William "Angel" Connell, Jr.
RepublicanQ1 Rhode Island has among the highest electricity prices in the country, with the Governor’s office having declared an Energy Affordability State of Emergency in July 2026. What policies, if any, would you support to reduce energy costs for Rhode Islanders, and how will you balance maintaining grid reliability and meeting the state’s long-term climate goals?
Rhode Islanders should not have to choose between paying their electric bill and meeting other basic household expenses. With electricity costs among the highest in the nation, affordability must be a priority.
I would support a comprehensive review of state mandates, fees, and energy programs that increase electric bills, requiring greater transparency about their costs and benefits to ratepayers. I also support a diversified energy strategy that includes nuclear power, hydropower, natural gas where necessary for reliability, and renewable energy when it is cost-effective.
Because Rhode Island is part of a regional electric grid, we must work with other New England states to strengthen generation and transmission capacity and address infrastructure constraints that contribute to high prices.
I support reducing emissions and protecting our environment, but climate policies must also be realistic, affordable, and reliable. Major energy proposals should include clear analysis of their effects on electricity rates, grid reliability, and emissions.
Our goal should be straightforward: lower costs, maintain a dependable electric grid, and pursue cleaner energy in a practical and financially responsible way.
Keywords: comprehensiveness, mandates, transparency
Q2 Rhode Island has proposed more reporting, utility oversight, and zoning guidance for large data centers, along with shifting some generation, capacity, and reliability costs onto data center developers rather than ordinary ratepayers. How should the costs and benefits of large data center development be divided between developers and the public, and what requirements, if any, would you support on power, water, and public reporting before a project moves forward?
Large data centers can bring investment, jobs, and economic development to Rhode Island, but residents and small businesses should not be required to subsidize their extraordinary infrastructure demands.
I support requiring developers to pay the costs directly attributable to their projects, including necessary generation, transmission, distribution, and grid-reliability upgrades, rather than shifting those costs to existing ratepayers.
Before approval, developers should disclose projected electricity and water demand, proposed power sources, impacts on grid reliability, water conservation and recycling plans, and significant infrastructure needs. This information should be publicly available so communities can evaluate both the costs and benefits.
Rhode Island should welcome responsible investment and innovation while protecting taxpayers, ratepayers, natural resources, and grid reliability. When a private development creates extraordinary demands on public or utility infrastructure, the developer—not ordinary Rhode Islanders—should bear those additional costs.
Keywords: infrastructure, innovation, investment
Q3 Rhode Island faces environmental challenges including sea-level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, and extreme weather. How should the state prioritize and fund environmental resilience projects, and what scientific or economic criteria should be used to determine which communities and infrastructure receive investment first?
Rhode Island should prioritize resilience investments based on risk, public safety, and measurable benefit—not political influence. Projects protecting drinking water, wastewater systems, roads, bridges, utilities, emergency facilities, and densely populated areas facing significant flooding or erosion should receive particular attention.
I support using objective scientific data to evaluate the probability and severity of flooding, sea-level rise, erosion, and extreme weather, while considering the number of people affected, infrastructure criticality, project cost, and expected reduction in future damage. Rhode Island’s Resilient Rhody framework already provides a useful foundation for this type of risk-based approach.
Funding should combine state resources with federal grants, municipal participation, and private investment where appropriate, with an emphasis on projects that leverage outside funding and provide strong long-term value.
Every resilience investment should have clearly defined costs, expected benefits, measurable outcomes, and public accountability so taxpayers know their money is being spent effectively.
Keywords: criteria, funding, infrastructure
Q4 PFAS chemicals are widely used in consumer products but have raised health concerns due to their persistence in the environment and humans, and new state legislature-passed restrictions on their use will soon begin to be implemented. How should the state respond as scientific evidence about PFAS exposure and health effects continues to evolve? What balance should policymakers strike among public-health protection, testing and monitoring, feasibility for manufacturers, and the availability of safer substitutes?
Rhode Island should respond to PFAS based on sound science, measurable risk, and practical implementation. Protecting public health—particularly drinking water—should be the priority, while regulations should evolve as scientific evidence improves.
I support continued testing and monitoring of drinking water and other significant sources of PFAS exposure, with results made publicly available. State agencies should regularly review emerging federal standards, health research, and advances in testing and treatment so policies remain current.
At the same time, regulations should recognize that PFAS compounds and their uses differ. Manufacturers should have reasonable timelines to comply, and exemptions should be considered when a PFAS use is currently unavoidable or when no demonstrably safer, effective substitute exists. Rhode Island’s 2026 amendments appropriately provide DEM with authority to grant exemptions for unavoidable uses.
The goal should be to reduce unnecessary PFAS exposure while avoiding regulations that simply replace one chemical with an inadequately studied alternative or impose costs without a corresponding public-health benefit.
Keywords: chemicals, exposure, protections
Q5 Rhode Island has seen an over 50% decline in drug overdose deaths since 2022, already surpassing its 2030 reduction goal. Which evidence-based policies related to prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery would you prioritize to ensure continued positive progress, and how would you evaluate whether state investments are reducing overdose deaths and improving long-term outcomes?
Rhode Island’s decline in overdose deaths is encouraging, but continued progress requires sustained attention to prevention, treatment, and long-term recovery.
I would prioritize proven strategies, including broad access to naloxone, early intervention and education, timely access to medication-assisted treatment, strong connections to treatment following an overdose, and effective peer recovery and community-based services. Rhode Island already requires emergency departments to provide naloxone, peer recovery support, and active referrals to appropriate treatment, providing a strong foundation to build upon.
State funding should follow results. Programs receiving public or opioid-settlement dollars should be evaluated using measurable outcomes, including fatal and nonfatal overdoses, successful connections to treatment, treatment retention, repeat overdoses, and sustained recovery. Rhode Island already collects extensive overdose and harm-reduction data that can support this accountability.
We should continue investing in approaches that demonstrate results, modify those that do not, and ensure resources are directed where they can save lives and help people achieve lasting recovery.
Keywords: drugs, overdoses, treatments
Q6 Rhode Island universities, hospitals, and research organizations are a core part of our state’s economy and rely heavily on government support for biomedical and scientific research. What policies, if any, would you support to ensure stable research funding while also promoting accountability, scientific integrity, and translation of federally funded discoveries into benefits for Rhode Island communities?
Rhode Island’s universities, hospitals, and research institutions are important economic and scientific assets. I support maintaining a stable environment for competitive, merit-based research funding while aggressively pursuing federal and private investment.
Public funding must also come with accountability. Research institutions receiving taxpayer dollars should meet rigorous standards for scientific integrity, financial transparency, measurable outcomes, and appropriate oversight. Rhode Island already has grant-management systems designed to monitor effectiveness, compliance, and transparency, and those principles should apply consistently to state-supported research.
We should also do more to turn research discoveries into benefits for Rhode Islanders. State investments should encourage collaboration among universities, hospitals, businesses, and life-science companies, with particular attention to commercialization, workforce development, improved health care, and creation of good-paying jobs.
Rhode Island should support strong basic and applied research while measuring success not simply by dollars awarded, but by scientific advancement, additional investment attracted, technologies developed, businesses created, and tangible benefits delivered to our communities.
Keywords: education, funding, institutions