It's a consortium established by the major utilities in the state, not a state program. Those utilities need goodwill from the public because that is how they get rate increases approved by the legislature. The electric companies that participate also benefit because consumers use more electric.

It's not altruistic, it's just dressed up that way.

Paid $20k recently for a new heat pump for a 1200 sf condo.

FYI, Mass Saves is a total scam - I've been going back and forth with them for months and they just sent the same bs one liner asking me to provide an invoice for the installation of an integrated control module or something like that (i.e., a sub-part of the $20k system I bought that isn't itemized or something on the invoice).

I think Mass Saves is a scam organization that preys on consumers in the Commonwealth, steals goodwill through a chimerical scheme by which it makes promises to reimburse residents that it does not honor, and is liable under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection statute (c. 93A). I'm probably going to sue them once my claim is finally denied, though I hope there is a class action suit by the AG to force the entire scheme to go under.

Installers use Mass Saves to bump up prices by 5-10k too, because they promise you that you will get your money back from the program. You will not get it back, so don't count on it.

I identify with this. As a lawyer, I spent years justifying the government's anti-death position, arguing (mostly with myself) that as a policy matter, letting people commit suicide by medical means would introduce all kinds of mischief into estate and family planning.

However, having seen both my father-in-law and my dad die from cancer, my mind is completely changed. I'm sure there are worse deaths than late stage renal failure, but my FIL was begging the doctors to kill him by the end, it was totally macabre. My dad's death in hospice care was better, but it still took almost two weeks before he took his last breath. Both deaths were traumatic for everyone around them except the doctors and nurses who see it every day.

What aggravates me is that people like me simply do not see death every day. We see it maybe once or twice close up in our entire lifetimes. So why are people like me being asked to advocate for this? MDs in hospitals see this every. single. day. Doctors and nurses should be advocating for some form of assisted suicide for terminal patients because dying is a million times more painful than whatever possible self/assisted-inflicted death moment could ever be.

If I treated my dog like the doctors treated my relatives, I think I'd be charged with cruelty to animals - and perhaps rightly so. Nobody would let a horse or a dog die an agonizing death from cancer; they would feel duty-bound to put the animal out of its misery. Yet with humans we all want to pass the buck: the family doesn't want to do it, the doctors don't want to do it, and the dying person desperately wants to do it but cannot.

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with committing suicide if you get a terminal cancer diagnosis. I'm sorry, but my own plan is to go off in the woods with a shotgun and a single shell and eat it somewhere where it won't leave a big mess. Maybe send a note to the local PD by snail mail so they can find the body before anyone else does. That strikes me as a completely reasonable, even considerate thing to do.

Yeah, my example isn't exactly correct, but it's generally correct (i.e., the reason the assets were not returned notwithstanding the overturned convictions is because of the different standard of proof required for civil asset forfeiture).

The burden of proof for civil asset forfeiture is actually lower than the burden of proof for obtaining a judgment in a civil case, and there is no trial (unlike the OJ civil case). The test is (generally stated) whether police believe based on a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to clear and convincing evidence, my error made above) that the assets are fruits of a crime, the burden is on the defendant to show that they are not fruits of a crime. In Massachusetts, the standard is that police must show probable cause to believe that the assets are fruits of a crime, a very easy threshold to meet.

>As there was no civil case that allowed the seized assets to be kept by the government, they should be returned.

I agree with you in principle, because I think civil asset forfeiture is a taking and should be subject to due process of law. Unfortunately for those who do not support civil asset forfeiture, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld it's constitutionality, so it isn't going anywhere (unless the Court changes its mind).

I haven’t read the SJCs opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it has to do with the evidentiary burden that needs to be met for civil asset seizure vs the evidentiary burden to be met for a criminal conviction.

Generally speaking, in the civil context, the plaintiff (ie, the state in these cases) need only show by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief from the defendant (ie, asset forfeiture).

By contrast, to take away someone’s liberty, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) that the person committed the crime that they are charged with. BARD is a very high threshold to meet, much higher than clear and convincing evidence, as used in the civil context.

Dookhan’s malfeasance introduced reasonable doubt as to whether the substances she tested were controlled substances. That negates the criminal conviction (because no reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty BARD in view of the tainted evidence). However, it does not exonerate the defendant. The fact that the defendant is entitled to a ‘not guilty’ verdict means that the state has not proven its case BARD.

The lower threshold for civil asset seizure means that a defendant can be simultaneously ‘not guilty’ under the BARD standard and ‘guilty’ under the civil clear and convincing evidence standard.

Coincidentally, this is exactly what happened to OJ: he was found not guilty BARD in the criminal case, but the Goldman family won their untimely death civil lawsuit against him for murdering their son, due to the lower evidentiary standard applied in civil suits.