BOSTON — The chances of the House and Senate reaching a stoppage time deal on clean energy permitting and other climate-related policies are slim, negotiators from both sides said shortly after midnight as the sniping and finger-pointing began.

“I was looking forward to a glorious morning. I’m not sure we’re going to have quite the celebration that I had been planning. Technically, the bill is still alive,” Sen. Michael Barrett, the lead Senate negotiator, said. “The Senate is fully committed to producing a balanced package that raises your electric bills but constrains your gas bills, providing some balance. But the balance is proving elusive. Not sure the House subscribes to the idea that we should give people relief, even as we expand the grid and make people pay a significant amount to do so.”

Barrett suggested that the issues tied up in the six-person conference committee – reforms to the siting and permitting process for clean energy projects, EV charging policies, clean energy procurement and more — might have to wait until 2025 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.

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 reforms 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.

“We can provide people some financial relief, even as we increase the burden on the electric bill. Or we’re going to see that Massachusetts becomes part of a worldwide rebellion against the clean energy enterprise. The expense of it is daunting, so if you don’t anticipate in advance how to soften the blow on people’s monthly budgets, you are courting a right-wing reaction against climate policy,” Barrett said early Thursday morning. “And that’s really what’s at stake here. We’re at risk of exposing ourselves to a backlash, because cleaning up the planet does impose a lot of financial burden.”

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.

“I hope it happens tonight. But it won’t be a disappointment to the Senate if the entire debate — the electric side and the natural gas side both – carries over to a new two-year session. That’s a plan B. Plan A is to do it tonight,” he said. “But ... the second-best alternative is to carry everything over to 2025, see who’s president of the United States because that makes a huge difference, right? If, perchance, Mr. Trump is reelected president, we’re not going to have an offshore wind industry generating electrons in need of a robust grid in quite the timeframe we anticipated.”

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.”

Barrett and Roy were locked in a spat over rules related to the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, which they co-chair, for much of this session. Barrett said early Thursday that that dispute had no bearing on their inability to reach an agreement this week.

“Not at all,” Barrett said. He added, “I think personal relations are very good. Institutionally, though, something happened with this negotiation midway through. I don’t know what it was. But the mood did change. We got off to a great start though. And it faded by the end of the week. Not sure why.”

He added, “There seems to be a larger game afoot. There are all kinds of problems with all kinds of conference committees.”

Asked to respond to those comments, Roy said he wasn’t privy to other conference talks and suggested the only shift was the Senate forging ahead with a broader bill even after House Speaker Ronald Mariano said he preferred a narrow siting and permitting bill.

“The shift was it got too far afield from siting and permitting,” he said. “The Senate just wanted too much beyond that.”

Roy added, “And I can recall, when the governor appointed the commission to study siting and permitting and come up with language, I remember when she was handing me her pen, I said to her, ‘Governor, this is the most important thing we will do this session.’ And we were all committed to doing it this session. And I’m disappointed.”

Sam Drysdale and Chris Lisinski contributed to this report.