A coalition of housing and environmental groups asked the Joint Committee on Revenue to report favorably on the AHEAD Act (H.3194/S.1973), a bill that would raise the real‑estate transfer excise rate from 0.456% to 0.912% and direct half the new revenue to climate initiatives and half to housing programs, proponents said.

Nathaniel Shea, director of public policy at the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations, told the committee the proposal would generate a more sustainable revenue stream for climate resilience and affordable‑housing trust funds. The bill’s sponsors estimate roughly $300 million per year in additional revenue once markets normalize, money proponents said would be split evenly between the Global Warming Solutions Trust Fund and existing affordable‑housing and housing‑preservation funds.

Speakers from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Conservation Law Foundation, 350Mass, Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association and local community development corporations described practical uses for the revenue: energy‑efficiency retrofits and decarbonization for older housing, municipal resilience projects (including the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness program), expanded vouchers and rental assistance targeted to extremely low‑income households, and construction or preservation of affordable units built to high performance standards. Annette White Cole and tenant‑advocacy witnesses described the difference rental assistance makes for families facing imminent homelessness.

Supporters emphasized that the AHEAD Act would allocate funds within existing, administratively managed trust funds rather than create new programs, allowing the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and housing agencies to adapt spending to evolving needs. CLF cited federal funding volatility and a recent cancellation of a federal resilience grant as evidence that the state needs recurring support.

Questioning from committee members focused on competitiveness with neighboring states, how the excise rate compares to nearby jurisdictions and the distributional effects by geography and income. Proponents noted neighboring states’ rates (New Hampshire higher, Vermont and Connecticut comparable in some bands) and said the bill is calibrated to remain competitive while generating material funds for long‑term needs.

No committee vote was held. Proponents requested the committee report the bill favorably so legislative deliberations could continue.