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.