BOSTON — A small crowd of climate activists marched through the State House on Thursday morning, chanting about lawmakers’ failure to strike a deal on a clean energy bill deemed urgent and essential by the very lawmakers who could not agree on a mutually acceptable version.

As the Senate adjourned at around 10 a.m., members of the climate advocacy organization 350 Mass and the Mass Power Forward coalition held up signs outside the chamber that read “failure of leadership” and “climate change doesn’t wait.” The activists made their way up to the fourth floor and were later chanting outside the empty House chamber.

Daniel Zackin, legislative coordinator for 350 Mass, said House and Senate negotiators’ inability to reach a compromise on siting and permitting changes to accelerate clean energy infrastructure projects was “incredibly disappointing.”

“They love to look like they’re taking action on climate,” Zackin told the News Service. “When it actually comes to phasing out fossil fuels, they don’t do it. And there were major provisions in the Senate side of the climate omnibus bill that would have done that. They would have phased out fossil fuels in an orderly way that prioritizes gas workers to make sure that we have a truly just transition, and our legislators chose not to do that.”

The House and Senate each passed legislation in recent months taking aim at the complicated process to approve clean energy projects and incorporating a package of changes designed to modernize the electric grid to accommodate more energy from cleaner generation sources. But in addition to the recommendations made by the governor’s Commission on Clean Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting, both branches also loaded their bills with their own priorities, and now the whole package appears to be sinking.

The House included a push to have the state procure greater amounts of clean energy generation, and the Senate included a focus on ramping down natural gas programs as a way to shield Bay Staters from utility bill increases expected to come along with the permitting and siting changes. Barrett has repeatedly said it is critical to him that the higher costs of electrification be offset so ratepayers don’t start rebelling against the clean energy transition.

Sen. Michael Barrett, the lead Senate negotiator, said that the issues tied up in the six-person conference committee — changes to the siting and permitting process for clean energy projects, EV charging policies, clean energy procurement and more — might have to wait until next year for a revival.

“We can’t bring the House along with us quite yet. We’re even having some difficulty convincing the governor of the challenges that are involved here and in making sure that people are not overburdened,” the Lexington Democrat said outside the Senate Chamber. “So we haven’t quite had the coming together that that we looked forward to having, but we’re going to have a shot at creating that kind of broad consensus next year, I suspect.”

A short time later, outside the House Chamber, lead House negotiator Rep. Jeff Roy responded to Barrett’s comments and his apparent willingness to punt the issues to next session by saying, “The Senate is going back on its word.”

“I will say that we pre-conferenced the language on the siting and permitting. That’s a priority for us. That’s been a priority for us all session. I understood it to be a priority of the Senate. All three branches. The governor, the House and the Senate worked on this language. We have that as a compromise package, and the Senate is going back on its word to do that as part of this agreement,” the Franklin Democrat said.

Roy emphasized that the Senate had agreed on the siting and permitting language they wrote with the Healey administration.

“I will state, the governor was on WGBH this morning listing this as a priority. I know she’s talked to folks over in the Senate that this is her priority. This is so important for the future of clean energy. We need siting and permitting reform immediately, this is not an issue that can wait until 2025,” he said.

For those in Pioneer Valley communities that have been impacted by the development of large-scale solar installations and battery projects and proposals for more, the legislation raised concern about loss of local control and potential damage to woodlands and water resources, including the neighboring Quabbin that provides a drinking supply for millions of people. Already affected towns include Shutesbury, where a developer has proposed five large solar projects on 190 acres, and Wendell, where an industrial-size energy storage system is proposed for an 11-acre parcel.

Michael DeChiara is a member of the Shutesbury Planning Board, which sent a letter in June to state legislators opposing “energy siting legislation that would similarly reduce or outright remove clean energy permitting authority from municipalities.” He said Friday that the inability of the Legislature to agree on a climate bill is both bad and good.

“The objective fact is that the world is in a climate emergency and we need policy action now; each delay is wasted time resulting in real world impacts,” DeChiara wrote in an email. “However, action that degrades resiliency and lessens our ability to promote natural mitigation is short-sighted and counterproductive.”

DeChiara said a broader, more innovative approach is essential, with policy that encourages and protects vibrant ecosystems, protects against known risks, and incentivizes distributed energy generation via residences and municipalities — not just incentivizing development by private companies.

“The legislative leadership needs to start the process again by engaging communities and municipalities at the beginning of their deliberative process and the idea formation phase to ensure that climate interventions work on the ground in communities and truly further climate action and mitigation,” DeChiara said. “The failed legislation did not do this.”

Pelham Planning Board member Stacey Y. McCullough is a strong supporter of rapid expansion of solar energy, as necessary for the state’s ambitious and appropriate climate goals, and points to the state’s Department of Energy Resources’ Technical Capacity of Solar and Mass Audubon’s and Harvard Forest’s Growing Solar studies showing that there is sufficient land for renewable projects without destroying biodiverse, sensitive lands.

“I’m encouraged by the SMART (Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target) proposal, which will make large solar installations ineligible for incentives if they’re in undeveloped critical and core habitats, and will disincentivize them on other undeveloped lands,” McCullough said.

“That’s a step in the right direction, and it’s frustrating when legislation fails to follow suit, and in fact ignores the very findings that Massachusetts itself commissioned,” she said.

“The Legislature missed an important opportunity to protect nature, even though doing so has been shown to be entirely compatible with our climate goals,” McCullough emphasized. “That said, it gives us time to shape the bill to maximize its positive impact.”

Hearing from her constituents, Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, had added amendments to the Senate version incentivize solar canopies on buildings or pavement when siting ground-mounted solar, to help protect woods and fields from development.

Barrett said negotiators were “still working very hard to get a deal,” but he also said that “when we do a bill” it will be one that is sensitive to the cost of living for ratepayers. Roy said he hoped that the House and Senate could reach an agreement that could pass during informal sessions between now and the January end of the term.

“Massachusetts is going to be better off if we defer everything. If we can’t do it all and give people some financial protection from increases in electric rates, we should do nothing,” Barrett said. “Because it doesn’t have to be two years, it could be six months from now, it could be the beginning of 2025.”

Sen. Marc Pacheco, one of the leading climate and energy voices in the Legislature, listened intently as Barrett spoke to reporters and then offered his own thought. The Taunton Democrat said the permitting piece is essential and said that even if it’s not “the best in the world to get it done, OK, well, let’s get what we can get done and get going right away.”

“It’s absolutely critical that we get a climate bill enacted into law. I think not doing so is a tremendous failure for the Massachusetts Legislature,” he said. “We have been a national leader up until the last few years. States like New York are going ahead of us.”