubernatorial candidates Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve criticized the order as ideologically driven, blaming Healey’s energy policies for high consumer costs. The AFL-CIO endorsed the plan for its union job creation potential. The Associated Industries of Massachusetts backed it on cost grounds. Energy Secretary Rebecca Tepper’s framing was direct: “Massachusetts is going to be a stable place to do business.”

What changes. Executive orders are not legislation. They direct agency behavior, set priorities, and create administrative momentum, but they do not appropriate funds or create binding procurement obligations beyond what existing law already requires. The 2024 Clean Energy Act already mandates the 5 GW procurement. What Executive Order 654 adds is permitting reform with a specific timeline, interconnection policy directives with specific mechanisms, and a political signal that the administration will treat storage deployment as an affordability issue rather than an environmental one. In a state where electricity costs rank among the highest in the country, that reframing may matter more than the gigawatt targets themselves.

Massachusetts is not the first state to set an ambitious storage target. California, New York, and New Jersey have all done so. It may be the first to pair a gigawatt-scale target with a hard permitting deadline. Whether 15 months proves enforceable across 351 municipalities will determine whether 5 GW is a plan or a press release.

Sources