That same day, he reported receiving thousands of dollars in campaign donations from utility companies, energy groups, and the lobbyists who represent them.

Overall, in November, Cusack, other members of the powerful energy committee, and House leaders raked in nearly $12,000 from industry groups and their lobbyists — thousands more than what they received from the industry in any other month this fall. It was a significant flex from the energy industry, which has historically been one of the top sources of funding for powerful Massachusetts Democrats.

House leaders, including Cusack and Speaker Ronald A. Mariano, insist that campaign contributions do not influencethe policies they support at the State House.

“Campaign donations have never influenced my work as a member of the House of Representatives or as a committee chair,” Cusack said in a statement.

Still, environmental advocates say industry fingerprints are all over Cusack’s bill, which they warn would devastate Massachusetts’ efforts to respond to the climate crisis.

“The language clearly seems to be written by industry professionals,” said Larry Chretien, executive director of the Green Energy Consumers Alliance. The donations, he said, are ”a coincidence worth noting.”

The latest version of Cusack’s bill would weaken the state’s 2030 climate mandate to lower greenhouse gas emissions by making the target nonbinding.

Cusack has defended the need for the bill, arguing it aims to get money back to ratepayers as energy prices soar and the federal government has threatened funding for clean energy.

During the first two weeks of November, when the bill was being debated, checks from utility companies, energy groups, and the lobbyists who represent them flew into not just Cusack’s coffers, but also to other members of the key committee and other members of House leadership.

On Nov. 12, Cusack reporteda $1,000 donation — the legal maximum — from the CEO of clean energy group Permit Power, as well as hefty donations from in-house lobbyists for National Grid and Perch Energy, a Boston solar company.

On Nov. 14, committee member Representative Jim O’Day reported bringing in more than $3,500 from firms representing companies including Eversource, Berkshire Gas, and Dominion Energy — a significant haul from lobbyists who face strict $200 contribution limits.

On Nov. 17, House leaders said it wasn’t likely the bill would move through its next stop — the House Ways and Means Committee — in time for a floor vote before their holiday break. On Nov. 19, lawmakers left Beacon Hill, and the bill was put on ice.

But that didn’t stop donors. In the weeks that followed, House Speaker Ron Mariano and former energy committee chair Jeff Roy, who is now in Mariano’s leadership circle, brought in thousands from firms representing nuclear power plants, private power companies, construction contractors, and more.

Mariano said in a statement that “campaign donations have no influence on the work done by legislative committees, nor do they have any impact on the House’s agenda.” He added that the bill would be taken up next year.

Neither Roy nor O’Day responded to requests for comment.

Ray La Raja, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said the timing of the donations is hard to ignore.

“To me, it just seems like amateur hour, giving money when a bill’s coming up,” La Raja said. “Maybe that we want to signal that we really support you, but I think it’s odd, especially in a Legislature as complex as the State House.”

Representative Aaron Michlewitz, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he hit pause on the bill because it still needed some “real work.”

For advocates who staunchly oppose the measure, that was good news.

Chretien said he appreciated the delay because it gave advocates time to see the campaign donation reports for November before the bill advances.

Otherwise, he said, the bill could have quietly progressed without the public knowing who was donating to key decision makers.

“It’s unfortunately a reminder that elected officials do raise money,” Chretien said. “But the disclosure is very important.”

Cusack’s bill alarmed activists like Chretien, as it would also gut a 2021 law, passed under then-Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, which required the state to meet the most ambitious climate targets in the nation: slashing greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2030, and getting to “net zero” by 2050.

Cusack said his bill, a version of an energy affordability proposal Governor Maura Healey put forward this spring, is a response to federal actions — including threatening offshore wind, withholding funds for solar and electric vehicle programs, and altering tax credits aimed at the transition to clean energy. It will be harder for Massachusetts to hit ambitious climate goals given the hostile federal administration, he argued.Cusack has said that making the 2030 climate mandate nonbinding would protect the state from litigation if it fails to reach its emissions target.

His bill would also slash funding for the state’s energy efficiency program, Mass Save, in an attempt to save people money on their energy bills, which are among the highest in the nation.

However, environmental advocates warn, cutting programs like Mass Save would put the state’s climate goals even further out of reach. The program is the only real tool the state has for getting people to trade in fossil fuels for electric heat pumps, which can be powered by renewable energy, a key part of the state’s plan to reduce emissions.

Kyle Murray, of the clean energy policy nonprofit Acadia Center, said taking a pause on the bill is a good thing. He hopes the final version of the bill will maintain the state’s commitment to reducing emissions and other climate targets.

“Energy is a very complicated subject,“ he said. ”I would hate for us to make some rash decisions that actually set back energy affordability.”

Top Democrats have indicated that the state’s ambitious climate goals may be impossible to meet.

“We are probably going to have to have a conversation at some point related to whether we can meet our goals for 2030,” Michlewitz told reporters last month.

“I think that’s a real challenge that we’re facing, particularly when you have a federal government that is trying to thwart us at every possible turn,” he said. “We still have some real work to do … I’m going to have to have a lot of conversations with members before we move it forward.”

Sabrina Shankman of the Globe staff contributed to this report

Samantha J. Gross can be reached at samantha.gross@globe.com. Follow her @samanthajgross.