Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Standard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan to delay renewable-energy mandate and cap efficiency spending draws broad opposition at House Finance hearing
Summary
The administration's Article 11 proposal to slow the renewable energy standard and cap energy-efficiency program spending drew sharp pushback from unions, clean-energy advocates and many public commenters who argued the changes would harm jobs, long-term affordability and the state's climate goals. Businesses and Rhode Island Energy supported many affordability measures but urged balanced reforms.
The House Finance Committee heard extended debate on Article 11, the governor's package of energy affordability reforms that would delay the statutory 100% renewable energy timeline, expand eligibility for the renewable energy standard (RES) to include certain "0‑emission" resources, change banking rules for certificates, introduce a tiered alternative compliance fee, and cap annual energy‑efficiency surcharges at $75 million.
Administration witnesses said the proposals are intended to keep electricity affordable while preserving long‑term emission goals. Riley Connaughton told the committee the administration's aggregate saving estimate was roughly $1 billion over five years; he said that figure includes a $35 million component tied to virtual net metering (which was not before the committee).
Acting OER Commissioner Chris Kearns described the federal policy shocks that underpin the administration's approach. He cited the loss or curtailment of federal tax credits and litigation affecting major projects and said those changes have materially altered the supply outlook for renewables. "The absence of this federal tax credit is going to have a domino effect on land based renewables and offshore wind development over the next few years," Kearns said.
Linda George, DPUC administrator, supported the administration's affordability emphasis and stressed program cost trends, citing delinquency rates and program cost‑effectiveness declines as a rationale for change. "In 2024, we spent 31 cents to get a dollar of long‑term electric system benefits," she said; she added execution of the 2026 proposal aims to return closer to a cost‑effective ratio.
Business groups and manufacturers told the committee that high energy costs are an immediate threat to competitiveness. Ellis Waldman (Walco Electric) and Melissa Travis (Rhode Island Manufacturers Association) said the proposed adjustments would help keep manufacturing in the state. Nicholas Ucce of Rhode Island Energy acknowledged the customer affordability challenge but urged careful planning to avoid reliability risks; he noted that customers have paid about $3.3 billion to support state mandates since 2014.
Labor and environmental organizations and many public commenters opposed the rollbacks. Union testimony warned that capping energy‑efficiency spending would eliminate jobs and apprenticeship opportunities; climate and conservation groups said delaying the RES undermines the Act on Climate and harms the predictability that draws private developers and local investment. "The renewable energy standard is living proof" of job and climate gains, one witness said, urging the committee not to support the budget changes.
Members of the committee pressed the administration on the methodology behind savings estimates, the distributional impacts of shifting program costs to bonds or capitalized expenses, and what intermediate timelines might look like (for example, moving the RES horizon to 2040 instead of 2050). The administration said it was open to legislative discussion on schedule and resource mix and promised follow‑up analyses.
No votes were taken. The hearing produced a sharply divided public record that committee aides said would be circulated to members for further deliberation.
