Removes the requirement that the public utilities commission allocate five million dollars ($5,000,000) annually to the Rhode Island infrastructure bank for use with energy efficient programs.
H6005 amends Rhode Island’s public utilities law governing utility base rates and the funding of demand-side management and renewable energy programs. The bill’s stated purpose is narrow: it removes the requirement that the Public Utilities Commission allocate $5 million annually from gas and electric demand-side management funds to the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank for energy efficiency-related financing programs. The act would take effect immediately upon passage.
The underlying statute it amends is a broad utility funding framework that already authorizes charges on electric and gas customers to support energy efficiency, conservation, renewable energy, low-income weatherization, administrative oversight, and related program implementation. H6005 does not rewrite that broader structure; instead, it eliminates one specific annual transfer to the Infrastructure Bank while leaving the rest of the demand-side management and renewable energy funding system intact. As a result, the bill would affect how a portion of utility-collected energy efficiency funds are distributed and used, and it would remove one dedicated funding stream for the Infrastructure Bank’s eligible financing programs.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, the available context suggests limited public debate in the record supplied. The bill caption and explanatory note frame it as a funding reduction or reallocation measure, and the overall sentiment in the text is administrative and budget-focused rather than ideological. The bill appears to be presented as a technical change to utility fund allocation rather than a major policy overhaul.
The main point of contention likely concerns whether the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank should continue receiving a guaranteed annual $5 million transfer for energy efficiency and related clean energy financing. Supporters may view the change as restoring flexibility to utility fund administration or reducing mandated transfers, while opponents may argue it weakens a key financing source for energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean transportation, clean heating, and energy storage projects. The affected parties would include electric and gas ratepayers, the Public Utilities Commission, the Office of Energy Resources, the Energy Efficiency and Resource Management Council, and the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank.
H6005 would amend § 39-2-1.2 of the Rhode Island General Laws by deleting the provision that requires the Public Utilities Commission to allocate $5 million annually from demand-side management gas and electric funds to the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank. The bill would therefore change the distribution of utility-collected energy efficiency funds, but it would not otherwise alter the broader statutory framework for utility base rates, demand-side management charges, renewable energy funding, or utility oversight. The practical effect would be to remove a dedicated annual funding obligation for the Infrastructure Bank and potentially leave those funds available for other uses within the existing statutory scheme, subject to commission and program rules.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented public sentiment from the provided materials. Based on the bill text and explanatory note, the measure appears to be a targeted fiscal and administrative adjustment rather than a controversial policy rewrite. The tone of the bill is technical and budgetary, focused on eliminating a specific mandated transfer rather than changing the state’s overall energy efficiency policy.
The likely point of contention is the removal of the guaranteed $5 million annual transfer to the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank. Supporters of the bill may argue that the mandate constrains utility-fund flexibility or that the money should be redirected elsewhere within the energy efficiency system. Opponents may contend that the Infrastructure Bank uses those funds for important financing programs tied to energy efficiency and clean energy deployment, and that eliminating the transfer could reduce support for projects such as renewable energy, energy storage, clean heating, and clean transportation. The affected stakeholders would include the Infrastructure Bank, utility customers, energy program administrators, and agencies overseeing energy efficiency and renewable energy spending.