Trump’s rollbacks and funding cuts are affecting your food, water, and air — even if you don’t realize it.

How Donald Trump is affecting Americans' everyday lives

Grist staff

The cost to Rhode Island so far

• Over 47,000 Rhode Islanders will lose health insurance
  
• 10,000 Rhode Islanders are at risk of losing food assistance
  
• Nearly 6,000 Rhode Islanders could lose their job
  
• Combined with Trump’s reckless tariff agenda, the median household in Rhode Island will lose $1,300
  
• Rhode Islanders’ electricity bills will rise by 10.5%
• Trump’s reckless tariffs have already cost Rhode Island businesses $231.9 million

Lucas Burtin / Grist

Over the last six months, Americans have been inundated with a near-constant stream of announcements from the federal government — programs shuttered, funding cut, jobs eliminated, and regulations gutted. 

Donald Trump and his administration are executing a systematic dismantling of the environmental, economic, and scientific systems that underpin our society. The onslaught can feel overwhelming, opaque, or sometimes even distant, but these policies will have real effects on Americans’ daily lives.

In this new guide, Grist examines the impact these changes could have, and are already having, on the things you do every day. Flipping on your lights. Turning on your faucet. Paying household bills. Visiting a park. Checking the weather forecast. Feeding your family.

The decisions have left communities less safe from pollution, more vulnerable to climate disasters, and facing increasingly expensive energy bills, among other changes. Read on to see how.

— Katherine Bagley 

The environmental toll of artificial intelligence

Trump AI plan would “ramp up exploitation” of people and the environment, advocates warn

Shannon Kelleher 

The Trump administration this week released a plan to fast-track the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in the US, delighting tech groups while alarming environmental advocates who point to the industry’s toxic emissions, high water usage and heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

The “AI action plan,” released July 23 by the White House, calls for the development of new AI data centers – huge facilities that house AI computing infrastructure – to be waived from typical assessment requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, which determine a project’s environmental impact.

The plan also proposes expediting environmental permitting for such data centers by streamlining or reducing regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws, and calls on agencies to make federal lands available for constructing data centers and their power generation infrastructure.

In accordance with the Trump Administration’s AI plan, the US Department of Energy today announced four sites across the country selected to invite private sector partners to develop AI data centers and energy generation projects – a “bold step” that will “accelerate the next Manhattan Project,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a statement.

RI Republicans think the way to cut electricity bills is to curb renewable energy

To prove they are mega MAGA macho, they've dumped a symbolic package of bills to wipe out green energy

By Will Collette

Is that Mike Chippendale heading down from Foster
to his news conference? 

Not to be outdone by their lord and master Donald Trump, his hatred of “windmills” and love of coal, Republican General Assembly members led by House Minority leader Mike Chippendale just announced a collection of bills to promote fossil fuels at the expense of energy efficiency.

These bills have NO chance of passage, not just because they have no merit, but because they are being introduced at the end of the General Assembly session. Apparently Chippendale et al. are sending some symbolic message to somebody – maybe King Donald – that they are as MAGA-maniacal as anybody.

Like most energy conversations, they begin with the largely true, widely held belief that electricity bills are too high. But from there, it’s all downhill.

I live in Charlestown, one of Rhode Island’s most vulnerable communities to the effects of climate change. Storms are worse and more frequent even trashing the Charlestown Breachway. Our beaches are eroding. The sea level is rising. Seawater is infiltrating groundwater. It’s very hard to get homeowner’s insurance at any price.

Over the past 25 years, Cathy and I have taken action to increase our energy efficiency by getting an energy audit, adding insulation, putting on a light-colored steel roof and, through the much missed Solarize Charlestown program, installed an array of solar panels in 2017. We’ve also replaced our appliances with the most energy efficient available and added heat pumps.

I would love to add residential sized vertical axis wind turbines, but Charlestown’s town ordinance makes it impossible to do so (click HERE to see why). This is a legacy of the NIMBY faction of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), and I hope to see that ordinance repealed soon.

Every change we made cost money upfront but was made easier through state and federal rebates and tax credits and, in the case of our solar panels, being able to sell our excess power back into the grid. Every energy investment we have made has paid us back through lower electricity usage.

Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans want to end all of that and now we’ve heard from state Republicans that they want to do the same here in Rhode Island.

Chippendale said, “Far too often, the utility is painted as the villain, but many of these cost increases stem from legislative mandates — laws passed by the General Assembly that forced utilities to buy expensive energy or fund inefficient programs…”

He condemned the payback solar panel owners like us get for selling our excess energy: “Right now, solar customers are credited at the full retail rate for energy. They produce up to 125% of their usage. That’s not market-based. It’s an inflated rate that gets passed on to every single ratepayer in this state.”

WTF? “Full retail rate” isn’t “market-based?” As it is, the number of solar panels you can install has to roughly match your usage. Personally, I would have wanted to add more since the marginal increased cost would have meant more generated power. That’s market-based, Mike. And like the energy companies, the utility pays us at the rate called for by law.

The other market-based reality ignored by the MAGA world is the rapid expansion of green energy generation and how through the economies of scale, green energy prices have been consistently dropping. 

All across Red State Middle America, wind and solar power companies have been booming, generating employment booms as well as energy at levels that now surpass fossil fuels. Trying to reverse this market trend makes no economic sense. As Mike would say, not “market-based.”

Even Charlestown’s ex-state Rep. Blake “Flip” Filippi is on board with this regressive approach to energy, shown in this tweet on X (note: Trump is pictured with coal miners, not natural gas drillers):

I do not understand the MAGA obsession with wasting energy. Or hating energy efficiency. Or leaning into increased use of polluting fuels. Who benefits other than the fossil fuel companies?

Is it just about “owning the libs?”

Ever since Jimmy Carter’s sweater and the first Arab oil embargo in 1973, most Americans have come to believe we need to be smarter about energy. Energy efficiency is an unqualified good thing regardless of your location on the political spectrum. Burning less fossil fuels is an unqualified good thing.

We’ve come a long way in 50 years and we still have quite a distance to go. Why Chippendale and MAGA-world want to turn the clock back is baffling and unjustified.

Trump budget puts clean-energy spending in crosshairs

So what do we get: higher prices, dirtier air, fewer jobs

By Jacob Fischler, Rhode Island Current

Trump is taking us in the opposite direction

Donald Trump’s budget request for the next fiscal year proposes deep cuts to renewable energy programs and other climate spending as the administration seeks to shift U.S. energy production to encourage more fossil fuels and push the focus away from reducing climate change.

The budget proposes slashing $21 billion in unspent funds from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law for renewable energy, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and other efforts to cut climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions. The request also targets climate research spending and initiatives meant to promote diversity.

“President Trump is committed to eliminating funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production,” a White House fact sheet on climate and environment spending said. The budget “eliminates funding for the Green New Scam.”

How Trump’s latest rollback could raise your utility bills

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: “Energy Star has saved American families and businesses more than half a trillion dollars in energy costs”

So naturally, Trump wants to kill it

By Tik Root

The federal Energy Star program is among the most successful government initiatives in modern history. Its signature blue label is now nearly as recognizable as the Nike swoosh or a Coca-Cola can, and appliances bearing it save American consumers some $40 billion annually in energy costs, or about $350 for every taxpayer dollar that goes in. 

However, Donald Trump’s administration moved to kill it, The Washington Post first reported. Grist reviewed an Environmental Protection Agency document obtained by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that shows the program is slated to be “eliminated.”

“Energy Star has saved American families and businesses more than half a trillion dollars in energy costs,” said Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the ranking member of the committee, in a statement to Grist. “By eliminating this program, [Trump] will force Americans to buy appliances that cost more to run and waste more energy.”

Launched in 1992, during George H.W. Bush’s presidency, Energy Star sets efficiency specifications for products ranging from dishwashers to entire homes. Those standards are beyond government-mandated minimums, and Energy Star’s website says the goal is to provide “simple, credible, and unbiased information” people can use to make better decisions. 

While Energy Star certification is voluntary, most major manufacturers participate. According to the government, around 9 in 10 households recognize the Energy Star label. Depending on the year, as many as 80 percent say the label “very much” or “somewhat” influenced their purchases. Overall, consumers have bought more than 300 million appliances with the Energy Star label and the program has cumulatively helped avoid 4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. 

There is NO energy emergency

Attorney General Neronha joins coalition to challenge Trump’s fake “energy emergency”

Steve Ahlquist

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha joined a coalition of 15 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the President’s false “energy emergency,” declared to line the pockets of Big Oil by handing out free passes to pollute the environment.

Donald Trump declared a “national energy emergency” under the National Emergencies Act on Inauguration Day. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976 to prevent presidents from declaring national emergencies for frivolous or partisan matters — exactly what the President has done here.

“We know that this President has a very tenuous relationship with the truth, so it should come as no surprise that he fabricated an ‘emergency’ to get his way,” said Attorney General Neronha. 

“Here’s the truth: if we don’t do everything within our power to address climate change, including spearheading the transition to clean and renewable energy sources, future generations will suffer the irreparable consequences. Under this executive order, fossil fuel producers would be allowed to extract from anywhere they see fit while bypassing important environmental and historical reviews, thereby disrupting and destroying the land and habitats of Americans and wildlife alike. We must stop the illegal, unnecessary actions of this President before it’s too late.”

At the direction of the President, federal agencies are bypassing or shortening critical reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Historic National Preservation Act for energy projects. These laws play a critical role in protecting the environment and human health.

Appliance efficiency standards save consumers billions, reduce pollution and fight climate change

But Donald Trump thinks they're bad and wants to end them

David J. Vogel, University of California, Berkeley

Donald Trump has said he wants to reverse decades of regulations about energy efficiency in American household appliances, claiming doing so will provide Americans with “freedom to choose” products that meet their needs.

In an April 9, 2025, statement, Trump claimed he could alter government regulations on his own, without the legally required process of public notice and comment.

But as a scholar of environmental regulations, I know those regulations were created to save energy and lower utility bills for consumers. I also know that many companies and consumers have supported federal regulation to strengthen energy efficiency standards and generally have opposed weakening them.

The first government-set energy efficiency standards for appliances were issued by California in 1974. They were initially for refrigerators, the household appliance that used the most energy. Subsequently, several other household appliances were added. During the next decade, more states issued standards, as saving energy would help avoid the costs of constructing new power plants.

The proliferation of state standards led the federal government to prohibit states from issuing appliance efficiency standards once the federal government had done so. The first federal standards, in 1987, applied to 13 household products, including refrigerators.

Since then, the federal government has created standards for additional products and tightened existing ones. Those changes have progressively made home appliances and business and industrial equipment more efficient, saving consumers billions of dollars, decreasing air pollution from power plants and reducing carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change.

Trump signs order to block state laws, like Rhode Island's, that aim at climate change

Probably unconstitutional, but could lead to end to federal funding

By Jacob Fischler, Rhode Island Current

An executive order President Donald Trump signed April 8 to block state-level renewable-energy initiatives set off alarm bells among climate advocates.

But experts and state policy groups said constitutional protections will blunt any effect the order would have on state operations.

The order, one of four Trump signed April 8 aiming to revitalize the coal industry, directs the U.S. Justice Department to investigate and block enforcement of state laws that restrict fossil fuel production. It specifically targets state and local policies involving climate change, environmental justice and carbon emissions reductions — popular among blue states.

By attempting to strip states of their own authority to make and enforce laws, the order violates basic constitutional principles and would likely be struck down in court, environmental law experts said Wednesday.

Brad Campbell, the president of the New England-based environmental advocacy group Conservation Law Foundation, said in an interview with States Newsroom the order does not cite any federal law or interest the administration is seeking to protect — though the order does mention interstate commerce and an objective to improve national security — revealing it is more about messaging than policymaking.

Sen. Victoria Gu takes aim at bloated utility profits

Enough is enough

Photo by Steve Ahlquist

Sen. Victoria Gu has introduced a pair of bills to put a limit on the profit that can be made by utilities distributing electricity and natural gas in Rhode Island and to ensure that future transactions made between utilities are reviewed in a public, transparent process that serves the broad public interest.

“Every winter, constituents come to me asking why their utility bills are so high. People are struggling and frustrated. We need to do a better job of regulating our utilities, which are monopolies, and controlling costs,” said Senator Gu (D-Dist. 38, Westerly, Charlestown, South Kingstown). 

“It is our job as legislators to make sure that utilities serve the public interest and are not profiting excessively while residents suffer.”

The first bill (2025-S 0018) would limit the return on equity (the industry term for profit margin) of public electric or gas distribution utilities in Rhode Island to 4 percent in any year.

In Rhode Island, utility companies are not allowed to make profit on procuring energy to supply ratepayers. They instead earn a rate of return on the delivery of the energy, based on the infrastructure they build in Rhode Island. Rhode Island Energy, which distributes both electricity and natural gas to most of Rhode Island, is allowed a return on equity of 9.275% on its distribution of gas and electric under the rate agreement that took effect in September 2018, before the company was sold by National Grid to PPL in 2022.

Investor-owned utilities, like Rhode Island Energy, have an incentive to build more expensive infrastructure projects in order to increase profits for their investors. 

RFK Jr. kills energy assistance program needed by millions

A Cruel and Frozen Heart

Martin Burns for Common Dreams

Donald Trump has caused so much devastation over the last several weeks that it is hard to calculate the loss. It is easy to lose sight of the people who are being hurt. 

Earlier this week, the Trump administration's Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a vast restructuring of the agency. As a result, literally thousands of workers were fired and entire sections of HHS eliminated and countless programs—spanning the gamut from world health to food safety—negatively impacted.

One of the programs devastated was the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) which helps low-income individuals and families pay for heating or cooling homes. According to the New York Times, the entire staff of LIHEAP was fired. LIHEAP helps over six million low-income people and has an annual budget of $4.1 billion.

Over the years, both Republicans and Democrats have supported LIHEAP. The program found supporters in New England who depended on LIHEAP for heating assistance and those in the southwest who used the assistance to help cool their homes. Those days of bipartisan cooperation are long gone.

No one should have been surprised by the severe cuts to LIHEAP. The program was targeted by Project 2025 and by the House Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget last year. Interestingly, this position puts the GOP at odds with utilities/energy companies which support LIHEAP.

The big question: what happens to LIHEAP now that all the staff have been fired by RFK Jr.

April 24: URI Cooperative Extension aiming to connect all Rhode Islanders to increased home energy efficiency

Kristen Curry 

Everyone was talking about their energy bills this winter. As winter has moved into spring, a team at the University of Rhode Island is hoping Rhode Islanders keep talking about their energy use – this time to them. 

URI Cooperative Extension is hoping to help consumers lower their bills in both the short- and long-term and, in turn, reduce the amount of energy homes consume and pay for. Organizers are particularly interested in hearing from residents in low- to moderate-income communities and the community-based workers who serve these individuals directly as part of the effort focused on increasing awareness of the importance of energy efficiency. 

The sessions start April 24 and are open to any interested community member: renters, homeowners, landlords, community-based workers, energy and public health professionals. Anyone who participates in at least three of the six sessions will be eligible to receive incentives in exchange for their input and time.

According to Cooperative Extension’s Kate Venturini Hardesty, this project hopes to reach and assist income-eligible ratepayers: those who are eligible for assistance programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and those who spend a larger percentage of their income on energy costs. Many of these residents also happen to live in older houses which are less energy efficient, which compounds cost and means homes are not as healthy as they could be.

EDITOR’S NOTE: US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired the entire staff of LIHEAP effectively ending the program. The terminations took place on  April 1^st and are no joke. There has been no statement from the Trump administration on what, if any, provisions will be made for the program and the $400 million in aid money that has been approved by Congress but not distributed.  – Will Collette

Switching to air drying can save hundreds

South County legislators host session with RI Energy on March 24

Charlestown's Senator Gu and Representative Spears among co-hosts

State lawmakers representing South and North Kingstown, Charlestown, Westerly, Block Island and Narragansett will hold a public forum with representatives from Rhode Island Energy regarding electrical and natural gas prices on Monday, March 24, at 6 p.m. at the South Kingstown High School Auditorium at 215 Columbia St. in Wakefield. 

They will discuss programs to assist ratepayers who are having trouble paying their bills and address questions and concerns from members of the public.

The hosts, all Democratic women representing South County communities are: 

How to understand how your energy bill works

Energy matters make consumers question costs

Dawn Bergantino

As the U.S. pivots on energy policy and priorities, consumers are talking about their energy bills, approaching the issue from a personal perspective, wondering why the cost for delivery can be higher than that for the actual energy, and worrying about current and future prices. 

Corey Lang, an environmental economist and professor in the University of Rhode Island’s College of the Environment and Life Sciences, conducts research at the intersection of energy and residential issues, focusing on ways energy issues interact with the public interest.

Lang says that many Rhode Islanders have experienced a large increase in electricity bills in recent months, stemming from this winter’s abnormally cold and windy weather leading to increased usage.

“Utilities are in the business of distribution,” says Lang. “It costs a lot of money to build and repair the distribution network, keeping electricity flowing efficiently and reliably.”

In URI’s College of Business, Douglas Hales, professor of operations and supply chain management, is focusing on global supply chain management.

Hales discussed the reasons for consumer price flux in energy bills in an interview.

R.I. utility carrier to credit ratepayers $7.9 million in fraud case settlement

You might score a few bucks from the settlement

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Rhode Island Energy is on the hook for nearly $8 million to make up for an alleged fraud scheme by its predecessor under a settlement agreement approved March 5 by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

The settlement marks the closing of an investigation that looked into mismanagement practices by National Grid extending back over a decade. Pennsylvania-based PPL Corp. took over National Grid’s electric and natural gas business in Rhode Island in May of 2022, creating Rhode Island Energy.

In December 2021, the PUC discovered that National Grid knowingly misfiled invoices for its energy efficiency program over an eight-year period to make more money, overcharging customers as much as $2.2 million. 

State lawmakers take on Rhode Island Energy as utility bills and frustrations soar

Cotter and Gu lead fight to curb electricity bills

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

 Rep. Megan Cotter, an Exeter Democrat, greets constituent
Chris Callaci while canvassing on the day of the Nov. 5 election
outside Exeter Chapel. (Photo by Laura Paton/Rhode Island Current)

Fueled by constituent concerns over rapidly rising — and more unpredictable — gas and electric bills, Rhode Island lawmakers are cranking the heat up on the state’s primary utility operator.

Leading the charge is Rep. Megan Cotter, whose district abuts Charlestown, who introduced a pair of bills in January that, if approved, would cut Rhode Island Energy’s profit margins by more than half while potentially introducing a rival, publicly owned utility company. 

“When I was door-knocking, all people were talking about is that they can’t afford to pay for food, utilities, insulin,” Cotter said in an interview on Thursday, referring to her 2024 reelection campaign. “Something’s gotta give.”

The cyclical rise and fall of utility bills has trended higher in recent years, with supply-side electricity costs reaching record levels in 2022 and 2023. 

PPL Corp., Rhode Island Energy’s parent company, on Thursday reported $888 million in profits for 2024, including utility operations in Rhode Island, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. The earnings mark a 20% increase over the prior year, with a corresponding increase in earnings per share.

Its Rhode Island segment increased annual earnings per share from 13 to 15 cents per year over year, according to the earnings report. 

Rhode Island law authorizes the state’s utility regulators to cap the percentage of revenue its utility provider can earn off gas and electric operations. Since 2018, under a settlement with prior owner National Grid, revenue has been capped at 9.275% per year, with any excess on either gas or electric operations returned to ratepayers.

But Cotter thinks that’s too high. One of her bills would cap annual revenue at 4% of gas and electric operations, beginning on July 1, 2025. A companion bill was introduced in the Rhode Island Senate by Victoria Gu, a Westerly Democrat.

Already, Rhode Island Energy has come out in opposition, even though its annual return on equity margin has come in far below the 9.275% cap in both gas and electric operations in 2022 and 2023, the most recent data available from the Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers.

Looming Budget Deficit Bad News for Environmental Advocates Seeking Beefed-Up State Programs

Not enough money for environment progress

By Rob Smith / ecoRI News staff

Lawmakers return to Smith Hill to two very different chambers, and one big problem.

In the Senate, the leadership drama that had been simmering since the last session came to a head during the annual leadership vote, when 12 senators, all Democrats, voted “present” instead of voting to re-elect Senate President Dominick Ruggerio, D-North Providence, for a new term of leadership for the chamber.

It also resulted in a changing of the guards. Sen. Alana DiMario, D-North Kingstown, was demoted from chair of the Senate Environment and Agriculture Committee. In her place, Ruggerio appointed Sen. V. Susan Sosonowski, D-South Kingstown. It’s Sosnowski’s second time as chair of the committee; she led the eight-member body for much of the past decade, before assuming leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee in 2021.

Over on the other side of the building, the House of Representatives was a very different story. No drama, no leadership fight, just a near unanimous vote for Speaker Joe Shekarchi, D-Warwick, to lead the chamber again.

But outside of any opening-day drama is a bigger problem: the state’s looming budget deficit, estimated to total more than $300 million. The final numbers won’t be known until the state budget office makes its final estimate in May.

That’s bad news for state environmental groups seeking funding for new programs or money to beef up existing environmental enforcement. In its biannual Green Report Card released last fall, the Environment Council of Rhode Island, a coalition of the state’s environmental advocacy groups, wrote that the state’s efforts “to mitigate climate change remain insufficient to meet the goals of the Act on Climate.”

Running a public utility isn't a license to steal

Megan Cotter bill would cap electric and gas utilities’ profits 

Public utilities are guaranteed a profit.
The question is how much.

Rep. Megan L. Cotter has introduced legislation to put a limit in state law on the profit that can be reaped by utilities distributing electricity and natural gas in Rhode Island.

The legislation is intended to prevent utilities from making hefty profits at the expense of everyday Rhode Islanders who struggle under rapidly rising utility bills.

“As the middle class erodes, we need to look at the ways we enable big businesses to wring large profits out of the public. Corporate greed has no place in public utilities in particular, because people don’t have any other option but to use their services. They shouldn’t have to pay higher rates for basic, vital needs like heat and electricity for the sake of the company’s profit,” said Representative Cotter (D-Dist. 39, Exeter, Richmond, Hopkinton).

The bill (2025-H 5018), which Representative Cotter introduced Jan. 9, would limit the return on equity (the industry term for profit margin) of public electric or gas distribution utilities in Rhode Island to 4% in any year.

Rhode Island Energy, which distributes both electricity and natural gas to most of Rhode Island, is allowed a return on equity of 9.275% on its distribution of gas and electric under the rate agreement that took effect in September 2018, before the company was sold by National Grid to PPL in 2022. A settlement made at the time of the sale bound RIE to that agreement for three years, which means it can file for a change later this year.

According to information provided by the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, the company reported its electric profits in the last two years were lower than the 9.275% allowed in the 2018 rate case. In 2019, 2020 and 2021, they were above (9.62%, 10.74% and 10.02% respectively).

Is "Think Energy's" cheaper electricity pitch for real? Maybe not

Investigation Reveals Misleading Marketing in Rhode Island Electricity Market

By Uprise RI Staff

Rhode Island residents, already grappling with some of the highest electricity rates in the continental United States, are being targeted by alternative electricity providers promising relief from high winter rates. But a closer examination of these offerings reveals a complex pricing strategy that could leave consumers paying more, not less, for their electricity.

Think Energy, one of several third-party electricity providers operating in Rhode Island, recently launched a direct mail campaign promoting rates lower than those offered by RI Energy, the state’s primary electricity provider. While the marketing materials trumpet potential savings, our investigation found that the real story lies in the seasonal rate differences and contract terms that many consumers might overlook.

The Winter Switch

Think Energy’s current offering advertises a rate of 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), comparing favorably to RI Energy’s winter rate of 16.39 cents/kWh. At first glance, this appears to be a significant savings. However, the math becomes less favorable when examining summer rates and usage patterns.

The issue isn’t the winter rates — it’s what happens when summer arrives. Most Rhode Island households use significantly more electricity during summer months when air conditioners are running constantly.

When summer arrives, Think Energy’s rate remains at 13.5 cents/kWh while RI Energy’s rate drops to 10.4 cents/kWh (assuming 2024 rates). This price difference could eliminate any savings accumulated during the winter months and potentially cost consumers more over the course of a year.

Marketing vs. Reality

Think Energy’s website presents what appears to be misleading information about RI Energy’s rates. Their regulatory compliance page for Rhode Island shows RI Energy’s Summer 2024 rate as 14.9 cents/kWh — significantly higher than the actual rate of 10.4 cents/kWh.

The company’s terms and conditions reveal additional concerns:

• The ability to pass through additional costs due to regulatory changes or “market conditions”
• Mandatory arbitration clauses that waive rights to court trials and class action lawsuits
• Automatic data sharing with Think Energy’s solar affiliates
• Complex legal language that may obscure important terms

Advisory Boards Created by Legislation Often Left Unfilled

‘Dead on the Vine’ 

By Colleen Cronin / ecoRI News staff

This reporting was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

State's message seems to be they don't want advice

Ten years ago, when Rhode Islanders had concerns about the high cost of an electricity bill or struggled to get the heat back on, they could go before the Ratepayers Advisory Board, an assembly of appointed volunteers, to air their grievances, and in many cases move the needle on their problems.

The Pawtucket-based George Wiley Center and other groups would often champion those issues, too, recalled Camilo Viveiros, executive director of the center, and bring them before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which oversees rate changes and other policies.

“We wouldn’t always get a response,” Viveiros said. “The Ratepayers Advisory Board would nudge the PUC to respond.”

He said the board was instrumental in getting modified payment plans in place that made it easier for customers to reinstate service, instead of remaining without heat or electricity because they couldn’t afford it.

“It is important to have something that has a broad oversight of utility policies,” Viveiros said.

Although Viveiros and others saw it as a champion for customers, it’s been seven years since the Ratepayers Advisory Board met. It’s just one of the bodies that oversees environmental or related policy that has become defunct, despite laws mandating they meet, file reports, and advise state officials.