Ward 2 News

Dear Neighbors:

At slightly before 11:00 Thursday morning at Providence City Hall, I cast my early vote in the Democratic primary, making me the 90^th person to vote in our City. While we wish the COVID pandemic had never occurred, I believe its dreadful legacy included three benefits, namely (1) Operation Warp Speed, (2) the greater use of virtual platforms (such as Zoom) and (3) expanded early voting. In this week I discuss three of my voting choices: Keith Hoffmann for Attorney General, Brett Smiley for Mayor and Helena Buonanno Foulkes for Governor.

A.   Keith Hoffmann

I explained my decision to vote for Keith Hoffmann in this Letter to voters in February.

B.    Brett Smiley

I explained my decision to vote for Brett Smiley to return as Providence Mayor in this Letter to voters earlier this month.

C.    Helena Buonanno Foulkes

I believe Helena Buonanno Foulkes has valuable executive skills and experience that our State will need in the challenging circumstances we will face in coming years. I also believe that Rhode Island needs a change from the practices of the current administration, including in the areas of budgeting and transparency. We consider each in turn.

1.     Budgeting

a.      The Attack On RIPTA

Over the past six years, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) budget increased from $607 million to $1.14 billion. Despite this growth, the Governor’s RIPTA budget for fiscal 2025 included a funding gap of $8.1 million, while his RIPTA budget for fiscal 2026 had a funding gap of $32 million. While the General Assembly budget provided partial relief, the Governor’s RIPTA budgets amounted to a declaration of war upon a public service that is a vital part of the lives of thousands of Rhode Islanders every day.

b.     The Wasteful, Inefficient RIDOT Highway and Bridge Program

While starving RIPTA, the Governor’s budget provided generous funding to RIDOT’s highway and bridge program which, as documented in a WPRI Report, is close to the worst in the country both in terms of high cost and poor quality. As noted in RIDOT’s forensic audit report, RIDOT’s poor road and bridge maintenance practices contributed to the failure of the Washington Bridge.

2.     Transparency

The current administration also failed to be transparent with the public in its financial practices, including these three examples:

a.      The ILO contract

As documented in the Attorney General’s report, the Governor’s office violated state procurement rules and regulations in awarding a $5.2 million contract to the ILO Group to assist schools in COVID-related programming. This winner of this contract was essentially decided before bids were accepted in what was supposed to be an fair and open process. The Attorney General concluded that the conduct, while improper, did not amount to a crime.

b.      The Investigation Of The Washington Bridge Failure

As documented in detail in my November 16, 2025 letter, the Governor withheld from the General Assembly (and the public) both the April 5, 2024 “forensic audit report” and a February 19, 2024 metallurgical analysis report related to the Washington Bridge failure when both were requested by the General Assembly Joint Oversight Committee at a February, 2024 hearing, as well as in RIDOT’s March 26, 2024 answers to questions.

c.      Quietly Undermining The Act On Climate

As documented in detail in my April 19, 2026 letter, the month of December, 2025 was a critical time in the implementation of the Act on Climate’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, the Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council (EC4) was finishing its Climate Action Strategy to implement the Act, which legislation the Governor proudly signed in 2021. A central pillar of that strategy was (and remains) the conversion to renewable electricity generation by 2033. Unbeknownst to EC4, the Governor was at that time developing a budget that would push the renewable energy conversion date back to 2048, effectively knocking down the Act on Climate’s central pillar. The Governor did not inform the EC4 of this development, nor did his budget (which was released in January, 2025) have any acknowledgment or analysis of the budget’s impact on the Act on Climate. Fortunately, the General Assembly’s budget restored the 2033 renewable energy standard that the Governor’s budget would have undermined.

3.     Conclusion

For his first five years in office, Governor McKee had the benefit of $1.1 billion of federal funding through the State Fiscal Recovery Fund of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Less than $150 million of ARPA was spent on public health, while several hundred million dollars of the balance was available to spend on State priorities outside of the COVID pandemic. These were relatively easy budgets to balance.

The budget picture for the next several years will be the polar opposite of the federally subsidized budgets from 2021-25. Last year, the State of Rhode Island issued Reports describing the budgetary challenges the State will face in the next few years due to draconian cuts in federal aid resulting from the Congressional passage of HR-1 in 2025. In these tough times, I believe Helena Buonanno Foulkes is in a better position to find solutions to manage Rhode Island’s budget fairly and efficiently, while providing Rhode Islanders with an open and transparent government.

P.S. If you are a registered voter in Senate District 3 and choose to participate in the Democratic primary, I will be grateful for your vote.

Dear Neighbors:

Next school year will mark the return to full local control for the Providence Public School District (PPSD). This presents both risks and opportunities. I will be voting for Mayor Smiley to return to office because I believe he is best able to ensure a successful transition. For the past year, he and his staff met with PPSD to exchange ideas and build working relationships. I also believe his education plan offers a promising vision for how the Mayor’s office can support and enhance our City’s public education program both in the coming year and going forward.

The plan recognizes the School Board’s primary role in developing education policy, i.e., what our children learn in school during school hours on school days. The City can support our children’s education (1) before they are old enough to attend kindergarten, (2) after school on school days and (3) during the summer. The Mayor’s plan addresses all these areas, while also supporting PPSD programming in ways they have requested. We consider each in turn:

1.     Pre-school

Mayor Smiley plans to expand our City’s current Pre-K program (which provides access to 79% of our children) with the goal of providing full-day Pre-K to all Providence 4-year-old children by 2030. This ambitious goal is now possible because of the City’s collaboration with PPSD’s construction program that will include space for pre-K in our school buildings.

2.     After school programs

Mayor Smiley’s plan includes increased support for Providence After School Alliance (PASA) programming both in PPSD facilities and in a “neighborhood campus” model that will coordinate with the City’s community centers, public libraries and other resources. A good example is an after school math program for Pleasant View Elementary School students that opened last school year at Vincent Brown Community Center.

During the past four years, the City enrolled in the State’s Learn 365 Program to obtain $16 million to fund renovations to the Davey Lopes Community Center, Elmwood Community Center and Joslin Community Center that will house learning centers to contribute to the education of children attending schools in their neighborhoods. Going forward, Mayor Smiley’s plan calls for improving coordination between PPSD and programming at nearby “campus” community resources.

3.     Summer programming

During the past four years, Providence expanded its Eat Play Learn program to provide summer recreational and educational programming for Providence children. Going forward, Mayor Smiley’s plan will build upon it One Providence for Youth program, which this summer funded summer employment and enrichment and career development opportunities for 131 young Providence residents at AS220, the Boys and Girls Clubs, College Visions and Providence Public Schools career and technical programs.

4.     Supporting PPSD

At PPSD’s suggestion and request, Mayor Smiley is making use of his relationships with City businesses and organizations to provide programming for the benefit of Providence students. For example, the Mayor assisted Central High School to develop a curriculum to train fire fighters, some of whose graduates now serve in our Fire Department. Mayor Smiley is now working with Providence Public Schools to facilitate other internships and training programs for Rhode Island businesses.

5.     Building Internal Capacity

To help him implement this plan, the second Smiley administration will hire a full-time professional educator to serve as advisor.

6.     Conclusion

A successful transition of our public schools to local control will require a combination of continuity of essential functions and the introduction of new initiatives. I believe Brett Smiley is the candidate best able to support continuity along with a plan for effective improvements. That is why I will be casting my vote for him in the upcoming Democratic mayoral primary, and I encourage you to join me.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Neighbors:

I hope you are enjoying our Fourth of July weekend, especially today’s expected escape from the recent “heat dome” that has made time outdoors less enjoyable. In this week’s letter I discuss the Governor’s veto of the Building Benchmarking and Reporting Act (BBRA).

A.   What The BBRA Does

The Building Benchmarking and Reporting Act (BBRA) requires owners of large buildings (25,000 square feet and larger) to report their annual energy consumption each year. The purpose of the Act is to quantify the “carbon footprint” for Rhode Island’s larger buildings to provide a baseline for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

B.    BBRA And The Act On Climate

At the end of last year, the Rhode Island Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council (EC4) published a Climate Action Strategy intended to guide the implementation of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions mandated by the 2021 Act on Climate. As noted in this Excerpt from that strategy: (1) Buildings generate 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Rhode Island (p.58), (2) One strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this sector is to develop a Building Performance Standard that will establish emissions performance targets that will cause owners of large buildings to “reduce emissions gradually over time through improvements in energy efficiency” (p.105). To begin this program, it is necessary to develop a “carbon footprint” baseline for each large building. The City of Providence has implemented this type of benchmarking process through local ordinance, but other communities have not.

C.    General Assembly Passage Of BBRA And The Governor’s Veto

BBRA passed in the Senate as S-2260 by a margin of 33-5 and in the House by a margin of 48-15.  Notwithstanding this broad support, the Governor vetoed BBRA. In his Veto Message, the Governor stated that the bill conflicted with the building benchmarking program approved fo for state-occupied buildings in this year’s budget. This is not a valid conflict, because (1) the budget’s benchmarking program does not apply to privately owned buildings and therefore there is no conflict, and (2) to the extent that the BBRA’s benchmarking standards are inconsistent with the budget’s program for State-owned buildings, it will be possible to implement the two programs in parallel if they cannot be reconciled.

D.   The Governor’s Approach To The Act On Climate

The Governor’s veto of BBRA fits within a pattern I identified in my January 25 letter and elsewhere, of impeding the greenhouse gas reduction policies contained within the Act on Climate, a bill he signed in 2021. Between his budget (which compromised the renewable energy standard timetable) and this veto, the Governor’s actions have amounted to a campaign to undermine the Act on Climate without offering a positive vision of either (1) how he proposes to modify the Act’s timetable, or (2) how to implement the Act successfully after having undermined its foundation. Fortunately, the General Assembly modified the Governor’s budget to keep the Act’s implementation within reach.

E.    Next Steps

I joined a really organized last Monday by the Climate Action Rhode Island and Green Energy organization to urge the General Assembly leadership to convene a special session to override the Governor’s veto of BBRA. Should leadership call us into session, there appears to be sufficient support to pass the bills a second time by a margin equal to or greater than the three-fifths (60%) margin required under the Rhode Island Constitution, Article IX, Section 14.

Dear Neighbors:

With the conclusion of the legislative session, I will share my thoughts about the projects I worked on, and the “unfinished business” I would like to continue.

A.    My Projects This Past Year

1.     RIDOT and RIPTA Funding

I played a leading role in the General Assembly’s decision to add $5 million to the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) budget, using funds from the budget of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. Over the past four years, I have worked with advocates and colleagues to change RIPTA’s revenue to sustainable sources within the RIDOT budget (motor fuel tax, registration fees, etc.) replacing the ad hoc one-time funding sources of the past. With that said, there is more work to do, as RIPTA will need additional funds to pay for mandated “Ride Anywhere” and paratransit programs, an issue I would like to continue working on if returned to office in November.

2.     RIDOT Performance Audit

I led the Senate effort to incorporate into the General Assembly budget a required performance audit of RIDOT’s maintenance program. As noted in my letters of December 14, January 11 and March 8, the Oversight Committee review of the Washington Bridge closure raised serious concerns about the efficiency of RIDOT’s operations. The “Road Woes” Report from WPRI-TV 12 raised the profile of these concerns further, noting RIDOT’s poor performance compared to other states. If returned to office in November, I would like to extend RIDOT’s audit to its highway and bridge construction program, and to redirect the funding where the audit leads to savings due to greater efficiency.

3.     Other Projects

I sponsored the Rhode Island Genetic Information Privacy Act, which will prevent companies such as 23andMe from selling the genetic information it collects from customers without consent. I also sponsored legislation that passed the Senate (but not the House) to eliminate insurance copays for diagnostic and supplemental breast cancer imaging. I was not able to gain passage of legislation to reform the Providence Public Schools, or to commission a model of energy policy to measure consumer costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

B. Looking Ahead

If you return me to office, I will continue working on these projects, as well as others such as the Act On Climate Study Commission and improvements to the State’s education aid funding formula proposed by the Rhode Island Foundation’s Blue Ribbon Commission.

In order to do so, I will file my declaration of candidacy tomorrow (June 22) to begin my re-election campaign. I will receive nomination papers the following Monday (June 29) which I must return with at least 100 signatures to qualify for the ballot. To that end, I would appreciate your help by attending a “signing party” at my house next Tuesday, June 30 to sign my papers. This is not an exclusive process — you can sign the nomination papers of as many candidates for the same office, or different offices, for which you are eligible to vote. My invitation follows:

Dear Neighbors:

As the President treats today’s Flag Day observance as his personal birthday party, it is worth remembering the day’s actual history, In this week’s letter, I will describe how the recent closure of the UCAP Middle School reflects some of the governance challenges that lie ahead for the Providence Public Schools.

A. History Of UCAP

UCAP began in 1989 as an “urban collaborative,” bringing together the Central Falls, Pawtucket and Providence school districts to form an alternative middle school for students at risk of dropping out. For many years, the school created a distinctive culture that helped its students succeed. After its founder retired in 2019, however, the school began to drift. Two of three communities (Central Falls and Pawtucket) exited UCAP, leaving Providence alone. Each year, a class of Providence students enter UCAP’s seventh grade for two years of instruction, after which most continue their education in a Providence high school.

B. UCAP’s Decline And The School Department’s Response

Last fall, the School Department concluded UCAP was not achieving its mission. UCAP students trailed their Providence peers in academic performance and attendance, both on an absolute basis and when looking at comparative trends during 2017-25.  The school was not properly maintaining and implementing individualized education plans for its special education students. UCAP was expensive, costing over $1 million more per year for its students at a time when district programs were being cut due to a lack of available funds.

In compliance with longstanding UCAP bylaws, the Providence Superintendent effectuated Providence’s exit from UCAP effective June, 2026 by writing a letter to the UCAP Board this past December. The School Department developed a transition plan for the 7^th grade UCAP students, including the retention of academic interventionists to facilitate their successful return to the Providence Public Schools.

C. The School Board’s Reaction

The School Board disagreed with the Superintendent’s decision. According to the UCAP bylaws, the School Board did not have any official role in making or reviewing that decision; however, the School Board decided to create a new role for themselves. They asked the General Assembly to file a bill that, if passed, would retroactively overturn the Superintendent’s decision.

D. The Senate Bill

The Senate Education Committee heard the bill on April 8. The hearing reminded me of one I had as a member of the Providence School Board to close Alternative Learning Project (ALP), an alternative high school. (Unlike UCAP,the decision to close ALP was the responsibility of the School Board, not the Superintendent.) Like UCAP, ALP began with great promise, but by 2002 the students were not learning enough to succeed. The ALP hearing convinced me that, although the teachers and students enjoyed their time together, the school was not fulfilling its paramount mission of education.

Returning to the closure of UCAP, I believe as an institutional matter that the district’s lead educators had the legal responsibility to use their expertise to make an informed assessment about this educational program. I also considered it inappropriate to enact legislation that would reach back and invalidate a School Department decision that was lawful and proper at the time it was made. My colleagues did not agree. On a 6-1 vote (over my opposition), the Senate Education Committee voted to recommend passage. On May 7, the full Senate passed the bill by a vote of 32-2 over the dissenting votes I cast with Senator Pearson, who previously served on the Cumberland School Committee.

E. Review By The House Of Representatives

At the end of last week, I spoke with the Chair of the House Education Committee about the bill. He had previously served as the Director of Pawtucket’s Alternative Learning Program. He informed me he agreed with the comments I made on the Senate bill in committee and on the Senate floor, and that the House companion bill would not receive a vote out of committee. This means the school closure will now go forward which, in my opinion, will benefit both the UCAP students and release more than $1 million in funding for other important uses.

F. Lessons To Learn

I believe there are many lessons we can learn from this experience, both in terms of our schools’ mission and the need for our government authorities to avoid overreach.

1. The Paramount Importance Of Student Learning

Our experience with COVID taught us of need to support students’ social and emotional well-being to ensure they are ready to learn. With that said, however, social and emotional well-being is not an end in itself – if the students are not learning, the school is failing to achieve its mission.

2. The Need For Institutional Respect and Restraint, Or “Staying In Your Lane”

Our schools are subject to multiple layers of oversight, with different government actors playing different roles. I believe it is important for each authority to “stay in its lane” by exercising its own responsibility diligently while avoiding the temptation to interfere with actions outside its zone of authority. In this instance, the School Board overreached by interfering with a decision properly made by the School Department within the Department’s proper and lawful zone of authority. The School Board’s plan of interference entailed a second overreach, asking the General Assembly to pass legislation to retroactively override a decision that was properly and lawfully made five months before. The Senate also overreached in passing that bill. Thankfully, the House Education Committee chose not to participate in these multiple levels of interference and overreach.

3. What It Means For The Providence School Board To Be “Ready” To Assume Its Full Responsibilities

Over the past year, the Providence School argued vigorously that it is ready to assume responsibility for the Providence Public Schools. If the School Board wants to be truly ready, it will have have to learn how to “stay in its lane” and refrain from interfering with decisions that are outside its purview. Now that it achieved its goal of control, I hope the Providence School Board will avoid future decisions that are as irresponsible as this one was. I also will work harder with my fellow Senators to advocate for greater legislative restraint going forward.

Dear Neighbors:

Today is National Cancer Survivors Day, a reminder of the ravages of an illness that has touched too many people we know and love. We marked at the State House to promote the passage of Senate Bill No. 2032, which I introduced to require insurance coverage of diagnostic breast imaging without the imposition of out-of-pocket costs. In this week’s letter, I will discuss a debate we had in the Senate last week about a bill to impose a moratorium on the approval of new charter schools.

A.   The Bill

This past Thursday, the Senate debated Senate Bill 2787 (as amended), which would, for a period of three years, pause the approval of new charter schools excepting those which had received final State approval but had not yet opened. The Senate debated the bill for more than an hour. Both sides made strong arguments, leaving me with one of my most difficult votes this session.

B.    Arguments In Support Of The Moratorium

Supporters of the moratorium note that the original purpose of charter schools was to provide models and ideas to improve district schools. Over time, however, the growth of charters has created the equivalent of an alternative school system. Under the current funding formula, charter growth has reduced both state and local funding for district schools, even as certain fixed costs (facilities, administration, etc.) remain. The moratorium can open a window to review and enact changes to the funding formula, such as those proposed by the Rhode Island Foundation’s Blue Ribbon Commission, which were summarized in my February 8 letter. These changes would direct resources to school districts that have been affected most by the growth of charters, possibly providing a sustainable way for charters to grow without compromising the budgets of school districts.

C.   Arguments Against The Moratorium

Opponents of the moratorium emphasize the value of parent choice, particularly in school districts with low levels of student achievement. In these communities, charters can provide parents with an option to increase their child’s chances of academic success. In recent years, charter school lotteries have been oversubscribed by an overall ratio of more than 10:1. Moratorium opponents argue it is not fair to parents and children in low-performing school districts to miss the chance to choose a higher performing school. Finally, the moratorium as proposed would freeze the application of a charter school that had received preliminary approval, raising issues of fairness and possibly a legal challenge. (On the other hand, that school is subject to a legal challenge based on its possible status as a “network charter school” and its failure to obtain written approval from its host communities.)

D.   My Analysis

I accept the premise that charter schools began to test new ideas and methods for our district schools. I believe our current funding system lacks the capacity to support both traditional school districts and a large array of charters; instead, the current system has caused hardships in school districts (including Providence). On the other hand, I am concerned that our school districts (including Providence) have not taken the opportunity to learn and improve from best practices in charters as intended, and continue to provide students with tragically inadequate outcomes.

Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to bring “shared accountability” reforms to the Providence Public Schools based upon the national best practices developed in the Senate Study Commission as described in my May 17 letter. The Commission described the reforms as a program of “shared accountability.” Unfortunately, Providence educators fiercely opposed the legislation in favor of the seniority-based current regime, which works well in industrial labor settings, but less so in professional ones in which educators should be rewarded for quality performance, and be held accountable for substandard work. Adequate resources and clear accountability are both necessary, and neither is sufficient.

E.    Conclusion

When it came time to vote, I concluded the bill’s positive features outweighed its shortcomings. With that said, I believe it is essential during any moratorium period not only to resolve funding issues, but also to increase the effectiveness and accountability of the Providence Public Schools and the educators who work within them. I would like to see our discussion about resources be joined with one about reforms to support strong professional standards and improved student outcomes.  I cast a difficult vote in favor of the moratorium based on this hope for the future.

This past Thursday, I attended a portion of an Anti-Hate Summit convened by a coalition of Rhode Island community and civil rights organizations. I drew inspiration from the keynote address of Eric Ward, who urged us to aim higher than mutual tolerance for what he called “mature democracy.” His vision went beyond the basic definition of democracy as government by popular vote to a more inclusive notion of a truly democratic society, continuing a project first begun by Alexis de Tocqueville almost 200 years ago, and which our country has, in our better moments, endeavored to advance and extend ever since. In this week’s letter, I will discuss some initial thoughts about the State budget approved by the House Finance Committee.

A.   The Budget Process

As noted in my May 10 letter, the General Assembly begins its review of the Governor’s budget in the House Finance Committee, which approved an amended budget late Friday night. After one week (or possibly longer), the full House of Representatives will review the House Finance Committee (HFC) budget, possibly amending it. The Senate will review the House budget, also with the opportunity to amend. The final legislative budget then goes to the Governor, either to (1) sign, (2) veto or (3) allow it to take effect without his signature. Traditionally, the full House of Representatives makes modest amendments to the Finance Committee budget, and the Senate rarely amends what it receives from the House of Representatives.

B.    The House Finance Committee (HFC) Budget

The HFC Budget, which you can view on my Budget Documents Page, is a complex document. The Senate Fiscal Staff will help us to study and understand it over the next two weeks, when it comes before the Senate Finance Committee and then the full Senate. From my initial review, I see three ways in which I believe the HFC Budget improves upon the Governor’s budget.

1.     RIDOT and RIPTA Funding

As noted in my May 10 letter, the Governor’s budget included a $.02 reduction in the motor fuel tax to promote “affordability,” which in fact would save the average Rhode Island motorist less than $1 per month. The HFC Budget retains the current motor fuel tax level, bringing in an additional $8.6 million for the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) budget. The HFC then directs $5 million from another permanent RIDOT revenue source called the “highway maintenance account” to RIPTA, enabling RIPTA to restore some of the routes it had to cut to close last year’s budget deficit. This approach represents an improvement over previous years, as it provides RIPTA with a new reliable and sustainable revenue source going forward, rather than having to rely on one-time appropriations each year from different sources.

2.     RIDOT Performance Audit

As noted in my letters of December 14, January 11 and March 8, the Oversight Committee review of the Washington Bridge closure raised serious concerns about the efficiency of RIDOT’s operations. The “Road Woes” Report from WPRI-TV 12 raised the profile of these concerns further, noting RIDOT’s poor performance compared to other states. The HFC Budget includes the Rhode Island Department of Transportation Efficiency and Performance Audit Act, which calls for the commission of an audit of RIDOT’s road maintenance program, whose deficiencies contributed to the deterioration of the Washington Bridge.

3.     The Act on Climate

As noted in my February 1 letter, the Governor’s budget proposed reducing utility bills by postponing the State’s adoption of 100% renewable energy (known as the “renewable energy standard” or “RES”) from 2033 to 2050. As that letter notes, the RES represents the central pillar of the emissions reduction mandates of the Act on Climate, and the Governor’s budget would severely compromise the chances of the Act’s successful implementation. The HFC Budget provides some rate relief by incorporating access to other zero emission energy sources (such as hydropower and nuclear), but restoring the 2033 requirement of 100% zero emissions energy, thereby preserving the Act on Climate’s basic emissions reduction framework.

Dear Neighbors:

I hope are enjoying the Memorial Day holiday, as we honor the soldiers who fought to end slavery and defend our country against a rebellion. In this week’s letter I will discuss a component of Rhode Island’s energy policy called “net metering,” and the policy’s impact on ratepayers and greenhouse gas emissions.

1.     Current Net Metering Policy

Rhode Island developed a “net metering” policy in 2011 that supports the construction of electricity generating facilities (including solar farms) that export power into the grid currently maintained by Rhode Island Energy. The policy allows these wholesale producers to accrue “credits” for the additional electricity they provide to other users. The value of the credit is determined by the retail price of electricity as measured by cents per kilowatt hour multiplied by the number of kilowatt hours generated and introduced into the system.  Rhode Island Energy pays the credits to the generator, and those costs are incorporated into Rhode Island Energy’s overall rates.

2.     The Governor’s Proposed Changes To The Net Metering Program

a. The Governor’s January Budget

The Governor’s budget includes an “energy affordability” program described in this Presentation  that predicted a $1 billion savings in utility rates over the next five years. Part of those savings would come from reducing payments to net metering generators by freezing the price per kilowatt hour they would receive at the July 1, 2026 level, rather than allowing the price to increase as retail rates increase.

b. Budget Amendment 7 (GBA 7)

When the solar electricity generation industry criticized this program for undermining existing agreements and understandings, the Governor decided to review this part of the budget. Two weeks ago, the Governor introduced General Budget Amendment 7 (GBA7) which would allow net metering generators to opt into a rate tariff which would guarantee an annual 2.75% rate increase, representing a compromise between the current program (under which rates have increased at a 4.9% annual pace) and the rate freeze proposed in the Governor’s original budget.

3.     Estimating Proposed Ratepayer Savings

As part of the Governor’s initial budget Presentation (at Slide 25) the Office of Energy Resources (OER) predicted that a net metering rate freeze would generate $175 million in annual rate payer savings over five years.  As documented by the Senate Fiscal Office, OER projected GBA7 to increase the cumulative 5-year rate payer savings to $257 million. This result is counter-intuitive, because GBA7 increases the amount paid to generators (by including the annual 2.75% escalator), but somehow also increases ratepayer savings by $82 million at the same time.

4.     The Senate Finance Committee’s Review

a. The Office of Energy Resources (OER) Rate Payer Savings Model

The Senate Finance Committee reviewed GBA7 with the Office of Energy Resources (OER) on May 12. OER’s consultant described the model he used to project the consumer savings that would accrue from changes in the net metering program. A key component of that model was a prediction that retail electricity rates over the next five years would increase by 37%. Under current policy, net metering generators would see increased payments based on these rate increases; therefore freezing the rate or limiting it to a 2.75% annual increase would provide savings to rate payers. In contrast, historical rates had increased by only 5% annually over the past 3 years, which would lead to lower anticipated ratepayer savings.

b. The Finance Committee’s Inability To Review OER’s Model

OER’s consultant declined to share the data on which its prediction was based, stating it was subject to a nondisclosure agreement. Given that state funds were used to pay for this model, the Senate Finance Committee was frustrated with this answer. In the meantime, a major solar generator provided its projection that, based on a 4.9% annual rate increase, ratepayer savings would be limited $72 million over 5 years, rather than $175 million in the Governor’s original budget or $257 million in GBA7. OER offered to engage in further correspondence about the model offline, which is now taking place.

5.     Conclusions

The May 12 hearing raises questions about the actual savings Rhode Islanders will realize from the Governor’s net metering initiative. We have not had the opportunity to examine in detail the other components of the OER’s $1 billion savings model, but the experience with net metering suggests those other components should not be accepted at face value. Also, as noted in my April 19 letter, the OER model has no analysis of the impact of this program on greenhouse gas emissions, which are regulated by the Act on Climate.

In this way, the Finance Committee hearing on net metering underscores the need for us to have an independent, transparent model of energy policy that will allow us to assess its impacts on rates in one direction, and greenhouse gas emissions on the other.