Establishes an intervenor support program to provide compensation for an intervenor who makes a substantial contribution to a proceeding resulting in a decision favorable to the interest of utility consumers.
H5815 would create a new intervenor support program within the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission and extend it to proceedings before the Energy Facility Siting Board. The program would reimburse eligible intervenors for reasonable advocate’s fees, expert witness fees, and other participation costs when their participation makes a substantial contribution to a commission decision that benefits utility consumers. The bill defines key terms such as “substantial contribution,” “significant financial hardship,” and “interests of residential customers,” and it sets up a formal notice-of-intent process for seeking compensation.
The measure also establishes an intervenor compensation special fund to pay awards. That fund could be supported by legislative appropriations, federal or state monies, private donations, commission fees, interest, and annual assessments on electric and gas distribution companies if needed. The bill caps individual awards at $50,000 per proceeding, caps aggregate funding at $100,000 per proceeding absent good cause, and allows the commission to approve higher amounts in complex cases. It also requires reporting, audits, outreach materials, and annual reports to the legislature and ratepayers advisory board.
The bill would add a new section to chapter 39-1 of the General Laws governing the Public Utilities Commission, creating a statutory mechanism for paying intervenors in utility and siting proceedings. It would affect commission practice by requiring eligibility screening, grant administration, reporting, and fund management, and it would authorize the commission to assess electric and gas distribution companies to support the fund under specified conditions. The bill would also apply to proceedings involving electric, gas, water, and telephone utilities, as well as major energy facility siting matters, and would give special consideration to nonprofits serving environmental justice communities and municipalities facing major energy facility impacts.
Based on the bill text and caption, the overall sentiment appears supportive of broader public participation in utility regulation, especially for residential consumers, local governments, and community-based organizations that may lack resources to intervene. The bill is framed as a consumer-protection and access-to-justice measure, with emphasis on clean energy, environmental justice, and affordability concerns. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the available materials.
The main points of potential contention are the funding source and the scope of compensation. Utilities may object to annual assessments used to finance the fund, while opponents could also question whether the program increases ratepayer costs. Another likely issue is administrative discretion: the commission would decide who qualifies, what counts as a substantial contribution, and whether to award amounts above the standard caps for good cause. There may also be debate over whether the program duplicates existing participation and whether the streamlined process could favor certain advocacy groups over others.