“Slowing the transition to clean local renewables is a
shortsighted plan that doesn’t address the long-term energy affordability and
undermines Rhode Island’s economic competitiveness and clean energy future,”
said Emily Howe of Clean Water Action. “The
investments we make today in energy efficiency make homes more comfortable, use
less energy, and reduce energy demand, resulting in lower costs for all rate
payers.”
Acadia Center’s Emily Koo put it
bluntly: “Cutting clean energy doesn’t protect Rhode Island rate payers. It
protects an outdated energy system and keeps us dependent on dirty, expensive
fossil fuels. These so-called state mandates, like our renewable energy
standard and the charges that support renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs, help reduce the largest and fastest-growing component of your bill:
supply and delivery costs. It’s a glaring omission to report clean energy costs
while ignoring all cost savings, one of the primary reasons for undertaking the
energy transition in the first place. Clean energy isn’t at odds with
affordability. It’s essential to it.”
The Governor’s bad policy decisions around renewable energy
and energy efficiency programs did please at least one group in Rhode Island:
Senate Republicans.
“Senate Republicans warned these mandates were unaffordable,
we debated the adverse effects on ratepayers on the Senate floor, we have
submitted legislation to increase transparency on utility bills, and to fully
repeal costly mandates,” said Senate Minority Leader Jessica
de la Cruz. “It is good to know the Governor supports our advocacy and,
at long last, realizes the detrimental effect of the policies he has
historically championed. Now is the time to put partisanship aside and correct
the failed policies that have given rise to some of the highest electricity
rates in the country.”
“Rhode Island’s mandates on renewable energy rely heavily on
taxpayer-funded subsidies. Those costs are borne by ratepayers across all
socio-economic backgrounds and present significant financial challenges for
businesses and the economy,” said Senate Minority Whip Gordon
Rogers. “If the governor’s efforts to solve problems he helped create
do not include a full repeal of mandates and a significant reduction in
taxpayer subsidies, then he is gaslighting the people of Rhode Island – it’s
just too bad that gaslighting can’t be used to heat and power our homes.”
Still, there are signs that the Governor may already be backing away from some parts of the executive order he signed the day before.
“I believe the governor’s listening. I really do,” said Joe
Walsh, Business Manager of IBEW Local 99. “I think he made some decisions that
he may not have had all the information on, and I think he’s rethinking it. I
want to make sure we don’t give him a bad name on this because I know for a
fact that he believes in renewable energy. He wants better-paying jobs, wages,
and benefits. That’s what he wants. He didn’t take any direct action against
the environmental community or me, it’s just bad policy that he needs to work
out, and I think we’re going to get there…”
Here’s the video:
Emily Howe, state director for Clean Water Action: We’re
united in saying that clean energy is affordable energy. Slowing the transition
to clean local renewables is a shortsighted plan that doesn’t address long-term
energy affordability and undermines Rhode Island’s economic competitiveness and
clean energy future. Natural gas prices will continue to be volatile, and gas
infrastructure projects are contributing to today’s high energy bills.
At the same time, the impacts of the climate crisis are
already here. Severe weather events are expensive, and it’s false to say that
we can’t afford a transition to renewable energy. We can’t afford not to.
Governor McKee, you often talk about your coaching days.
Coach, the clock is running out. Whose playbook are you using? Are you team
Rhode Island, looking to make energy cleaner and more affordable, or are you
going to continue to use the alt-right MAGA playbook? The ball is in your
court, and you’re going to be taking the last shot. We’re asking you to lead
the way before the clock runs out.
The investments we make today in energy efficiency make homes more comfortable, use less energy, and reduce energy demand, resulting in lower costs for all rate payers. Local renewable energy projects diversify our energy portfolio, reducing our reliance on volatile fossil fuel prices. These projects provide access to affordable electricity and family-sustaining jobs.
Emily Koo, Senior Policy Advocate and Rhode Island
Program Director for Acadia Center: Cutting
renewables and energy efficiency is not the answer to Rhode Island’s rising
energy costs. With this budget proposal, Governor McKee continues to pin the
blame for escalating energy prices on the very tools that serve to protect
Rhode Island rate payers from volatile supply costs and rising delivery costs -
much larger portions of our bill. I’m here to outline the three most egregious
provisions in Governor McKee’s budget proposal.
- First,
it levies a substantial, punitive grid access fee and lowers compensation
rates for large renewable energy projects, signaling that Rhode Island is
closed to clean energy business. The retroactive nature of the changes to
both existing and new net metering systems would have a severe chilling
effect on the industry as a whole. This will drive the solar industry out
of the state. A range of virtual net metering customers, including
municipalities, hospitals, colleges and universities, and housing authorities,
would lose substantial value from pre-negotiated discounted electricity,
and, in many cases, taxpayers would bear the brunt of that loss.
- Second,
the budget proposal delays and weakens Rhode Island’s leading renewable
energy standard (RES), prolonging our dependence on dirty,
expensive fossil fuels. Delaying the renewable energy standard undermines
the linchpin of achieving the state’s emission reduction mandates and
renders the climate act and the recent 2025 climate strategy obsolete.
- Third,
the budget caps Rhode Island’s cost-effective energy-efficiency programs
at $75 million per year, 48% below the five-year average. These are
programs that have delivered deep, lasting savings for Rhode Island. These
programs are required to show, and they do, that their benefits outweigh
their costs. Throughout the last annual energy efficiency planning
process, Acadia Center, the stakeholder Energy Efficiency Council,
a large group of legislators (thank you all who signed onto that letter),
and other local, regional, and national organizations spoke out against
reducing energy efficiency investments and explained why that’s bad for
Rhode Island rate payers.
I want to clarify that all parties involved in that
proceeding did not support the reduction. The Energy Efficiency Council
advocated for greater savings in its intervention before the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC), but ultimately, a $93 million
budget was approved following the regulatory review. That reduced budget was
$93 million. The cap is proposed at $75 million. While we opposed the budget
reduction, the outcome shows that the regulatory process is working and that an
arbitrary cap is neither necessary nor future-proof.
The cheapest megawatt is the megawatt we don’t use, often
called a “negawatt.” Energy efficiency directly lowers bills by reducing demand
and suppressing prices across the region. By pinning the blame on state
mandates and taxes, Governor McKee’s budget ignores the benefits of clean
energy and the primary drivers of energy costs.
Cutting clean energy doesn’t protect Rhode Island rate payers. It protects an outdated energy system and keeps us dependent on dirty, expensive fossil fuels. These so-called state mandates, like our renewable energy standard and the charges that support renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, help reduce the largest and fastest-growing component of your bill: supply and delivery costs. It’s a glaring omission to report clean energy costs while ignoring all cost savings, one of the primary reasons for undertaking the energy transition in the first place. Clean energy isn’t at odds with affordability. It’s essential to it.
Representative Lauren
Carson (Democrat, District 75, Newport): I’ve been working on
my comments for you for a couple of days, and as I came up here, I read an
article in the Providence Journal that appears to have just been published,
claiming that the Act
on Climate is due for a rewrite. [Behind a paywall] I think that is the
fight here, ladies and gentlemen. We can discuss all the other issues. We can
discuss net metering. We can discuss the energy standard, but the Act on Climate is
really the fight that we’re in, and I’m going to ask you to stay focused on
that particular aspect of this debate as we go forward.
The Speaker of the House asked me to make remarks on his
behalf1:
“Five years ago, we made history by passing the Act on
Climate, a bold, science-based commitment to cut our carbon emissions and
confront the crisis head-on. And that was not just legislation, that was a
promise. A promise to our children, our coastline, our economy, and the
community’s most vulnerable, to the consequences of a warming planet. Let me be
clear: we must keep the promise in the Act on Climate. The women and members of
the House Environment Committee are fully committed to this. They are working
very hard day and night, and I can tell you we meet frequently on this.”
But there is a reality here: the world around us is
shifting. The crisis has not only accelerated, but it’s also made our mission
urgent. We are seeing the emergence of fossil fuel agendas at the national
level and are returning to the same shortsighted policies. Today, we face
the rollback
of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which the Supreme Court ruled on in
2007, directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under the Clean Air
Act to address climate change. That is coming tomorrow from the
Trump Administration. Today, the federal government is taking more drastic
steps to eliminate a key tool the EPA uses to substantiate the reality of
climate change. And today, Trump
has appealed court decisions on offshore wind.
That is what we’re up against. That is the reality of this
political world right now, because here’s the truth: Rhode Island has led with
some of the toughest climate standards in the country. We’ve proven that small
states can think big. This moment demands courage, clarity, evaluation, and
continued action. We know that the solar industry has brought millions of
dollars in investments. We know that supply and transmission costs account for
70% of our utility bills, and that net metering programs save universities,
nonprofits, and municipalities real money. But I’m prepared to have hard
conversations about this because that’s what’s demanded of us right now: about
how we meet our goals and where we’re falling short. We have to have these hard
conversations without abandoning our goals.
We’re going to face very difficult decisions in the weeks
ahead. They need to be based on science. We deserve accurate modeling and
reports that incorporate built-in deadlines so we can monitor our progress
toward the 2040 Act on Climate goals. We can discuss the shorter-term goals,
the 2030s, but the 2040 goals seem most at risk at this time. If we don’t meet
those targets, the state is subject to citizen lawsuits under the Act on
Climate, and it’s irresponsible for policymakers to expose Rhode Island to such
liabilities. I propose that any action taken this year include a
legislative-mandated review of any new policies we’re developing by 2030 to
assess their effectiveness, as new policy changes are likely coming. We need to
confirm they’re working so we can make adjustments in the future.
Our investments in renewables cannot be reduced or
eliminated. If we extend the renewable energy standard and modify net metering,
we still need to ensure we bring more renewable energy into the system. That is
the goal.
I want to discuss affordability briefly. Utility bills are
rising. Over the next three to four weeks, as my constituents receive their
utility bills, my phone will start ringing, and they will want answers about
why it’s so high. We’ve had zero-degree weather. We’ve had several terrible
snowstorms. People are concerned about this. I have a responsibility to 14,000
people in the City of Newport to address their utility bills, don’t forget
that. But as Emily said, we have a bold idea: climate responsibility and
affordability are not in conflict. In fact, clean energy can lower costs over
time. Can we get there doing nothing? Can we get there if we lose to the ideas
that we’re seeing right now?
No.
We must pursue policies that are both ambitious and
accelerate decarbonization while protecting the everyday consumer. Reviewing
our ambitious policies is not a step backwards by any stretch of the
imagination. We’re in a situation where we have to review these things, but, as
the Speaker of the House always says, if we don’t get a seat at the table,
we’re going to be on the menu. There’s no doubt in my mind about that.
We must also acknowledge that we’re not alone in this fight.
We’re in New England. We must recognize that we share our energy supply with
our neighbors in other states. Perhaps we need to deepen our collaboration with
our neighboring states. As we do this, we must measure our progress accurately.
If there are policy changes, we must continually measure progress to ensure
we’re on track to meet the Act on Climate targets. How far have we come? Where
are the gaps? How can we innovate faster?
I know many of you likely disagree with the EC4’s
strategic plan. Many of you wanted it to go further, but this is what
we got. This is the plan. This was the first deliverable of the Act on Climate.
They had to produce a strategic plan to meet the goals by December 2025. Read
the law. They did it. This is what we got. This is the plan. Use the plan to
the best of your ability in every place. Legislators, put it in every bill that
you write. Remind people that this is required by law.
I’m going to be introducing a bill to mandate that the State
of Rhode Island meet its own obligations under the Climate Act. State
institutions, departments, commissions, and quasi-publics are required to
comply with the Act on Climate’s standards and implement the strategic plan. We
must lead by example. That is one step we can take to reduce our carbon
footprint. Another step we can take to reduce our carbon footprint is to
finally get building decarbonization over the line.
The next five years will be critical. We have an ongoing fight over wind. We have the Trump Administration for the next three years. We have challenges right in Rhode Island, where these things are being debated. We have to face the reality of these things. But above all, we must protect the Act on Climate, no matter how we negotiate through these very choppy waters. I encourage you to remain active, participate in decision-making, and be thoughtful in your recommendations as you respond to the policies around us.
Senator Alana
DiMario (Democrat, District 36, Narragansett, North Kingstown, New Shoreham): I represent
about 30,000 people in my District. I also pay an electric bill every month.
How many of you here pay an electric bill every month? How many of you are here
to advocate for something that is going to make that bill go up? Anybody? No,
not one hand. Everyone is committed to keeping affordability front and center
for our constituents, community members, and ourselves.
My colleagues and I in the General Assembly have no greater
responsibility than to ensure we meet our constituents’ needs and create
opportunities for them to thrive, and affordability is part of that. We had
a robust Senate
Finance Committee hearing last night. We had environmental
advocates, labor representatives, and industry representatives come together to
say, “Yes, affordability, but this is not the way.”
This is not the first time my colleagues in the House and
the Senate have considered ways to reduce energy costs while staying true to
our commitment to both energy efficiency and the renewable energy standard. My
colleague, Senator Samuel Zurier, is leading a commission to evaluate the
strategic plan for the climate act and how we can best align budget investments
and policy initiatives to support that goal. Senator Susan Sosnowski,
chair of the environment committee, is also leading a renewable energy study
commission, which is examining whether there are opportunities to refine
policies to stay focused on the goal of the renewable energy standards without
sacrificing affordability. That work is ongoing, and we take that work very
seriously.
I want to take a moment to highlight energy efficiency: as
noted earlier, the kilowatt-hour that is never used is both the cheapest and
the greenest. We need to protect the energy efficiency program because it has
not yet realized its full potential. Some of our most vulnerable ratepayers,
who are not homeowners, do not take advantage of energy-efficiency benefits
because they don’t own their homes. We have not yet figured out a way to ensure
those benefits reach all rate payers, and I want us to stay committed to that
rather than back off on investments in that space.
I also believe the governor’s initiative was
well-intentioned. We all want to see bills go down. Last night, on the finance
committee, I asked, “Roughly per household, what cost relief would we see if we
passed all of the initiatives in the governor’s budget?” The answer was between
$ 15 and $25 in monthly savings per household.
I’m not going to discount that impact, but when we look at
what the reality of the bills that people are paying, I don’t know that the
return on investment makes up for the bill that’s going to come due when we
defer investments in building renewables.
I appreciate the difficult environment that the federal
administration’s actions are creating for us here. Representative Carson did a
great job of outlining some of the challenges we’re facing, but I want to
return to a couple of points: The 100% Renewable Energy Standard and
the Act on Climate were passed before federal incentives were available for
those programs.
We can’t back off on this and lose the momentum and progress we have made, which will result in a larger bill to meet our goals later and worse environmental consequences for not pursuing them now. It’s important to stay centered on the idea that none of us are here advocating for these things because we want to make things more expensive for Rhode Islanders. The message of staying true to our environmental, renewable energy, and true energy affordability goals for Rhode Islanders is the same, and that is what we’re all here to advocate for.
Joe Walsh, Business Manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local Union 99: We’ve been working hand
in hand with the environmental community for years. In fact, we spent three
years working on the Solar Siting bill, where labor, environmental activists,
and industry came together to decide we wanted to stop clear-cutting forests
and installing solar panels everywhere. We didn’t want to stop the business; we
just wanted to make sure we found better, more reliable ways to do it,
rooftops, brown fields, things like that. I’m very fortunate that the
developers I work with were into that. They weren’t forced - they came to the
table, did everything they needed to do, and eventually, after three years, we
got that bill passed. We’re pretty proud of that.
I represent 1,000 IBEW members and 300 retirees, but in
reality, I represent 1,000 ratepayers and another 300 ratepayers at home. I’m
more of a data guy than anything else. I’m not a scientist, but based on a
quick review, we currently have the fourth-highest energy rates nationally. In
2015, we had the fourth-highest rate in the country, a year before virtual net
metering took effect. We had about 19 megawatts online in 2015. We have 746
megawatts online today. I don’t see the correlation.
Dan McKee is a friend of mine, and we have a strong working
relationship. I met with him on this several times, and I believe that he’s
going to roll back on a lot of these things because, honestly, I think he got
some bad advice because the numbers don’t work. We know that this country and
this state have an insatiable appetite for energy. We know we can’t continue
doing what we’re doing. If you go out west, they’re going to start popping more
coal plants in, right? And unless we’re going to reopen the Garden City coal
mine, which has been closed for about a hundred years, it’s probably not going
to happen here.
I see no rollback in our ability to use renewable energy.
Whether it’s wind or solar or hydrokinetics or whatever it’s going to be, those
projects have to continue. I don’t believe the governor understood the impacts
of that. We recently completed a large-scale solar project on Robin Hollow
Road. The developer on that project paid an interconnection fee for that
project. Everybody thinks that developers are out there and making a ton of
money, and they’re driving around in Mercedes-Benzes every day. That’s not
necessarily true. When they build an array, they have to deal with the utility.
They receive a price from the utility based on the interconnection fee. That
one, I believe, was $16 million. The grid access fee is effectively charging
you, again, for something you already paid for. It doesn’t make much sense, and
honestly, I don’t think the governor knew that, I really don’t. I think he’s
getting a much better understanding of that now, and changing…
Again, if you want to look at the renewable energy credits
or any of that stuff, what’s different today than 2015, when we’re still at the
same place, nationwide, in our utility costs? What is it? I also have an
electric bill. Mine’s over 500 bucks a month. It’s a lot of money, and I would
like to see a reduction, but not by eliminating renewable energy.
We’re getting beat up by DC on this. Joe Biden included
strong provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, which significantly expanded
solar energy. Now you have a president who doesn’t like it, doesn’t appreciate
it. He’s entitled to his opinion, but when it starts to impact us, the people
who do this work, the people who pay the bills, and how we want to manage our
state, that’s when it becomes our problem.
Even though the IBEW and the Building Trades in general take
the position of “all of the above” in power energy construction, whether it’s
gas or nuclear or whatever, we take that position. It doesn’t mean that’s what
we want to do. It means that’s where the jobs are, and that’s how we meet our
needs. Rhode Island doesn’t have an appetite for a new pipeline. Rhode Island
doesn’t have the appetite to expand the Burrillville power plant. So what are
you going to do? Have bicycles like on Gilligan’s Island,
generating your own electricity?
The Act on Climate is aggressive, but the goals must be met
because nothing is changing. Every time you upload one of your grandkids’
pictures to the cloud, every time you take that low-resolution picture of your
dessert, that takes energy, and this is how it gets done. And if we’re not
going to provide for that power, where do you think it’s going to come from?
It’s not going to come from anywhere else. We’re not building new power plants.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t want to. I’m just saying we’re not. Renewables are
our path forward, and we have to find a way to meet those goals.
And I’ll say it again: I believe the governor’s listening. I
really do. I think he made some decisions that he may not have had all the
information on at the time, and I think he’s rethinking it. I want to ensure we
don’t give him a bad name on this, because I know he wants to transition to
renewable energy and better-paying jobs, wages, and benefits. That’s what he
wants. He didn’t take any direct action against the environmental community or
me. It’s just bad policy that he needs to work out, and I think we’re going to
get there.
The governor is doing a lot of research. He’s going to figure it out, and with the people in this room offering their advice to him, I think he’s going to get it.
Nicole Verdi: I’ve worked in clean energy for
over a decade. I had the privilege of serving in Governor Gina Raimondo’s
Administration and as Counsel to Senate President Ruggerio, working along with
many of the folks in this room to build and strengthen Rhode Island’s clean
energy policies. Later, I worked for Ørsted, the global leader in
offshore wind and developer of the Revolution Wind Project, which
will deliver clean energy to power more than 350,000 Rhode Island homes.
During that time, I was proud to point to Rhode Island as a
national leader, a state that understood how clean energy, affordability, and
economic growth can all work together. I’m here today because Rhode Island is
at risk of repeating the very kind of politics we condemn when it comes out of
Washington. Recently, the Trump Administration moved to freeze the Revolution
Wind project. Governor McKee stood shoulder to shoulder with labor leaders,
environmental advocates, and the Rhode Island delegation to condemn it. He
called it reckless. He said, “You cannot change the rules in the middle of a
project and put jobs and investment at risk.” He was right.
But now the governor is advancing the same type of policy
here at home through Article 11, a policy that uses affordability to justify
undermining renewable energy. A policy that changes the economics after
projects are already built and financed. A policy that undercuts Rhode Island’s
ability to attract businesses, create jobs, and compete with neighboring states
for long-term investment. When a state changes the rules midstream, businesses
take notice.
After reviewing the executive order published on Monday, I
appreciate the governor’s willingness to reconsider the Article 11 solar
provisions and to work collaboratively with stakeholders. That willingness
matters: stability, predictability, and trust are essential for Rhode Island
communities, employers, and public entities that rely on consistent energy
policy. That is why the budget provisions, as originally proposed, are so
concerning. Today, I work for Nugent Capital Management, a Rhode
Island-based solar and clean energy investment firm. Nugent has developed two
solar projects in Rhode Island, both exactly where policymakers and planners
have told developers to build. One is on a landfill, and one is on a rooftop.
These are the right projects in the right places, built the right way with
union labor.
And like many net metering projects, they do more than
generate clean energy. They deliver real bill savings to schools and
municipalities. Just like similar projects across the state, this project
supports hospitals, universities, and community organizations. These savings
help keep taxes down, tuition manageable, and public budgets stable.
In its current form, Article 11 puts all of that at risk.
The proposed grid access fees and cuts to net metering rates are not only
harmful going forward but also retroactive. They’ve changed the rules after
projects are already built and financed. If enacted, our projects would no
longer be economically viable. And we’re not alone. I have spoken with many
developers since this budget was released, and many operating solar projects
will not survive if this budget is passed. This doesn’t just hurt developers;
it hurts every public and nonprofit customer counting on those savings.
What makes this especially troubling, as many of the amazing
speakers and leaders in this room have said tonight, is that these provisions
are labeled as affordability. Honestly, that claim doesn’t hold up. Rhode
Island’s electric bills are high because New England is overly dependent on
natural gas. When gas prices spike or winter demand surges, families and
businesses pay the price. Clean energy is part of the solution, not the
problem.
Affordability is not achieved by penalizing local renewable
generation. That approach actually makes the problem worse. We need more local
energy sources. If we want relief, we need to focus on what actually drives
costs. That means serious oversight of utility spending. It requires faster
approval for in-state generation and storage, reducing our exposure to volatile
fuel prices. It requires a rate design that rewards reducing demand when
electricity is most expensive.
I love this state. I built my career here, and like all of
you, I want Rhode Island to remain a place where businesses can invest with
confidence, where workers can build careers, and where communities can count on
stable, clean, and affordable energy. Trading long-term affordability and local
clean energy for short-term outcomes is an expensive and risky choice.
Rhode Islanders deserve better, and we’re respectfully asking the governor and the General Assembly to remove these provisions from the budget.
Emily Howe: A couple of weeks ago, we
held the ECRI coffee hour here, and Speaker Shekarchi said we need to
get organized and ensure people hear our voices. Thank you to everyone who testified last night or
wrote letters.
I’m now again asking you: Let’s get organized.
Let’s make sure we write letters, make phone calls, host house parties, and maintain momentum. We need to continue upward and maintain a positive trend.
SteveAhlquist.news is a reader-supported publication. To
receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid
