Bid Process Short-Circuited to Favor Energy Monopoly
Should Rhode Island Energy even be tasked with administering the state’s energy efficiency programs?
June 4, 2026
Share
The fact the Office of Energy Resources stopped the bidding process in midstream to award the contract to administer the state’s suite of energy efficiency programs to Rhode Island Energy is troubling. It reeks of shadiness.
When the state agency in charge of the first three stages of the request for proposals quietly ends the procurement process before the bids would have been handed to the Public Utilities Commission for a final decision, the public should be alarmed. It’s not the way the process should work.
OER decided to stick with Rhode Island Energy as the incumbent because of “the added costs and risks (both quantified and unquantified) associated with the transition.”
The clunky 6-page Aug. 26, 2025 inter-department memorandum OER sent to the Department of Administration that short-circuited the process was hidden from public consumption. ecoRI News only found out because of an anonymous source.
If OER was so certain the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) bid wasn’t as competitive, why not share that opinion with those who pay for it?
Apparently, OER officials didn’t trust the public or the PUC to come to a similar conclusion. What was the rush? State government doesn’t show the same sense of urgency when it comes to crumbling bridges or the clear-cutting of forestland to build ground-mounted solar arrays.
Rhode Island’s designated gas and electric monopoly — National Grid and now Rhode Island Energy — has administered the state’s energy efficiency programs since their inception.
Three years ago lawmakers approved a proposal in the state budget to put the administration of those programs out to bid. The hope was to find cost savings and discover if another entity could do a better job.
OER decided it was time to stop looking.
There were only two candidates — Rhode Island Energy and VEIC — by the time OER pulled the plug. Why not give the outsider, a nonprofit dedicated to designing cheaper energy efficiency programs for governments and utilities and who isn’t billing us for the energy we use, a full vetting before making a decision? It only costs some time and effort.
In fact, should the party responsible for the state’s energy efficiency programs be the same one that makes bank charging us for our energy use and investing in infrastructure, largely of the fossil fuel variety?
For-profit gas utilities, for example, are spending customer money on fossil fuel pipelines at an alarming rate, about $20 billion annually, and earning a sizable profit on each project.
“Gas utilities are incentivized to invest in pipeline projects to increase those profits, making it in their self-interest to avoid lower-cost, cleaner, healthier, more efficient options to serve their customers,” according to Medium.
We can’t mitigate the climate crisis if utilities continue to spend billions on fossil fuel infrastructure so CEOs can receive compensation in the millions. This 20th-century utility model also drives the energy affordability crisis.
The way utilities are regulated and profit has changed little during the past century. Under this antiquated business model, utilities make money by investing in the infrastructure, such as pipes and wires, that provide energy services to customers.
The need for more infrastructure — and, thus, profit — requires demand for more energy. Energy efficiency programs are the antithesis to this scheme.
Since the system doesn’t reward Rhode Island Energy for reducing energy use, it makes little sense for the subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Power and Light Corp. to be the administrator of the state’s energy efficiency programs.
Late last year Rhode Island Energy proposed the state’s electric energy efficiency programs be cut from $82 million to $62.9 million. For natural gas (methane), the utility proposed trimming its budget by more than $2 million, to $33 million.
Meanwhile, New England’s electric transmission utilities have asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a higher rate of guaranteed return on equity. Rather than accepting the 9.57% rate that FERC had suggested, because the agency found previous rates of return to be “unjust and unreasonable,” the utilities proposed a rate of 11.39%.
Energy efficiency programs are designed to help ratepayers use less energy by weatherizing homes and buildings, purchasing LED lighting, providing free home energy audits, and offering rebates for energy-saving appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines. Rhode Island’s programs are collected as charge items on monthly utility bills.
Benefits include reduced strain on the electric grid and its infrastructure, improved air quality, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions — all of which steadily decrease energy bills and improve public health.
VEIC’s bid did come in about $5 million more than Rhode Island Energy’s, some $130 million to run the program. The Vermont nonprofit also estimated it would be able to increase the benefits associated with Rhode Island’s energy efficiency programs by 32%, getting more mileage out of each dollar spent.
Surely, OER could have at least let the process run its course. There was no need to bail early, unless there was something to hide.
Frank Carini can be reached at [email protected]. His opinions don’t reflect those of ecoRI News.
frank
my youngest son runs the overhead electric group at the Grid. he has a degree in biology from URI and a masters in business administration, so he s no dummy. i ask him about many of your complaints about RIE. his explanations are always enlightening. they frame the nuances of, for instance RIE having to be prepared to supply backup power immediately for whatever reason. those investments cost money and may sit idle but when they re needed nobody wants to hear excuses. i know you have an issue with fossil fuel and yes it undoubtedly contributes to climate change however on our journey to cheaper energy sources we still have to be able to turn the lights on. granted my comments aren t specific to the theme of your article but my point is that maybe you should solicit input from RIE prior to trashing them because some of your prior articles seem to be cherry picking facts to cast aspersions.
Richard, thank you for your thoughts and your son’s perspective. In this case, I wasn’t really attacking RIE (in the past my trashing of RIE is more a reflection of the inequitable system we have created and less about the individual players such as RIE and Eversource) but questioning OER’s actions. — Frank Carini, ecoRI News
thanks for covering this issue – assuming your anonymous source gave correct information it does seem outrageous the process was short-circuited (no pun) to the benefit of RI Energy which as you say may have a conflict of interest in promoting conservation. Indeed their rate proposals do not promote conservation by having a basic affordable rate for a basic amount with higher per kWh rates for those who insist on using more so I have reason to question their commitment.
But that said, as far as wires go, note we want to electrify heat and transportation, and we need a robust grid for that, plus we want to hook up renewables to the grid from out of the way places. That will cost money
Thanks for this important information Frank. Your reporting is the best and most factual we have in R.I. Keep it coming. Shining light on this shady bid process and the many corrupt things happening in R.I. government is critical.
AI Overview
State energy efficiency programs are not exclusively for the wealthy, but they frequently face criticism for disproportionately benefiting higher-income households. While programs offer significant incentives, wealthier homeowners are better positioned to front the upfront costs of deep retrofits, navigate complex rebate systems, and claim tax credits.
Policy experts frequently note that the revenue for these state programs (usually collected via surcharges on utility bills) means all ratepayers fund the incentives, while lower-income renters and homeowners often face barriers that prevent them from accessing the payouts.
Affordability? Another reason to leave corrupt RI, like corrupt MASS Save in in Massachusetts. State energy efficiency programs are rife with corruption and do little to reduce emissions except to raise costs on Ratepayers which gives incentives to use less energy, because the price is UN-affordable.
I never trust the leadership of OER. Current leadership is more focused on doing what the Governor wants than what is good for RI.
Again, sidestepping the process is usually done to avoid having to answer the tougher questions.
As a taxpayer I am very alarmed about OER and want our elected officials to look at and address this right away.
brian
don t take this the wrong way but i m tried of the “everything is corrupt and everybody is on the take” attitude with little to no documentation. it s always easy to criticize using a broad brush. i m also tired of the “lets leave RI” attitude because everything is so bad. my response – what’s keeping you? i ve been here since 1974, started five businesses, i’m 76 and still working more than full time at my engineering business, live in the same house we bought in 1978, all my boys went to URI, they re all gainfully employed as are my daughters -in-laws and we all love living in this state. i would never move. you don t recognize how good the quality of life in RI is.
cheers
dick
A side issue is a data center proposal in Smithfield that may gobble up electricity and water.