Westin Place

We need to start looking at energy costs through the eyes of the people actually paying the bills. Rhode Islanders are already paying some of the highest electricity rates in the country, and adding more mandates and fees without looking at the total cost is not going to fix that.

I want to see us use every reliable energy source available, including natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, and renewables, while making sure we have enough dependable power when we need it. We can work toward our long-term environmental goals, but we have to be realistic about what families and small businesses can afford today.

I also think Rhode Island needs to stop assuming that every problem can be solved by creating another program or passing another mandate. We should be looking at what is actually working, what is driving up rates, and where we can cut unnecessary costs.

We can have cleaner energy, a reliable grid, and lower bills. But it takes common sense, competition, and making sure the people paying the bills are part of the conversation.

Keywords: Affordability. Reliability. Common Sense.

I’m not against data centers or new investment in Rhode Island. But if a company is building a massive facility that puts significant demands on our electric grid or water system, they should pay the costs they create, not pass them on to Rhode Island families and small businesses.

Before a project moves forward, I’d want a clear assessment of its expected electricity and water use, the impact on local infrastructure, and what upgrades will be needed. If additional generation, transmission, water capacity, or other infrastructure is required because of the project, the developer should be responsible for those costs.

I also support straightforward public reporting so residents know how much power and water a project is expected to use and what public infrastructure will be affected. That information should be available before approvals are given, not after the fact.

I want Rhode Island to be open for business, but being open for business doesn’t mean giving companies a blank check. We can welcome investment, jobs, and new technology while making sure Rhode Islanders aren’t left paying the bill.

Keywords: Fair Share. Accountability. Investment.

We need to spend resilience money where it will actually reduce risk and protect Rhode Islanders. That means looking at the science, the potential damage, and the cost of the project before deciding where funding goes.

I would prioritize critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, drainage systems, wastewater facilities, evacuation routes, and infrastructure that protects public safety. Projects should be evaluated using measurable data on flood risk, sea-level rise, erosion, storm exposure, the number of people and businesses affected, and the expected cost of doing nothing.

I also think we need to make sure smaller communities are not pushed to the back of the line simply because they have fewer resources to contribute. State funding should help communities leverage federal and local dollars and get projects moving.

Where practical, we should also use natural solutions like wetlands and improved drainage rather than automatically relying on expensive engineered structures.

The goal should be simple: spend taxpayer money where it provides the greatest protection, use sound science to make those decisions, and make sure the public can see why a project was prioritized.

Keywords: Science. Priorities. Protection.

PFAS is an issue where we need to take the science seriously while also making sure regulations are practical and based on good evidence. Rhode Island has already taken steps to restrict intentionally added PFAS in certain consumer products, with additional restrictions taking effect in 2027 and 2029.

I support protecting drinking water and public health, but we need to distinguish between documented risks and areas where the science is still developing. That means continued testing and monitoring, transparent reporting, and updating policies as better evidence becomes available.

Manufacturers should have a reasonable path to comply, especially when a product has an important use and there is not yet a proven safer alternative. At the same time, when a safer substitute is available and effective, there is a strong reason to move away from unnecessary PFAS use.

The goal should be protecting people without creating regulations that are impossible or unnecessarily expensive to follow. Good policy should be based on sound science, practical alternatives, and regular review as we learn more.

Keywords: Science. Safety. Practicality.

The progress Rhode Island has made is encouraging, but this is not the time to declare victory. I would continue supporting approaches that are showing measurable results, including making naloxone widely available, connecting people to treatment quickly, expanding access to medication-assisted treatment, and supporting recovery programs and peer outreach. Rhode Island’s own data show that fentanyl and cocaine remain major contributors to overdose deaths, so our response needs to keep adapting as the drug supply changes.

I also want to make sure we are measuring outcomes, not simply how much money we spend. State programs should be evaluated using overdose deaths and nonfatal overdoses, treatment access and retention, repeat overdoses, recovery outcomes, and other measurable results. Rhode Island already has overdose surveillance and fatality-review systems that can help identify what is working and where resources are needed.

If a program is saving lives and helping people recover, we should support it. If it isn’t producing results, we should be willing to change it. The goal should always be fewer deaths and more Rhode Islanders getting the opportunity to recover.

Keywords: Prevention. Treatment. Recovery.

I support Rhode Island competing for research funding and making sure our universities, hospitals, and research organizations have the opportunity to bring those dollars and jobs into the state. But government funding should always come with accountability.

We should have clear reporting on how public dollars are being used, strong protections for scientific integrity, and measurable goals for research programs receiving significant state support. When research leads to new technology, treatments, or businesses, Rhode Island should make every effort to see those benefits reach our communities and economy.

I also think we should focus on leveraging state dollars rather than simply replacing federal funding. If a relatively small state investment can help attract significant federal research dollars, private investment, or new companies and jobs, that is worth considering.

The basic question should always be: What are Rhode Islanders getting for their investment? We should support good science and innovation, but we should also expect transparency, accountability, and a clear public benefit when taxpayer dollars are involved.

Keywords: Innovation. Accountability. Results.