Mass Save paid a contractor $67,500 to put a heat pump in a Rockland building and $123,825 to put one in a Hingham school. Investigators who went to look say the pumps are not there.
Those two projects are examples in a lawsuit filed Monday in Plymouth Superior Court by the sponsors of Mass Save, alleging that a local business collected more than $7 million in rebate payments it was not entitled to. The defendants are MWD and its owner, Mark Dyszczyk. The allegations are unproven and no one has been criminally charged.
What the suit alleges
Mass Save is the statewide energy efficiency program that pays rebates and incentives to businesses that install efficient equipment. It is sponsored by Eversource, National Grid and Cape Light Compact JPE, and those sponsors are the plaintiffs.
According to MassLive’s account of the filing, the sponsors opened an investigation into MWD in April and eventually inspected 220 project sites. The suit alleges that MWD and Dyszczyk collected more than $7 million in rebate payments, and it identifies the Rockland and Hingham projects as installations that were paid for and never made.
Why this is a civil case and not, yet, a criminal one
The first question people ask about a fraud allegation of this size is why it is in Superior Court rather than a grand jury.
The answer is that these are different tracks that can run at the same time. A private party defrauded of money sues to get it back. Whether a prosecutor opens a parallel investigation is a separate decision made by a separate office, and a civil filing frequently precedes one, because the civil plaintiff already has the documents.
If criminal charges did follow, the natural fits in Massachusetts would be larceny by false pretenses under G.L. c. 266, § 30, which aggregates at the $1,200 felony threshold, and the related false-pretenses and forgery provisions if fabricated documentation is involved. Nothing in the reporting says a criminal investigation exists.
The claims a case like this is built on
A rebate-fraud complaint of this shape typically stacks several theories, because they carry different remedies.
Fraud and misrepresentation. The core theory. A payment induced by a false statement of fact, made knowingly, on which the payer reasonably relied. Here the alleged false statement is that equipment was installed.
Breach of contract. Program participation agreements set out what a contractor must do to claim a rebate. This is the least glamorous count and often the easiest to prove.
Unjust enrichment. A backstop that works even where a contract theory has gaps, because it asks only whether the defendant holds money that in fairness belongs to the plaintiff.
Chapter 93A. This is the one with teeth. G.L. c. 93A, § 11 governs unfair or deceptive acts between businesses, and a plaintiff who proves a willful or knowing violation can recover double or treble damages plus attorney fees. On a $7 million claim, that distinction is worth $14 million.
We do not have the complaint and cannot say which counts were actually pleaded. But the 93A exposure is why a case like this usually settles before a jury sees it.
The detail that will decide it
Two hundred and twenty site inspections is the number to notice.
Fraud cases against contractors usually turn on intent, and intent is hard to prove from a single bad job. A missing heat pump at one address is a dispute. A missing heat pump at one address after an inspector visited 219 others is a pattern, and a pattern is how knowledge gets proved to a jury.
It also changes the settlement arithmetic. A defendant facing a documented pattern across hundreds of sites, with treble damages available, is in a materially different position than one facing a disputed invoice.
The defense, if there is a conventional one, will be about paperwork rather than pumps: that installations occurred and were later removed, that inspections looked at the wrong units or addresses, that subcontractors submitted the claims, or that the program’s own documentation requirements were ambiguous. Those arguments work better at five sites than at 220.
Who actually paid
Mass Save is funded through charges on utility bills. The sponsors are the plaintiffs, and if they recover, the money goes back into the program rather than to any individual.
That is worth stating because it is the reason this is a public-interest story and not just a commercial dispute. Ratepayers funded the rebates. Ratepayers funded the investigation. And every dollar paid for a heat pump that was never installed is a dollar that did not pay for one that was.
What to watch
- Whether an attachment or injunction is sought. In a case alleging millions already paid out, the plaintiff’s first practical problem is whether the money is still there. A real estate attachment or a preliminary injunction freezing assets is the usual move.
- Whether the Attorney General or a district attorney appears. The AG’s office has civil authority under c. 93A as well.
- Whether the program changes its verification. The most consequential outcome of a case like this is usually not the judgment. It is whether rebates start requiring post-installation verification.
- The answer. Dyszczyk and MWD have not responded publicly. Their answer will be the first indication of whether this is a documentation fight or a factual one.
Who filed the Mass Save lawsuit?
The sponsors of Mass Save, which are Eversource, National Grid and Cape Light Compact JPE. It was filed Monday in Plymouth Superior Court.
What does the suit allege?
That MWD and its owner, Mark Dyszczyk, collected more than $7 million in rebate payments, including $67,500 for a heat pump in a Rockland building and $123,825 for one in a Hingham school that investigators say were never installed.
Are there criminal charges?
No. This is a civil lawsuit. Nothing in the reporting indicates a criminal investigation.
What is Chapter 93A and why does it matter here?
G.L. c. 93A, § 11 covers unfair or deceptive acts between businesses. A willful or knowing violation allows double or treble damages plus attorney fees, which multiplies the exposure in a case of this size.
Where does the rebate money come from?
Mass Save is funded through charges on utility bills, so the program is ratepayer funded.
How many sites were inspected?
220, according to the suit, after the sponsors opened their investigation in April.
The filing, the parties, the Plymouth Superior Court venue, the $7 million figure, the April investigation, the 220 site inspections and the Rockland and Hingham examples from MassLive, September 23, 2026. We have not obtained the complaint, and the description of the likely claims is a general account of how cases of this type are pleaded rather than a description of the counts actually filed. Statutory references to G.L. c. 93A, § 11 and G.L. c. 266, § 30 are provided as legal background. The allegations are unproven, MWD and Mark Dyszczyk have not responded publicly, and no one has been charged with a crime. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.