PROVIDENCE — Gov. Dan McKee is rolling back some of his proposed changes to the state’s renewable energy programs, but questions still linger on who — literally and figuratively — will pay the actual cost for new restrictions.

Late last month, the McKee administration submitted several new budget amendments, altering the governor’s original proposal for drastic changes to the 100% Renewable Energy Standard and changes to virtual net metering.

The governor’s new proposals would expand the Renewable Energy Standard (RES), which currently requires the state to source all electricity sold in Rhode Island from renewable sources by 2033, to include nuclear and large-scale hydropower.

The two new energy sources would exist alongside the RES in a new “clean energy standard” to allow for cheaper implementation of the two standards, and bring the state in line with neighboring states.

Instead of capping net metering altogether, the governor’s amendments also proposed capping virtual net metering to 125 megawatts, any projects coming after the cap is reached would instead have to be financed via the Renewable Energy Growth Program, the state’s other current program to finance renewable energy. Virtual net metering project developers would have an opt-in renewable net-metering credit fixed at 19 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The programs are funded via state charges on monthly utility bills. In a bid to reduce energy costs by any means necessary, McKee’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal would reduce many of the state-mandated charges across the board, which opponents of the changes have noted is only one-fourth of electric and gas bill charges.

The changes would save Rhode Islanders an estimated $1 billion over the next five years, according to the governor’s office, with an annual savings of $180 a year, or $15 a month, on utility bills.

McKee’s changes, presented last week to House Finance Committee members, stem from an executive order the governor issued in February to find a solution that pleased solar developers and lawmakers while still achieving the governor’s affordability agenda.

“The administration engaged with solar developers, labor representatives, and other external stakeholders in developing this proposal in terms of the back and forth feedback over the last couple of months,” said Chris Kearns, acting commissioner of the state Office of Energy Resources.

The state’s solar industry had been broadly opposed to McKee’s original proposals to net metering when they debuted in January, warning lawmakers that, if passed, the changes would annihilate the solar industry in Rhode Island. Net metering typically includes rooftop solar, and produces bill credits from sale of electricity generated by the solar back onto the power grid.

Virtual net metering, which was capped three years ago by the General Assembly as part of a core forest protection bill, operates in much the same way, except the solar panels don’t have to be attached to a building or project.

Lawmakers set the limit, which the governor is proposing to more than halve, at 275 megawatts, 92 of which is already in the queue in different projects around the state. Most virtual net metering sites are ground-mounted solar arrays in the state’s rural areas, whose bill credits are then bought by big institutions such as universities, municipalities, and hospitals.

Solar companies such as Revity Energy make their business primarily through the virtual net metering program, which finances typically bigger solar installations. The Warwick-based business still has concerns about the governor’s changes. Nick Nybo, senior counsel for Revity Energy, told committee members the company was still opposed to the reduced megawatt cap put on the program.

“We need renewable energy everywhere,” Nybo said. “But if you have future plans for the state of Rhode Island, when it comes to solar development, we cannot take this level of reduction in the per megawatt cap.”

Environmental advocates, still opposed to the changes to renewable energy, energy efficiency programs, and the renewable energy standard, told the House Finance Committee any changes would throw out the progress the General Assembly has made on climate action in recent years, including achieving the goals of the Act on Climate law.

The legislation, signed in 2021, puts strict emission reduction requirements for Rhode Island, and advocates warned the state had done little in the years since to do anything to reach those mandates.

“We’re shutting down renewable development in Rhode Island,” said Timmons Roberts, a professor of environment and society at Brown University. “So all the Act on Climate work, all 100% renewable work that you all did, is being thrown out the window.”

Questions remain on whether the governor’s changes will actually be effective. Natural gas is still how most Rhode Islanders power or heat their homes and businesses, and is the main cost-driver behind energy bills, meaning if the price of the fossil fuel goes up again, residents may not even notice the savings on their utility bills next winter, when prices are historically higher due to greater demand.

Rep. Theresa Tanzi, D-South Kingstown, said the conversations about affordability and program cuts reminded her of the car tax cut, which lawmakers eliminated in 2023, and how the state had to find different ways to raise the foregone $1 billion in revenue derived from it.

“The car tax didn’t disappear, it’s still being paid for,” Tanzi said. “I cannot help but fear that it will be the same illusory effect for our residents, that they’ll be told they’re going to have a significant monthly savings, and at the same time, we’ll be paying for it in, whether it be asthma or through our electric bills.”