GOV. MAURA HEALEY AND HER ADMINISTRATION — on the hunt for energy solutions — received a clear message from the solar industry on Monday: Get more power from the sun into Massachusetts, and move faster to do it.

Solar industry officials urged Healey at a Monday summit to make it easier to build solar and reverse a decline in deployment of the renewable energy source in the state in light of federal rollbacks, slipping climate goals, and high energy costs.

The discussion, which also featured Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper and Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahony, comes as President Trump has stifled Massachusetts’s offshore wind projects and pulled important federal tax incentives for renewable energy projects. It’s left Healey searching for new ways to both meet the state’s clean energy targets and lower energy costs as winter looms and power demand is on the rise.

“The solar we build now will be the most affordable solar that we will be able to build for some time,” said Jess Robertson, director of policy and business development at New Leaf Energy, a Massachusetts-based renewable energy developer. “Solar and storage are the only new resources that we can bring online fast enough to address both reliability and affordability in this era of rising electricity demand.”

The overarching industry asks that Healey and her team heard Monday are to site and permit solar projects faster, cut the costs and red tape for solar power to enter the electricity grid, and ensure incentives are aligned to produce more of the green energy source.

The challenges facing the state around boosting solar power are intersecting with Healey’s energy affordability legislation now sitting with the Legislature. That measure has sparked debate about Healey’s proposals to cut the net-metering incentives for large solar energy developments and bring more solar projects into the state’s recently updated SMART solar incentive program, provisions which the industry is opposing.

“Everything’s on the table,” Tepper, the energy and environmental affairs secretary, said when asked if the administration would consider changing those aspects of its energy legislation. “We’re talking about everything. We didn’t get everything perfect, but we’re here today to talk to people about that.”

While Massachusetts has led the way in solar deployment in the past, there’s a sense of urgency to reverse declining performance in more recent years. Installation of new community solar projects, for instance – which are solar installations meant to serve renters, condos, and homes without available rooftop space for panels – is down 16 percent in 2024 compared to the prior year in Massachusetts, marking the lowest year of installed capacity since 2015, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Those stakes have only grown since Healey signed a landmark siting and permitting reform law late last year: Federal tax credits for renewable energy projects will expire at the end of 2027 and residential energy tax credits will end at the end of this year as a result of Trump’s sweeping domestic policy law enacted earlier this year.

The Trump administration also revoked the Solar for All program that was set to deliver $156 million for Massachusetts. And he has halted new offshore wind production, of which the state must procure 5,600 megawatts by the middle of 2027.

Meanwhile, power demand in New England is expected to rise 11 percent by 2034, according to ISO New England, the region’s grid operator.

Healey has fashioned herself as an “all of the above” energy governor as a way to bring costs down and said she plans to mobilize last year’s law — regulations for which are currently out for public comment — to speed up solar deployment and reduce interconnection costs.

“It is the cheapest and fastest energy that we can build,” Healey said. “Massachusetts used to be one of the top states for solar installation, and now we’re in the middle of the pack. I want to change that, and that’s why I’ve asked the team to come together to hear directly from industry leaders what is slowing things down, what is getting in the way, what needs to happen.”

The solar industry, meanwhile, is appealing to Healey’s message around energy costs. Nick d’Arbeloff, president of the Solar Energy Business Association of New England, told Healey at the roundtable that “more solar means greater energy affordability.”

There are some concrete steps in the works. The Healey administration revised the SMART program last month to allocate 900 megawatts of solar energy during the next program year – enough to power roughly 150,000 homes — set annual incentive levels, and include incentives for low-income customers.

But more battles are to come.

Sen. Michael Barrett, a Lexington Democrat, who co-chairs the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, has previously expressed skepticism of Healey’s pitch to lower the net-metering rates for large solar projects and bring more solar developments into the SMART program.

Healey argues in her affordability legislation that reducing high net-metering rates would save ratepayers $380 million over 10 years, though doing so could make it less profitable and attractive for developers to launch new solar projects in Massachusetts. The administration also wants more solar projects to qualify through the SMART program, which the industry worries could hinder development, since those projects have to abide by other land use and energy storage requirements.

Meanwhile, a new state report released on Monday also throws into question the state’s largest energy efficiency program, an initiative that has become something of a political hot potato.

State Auditor Diana DiZoglio found that as a community’s population density and the proportion of renters increase, benefits from the Mass Save program typically decrease. Denser urban municipalities with more renters — groups less likely to directly benefit from energy efficiency improvements on a property — “were consistently found to contribute more to the program even when they ultimately do not get much back, if anything, from the program,” the report found.

The report also recommends a major overhaul of the program structure, including having utilities no longer administer Mass Save and suggesting increased transparency on gas and electric bills. The program is a partnership of the state’s six utility companies with guidance from the state Energy Efficiency Advisory Council and funds efficiency projects through a surcharge on utility bills.

Mass Save has come under fire from Republicans and some Democrats, who tie it to high energy bills. The Department of Public Utilities earlier this year cut Mass Save’s budget by $500 million, and Healey proposed a plan in her affordability legislation to change the way the program is financed from ratepayer funds to bonds.

“What we’re seeing right now in this very well-intentioned program called Mass Save is, unfortunately, essentially a wealth transfer from the poorest communities in Massachusetts to the wealthier, more affluent communities” DiZoglio said in an interview. “And we’re seeing essentially that lower-income communities are actually subsidizing energy efficiency improvements for these wealthier, more affluent communities.”