Providence Journal Daily Briefing: Sept. 26, 2025
Catch up on the top stories Rhode Islanders will be talking about today.
- Rhode Island Energy has proposed cutting the state’s energy efficiency program budget by nearly 20%.
- The McKee administration supports the cuts to provide short-term savings on customer energy bills.
- Clean energy advocates and many state lawmakers oppose the plan, arguing it will lead to higher costs long-term.
- The proposal will now go to the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission for a final decision.
PROVIDENCE – A proposal from Rhode Island Energy to slash funding in 2026 for the state’s energy efficiency program will move on to utilities regulators without the support of a state board.
At a meeting on Thursday, Sept. 25, the Energy Efficiency Council voted not to endorse the proposal that would cut spending by nearly 20% compared with this year, and 30% compared with what was envisioned in a long-term plan adopted in 2023.
“I feel like we don’t have to settle for not good enough,” said member Sue AnderBois, who also sits on the Providence City Council. “We can and should be doing more.”
While Rhode Island Energy has justified the cuts as a necessary measure to help reduce customer bills, clean energy advocates say that any short-term savings on the surcharges that electric and natural gas customers pay would be outweighed by higher costs in years to come.
That’s because efficiency incentives funded by the surcharges that help customers upgrade appliances or insulate their homes are aimed at reducing energy usage and costs in a more sustained way.
Representatives of Rhode Island Energy, which manages the efficiency program for the state, stood behind the $95.8 million proposal and said they would submit it as is to the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission on schedule by Oct. 1 for approval.
McKee administration supports cuts, while advocacy groups oppose them
The cuts to the program are backed by the McKee administration, which has pointed to last winter’s spike in energy bills as a reason for action, but the spending plan is opposed by advocacy groups and many state lawmakers.
At the meeting, Rep. Jennifer Boylan, D-Barrington, read a letter signed by her and 36 other members of the House and 18 senators “in strong opposition to the cuts.” They said the real culprit driving energy prices higher is New England’s “continued reliance [on] volatile fossil fuels.”
They also said the program stands in contrast to a rate relief package promoted by Gov. Dan McKee that speeds up the reimbursement of money already owed to Rhode Island Energy customers and channels money from a regional program that charges power plants for greenhouse gas emissions.
“Unlike one-time rate relief allocations from regulatory settlements, [Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] proceeds, or other sources, energy efficiency protects Rhode Islanders from rising energy costs year after year,” they wrote.
House leadership submitted a separate letter that doesn’t state a position on the proposal but does raise concerns about the impact of the cuts on energy affordability and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“It is critical that we continue to pursue long term cost containment policies and programs for our state’s ratepayers,” the letter signed by House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi and Majority Leader Christopher Blazejewski says. “Rhode Island has been a national leader in accessible home energy efficiency programs, and the ongoing pursuit of energy efficiency is essential for energy affordability for all Rhode Islanders.”
Cuts include savings on administrative costs
Rhode Island Energy says that it made the cuts in a careful manner to avoid eliminating incentives altogether and looked at areas where customer interest was waning. In most areas, it didn’t reduce the value of incentives but the number of customers it would give them to.
The proposed plan would save the typical electric customer who uses 500 kilowatt hours a month $1.67, while the typical gas customer would pay $1.25 more. Rhode Island Energy said its aim was to reduce the overall cost of the program. The company shifted money to the gas side of the program because there continues to be strong demand for those incentives.
As acting state Energy Commissioner Christopher Kearns pointed out, nearly half of the cuts are aimed at administrative and marketing costs.
“So that is significant in terms of savings back to ratepayers,” he said.
As part of its vote, the council supported the reductions in administrative costs but also went on record with their desire for the program to be restored so that projected long-term energy savings would be on par with those of the 2025 program.
Members will be able to make their case to the utilities commission.
“We need to put the pressure on to get the savings targets back up,” said council member Kurt Teichert, a Brown University lecturer in environmental studies.
