Balancing Energy Costs & Climate Goals

Along the East Coast, state lawmakers are now grappling with the challenge of balancing ambitious energy goals with rising utility rates for consumers. In Rhode Island and Maryland, this balancing act has taken center stage, with lawmakers recently offering up two approaches for addressing energy affordability.

In Rhode Island, Senator Todd M. Patalano has introduced a legislative package aimed at reducing residential electricity rates. His proposals include delaying the state’s 100% renewable energy mandate from 2033 to 2043, adjusting net-metering credits to lower supply costs, and suspending certain taxes on utilities. Taken together, Patalano’s overall approach attempts to strike a balance between critical energy infrastructure investments and their perceived costs to ratepayers.

“Rhode Islanders need both lower bills now and relief from rising rates in the future,” said Patalano in a press release. “The goals of these [renewable energy] programs are admirable, but we cannot afford to price out seniors and working-class Rhode Islanders today to fund projects next decade.”

The proposed reforms aim to create an immediate reduction in electricity costs while maintaining a long-term commitment to sustainability. For example, one bill in the package would push back the timeline for achieving 100% renewable energy in order to slow the pace of cost increases for consumers. Another measure would change how solar energy producers are credited, shifting them from a higher retail rate to a lower wholesale rate to reduce overall electricity costs.

Maryland lawmakers are also tackling the issue of energy affordability. Recent testimony before the Maryland legislature delivered by Abraham Silverman, a research scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Ralph O’Connor Sustainable Energy Institute and principle at SilverGreen Energy Consulting, underscored the disproportionate impact of rising electricity costs on low-income and fixed-income households. As Silverman similarly argued, while the transition to clean energy is necessary, affordability must remain a priority to prevent financial hardship among residents.

In his testimony, Silverman stated, “Consumers need real cost savings alongside our sustainability efforts. It’s not just about transitioning to clean energy; it’s about making sure that transition doesn’t leave people behind.” For their part, Maryland lawmakers have recently focused on consumer protections, exploring ways to ensure that electricity rate structures do not disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. In this way, Maryland’s approach highlights a commitment to economic fairness in the pursuit of clean energy.

Ultimately, both states highlight a fundamental policy debate: How do we achieve long-term energy sustainability without overburdening consumers today? The approach taken by Rhode Island—reassessing state mandates and tax liabilities—offers one pathway. Meanwhile, Maryland’s focus on consumer protections and financial fairness suggests another.

“I am grateful to Senator Patalano for sponsoring the Energy Cost Reduction package in the Senate,” said Rhode Island Representative Charlene M. Lima, who introduced matching bills in Rhode Island’s House. “While laws aimed at tackling climate change are important, they should not place undue financial burdens on Rhode Island ratepayers who are already struggling with some of the highest rates in the nation,” said Lima.

As states continue to deliberate this important issue, policymakers will likely focus on identifying those measures that can best balance climate goals with economic realities. Rhode Island and Maryland’s efforts serve as current examples of solutions aimed at working for both the climate and the consumer.