2022 RI General Assembly Climate and Environment Rankings
Learn which Rhode Island lawmakers are taking climate change seriously and working to protect your health.
Why We Rank Environmental Voting Records
Each year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's releases a new report on climate change and how we impact it. The panel has never been more confident regarding who is to blame for adverse weather events and what the effects will be. Yet the overwhelming majority of lawmakers both nationwide and here in Rhode Island continue to deny that climate change exists via inaction at a time when massive mobilization is needed to prevent worldwide catastrophe. Nothing short of extreme, swift action on climate will save much of the world from uninhabitable conditions in the coming decade. If this summer's consistent near-100° days were not enough of an alarm, Rhode Island will continue to bear a large part of the most extreme changes that are coming. While Rhode Islanders cannot resolve climate change themselves, it is imperative that lawmakers do all that can be done to help reverse current temperature trends. This will require lawmakers to make choices that may run counter to their donors' wishes, party leadership, and voters who deny our role in contributing to climate change.
Beyond just climate change and nature conservation, our Climate and Environment Rankings disclose which lawmakers are working to protect your health and home from pollution and harmful carcinogens.
Summary of Findings
Despite the urgency of climate change and its health impacts, Democratic leadership in both chambers continued to block important climate and environmental bills aimed at reducing emissions and protecting their constituents. While House Speaker Shekarchi showed an improved record vs. his predecessor in last year's rankings, that trend has reversed with nearly 60% of all ECRI-supported bills failing to pass the House in 2022. A summary of the most important bills endorsed by ECRI that House leadership blocked include:
- H7850 - Green Buildings Act Reporting: Requires large building owners to report their energy usage to help create a statewide analysis of energy use and ways to increase energy efficiency.
- H7333 - Net Metering: Eliminates restrictions that prevent homeowners, for example, from installing solar panels that would generate more electricity than the home used, on average, over the past 3 years.
- H7653 - Electric Transportation Act: Provides a plan and structure to transition to green energy in motor and other vehicles.
- H7448 - No Fare RIPTA: Would eliminate fees required by passengers to ride RIPTA public transportation, which would increase use of public transportation and drive down emissions from motor vehicles.
- H7531 - Environmental Justice Act: Would designate areas for protection that have historically been used for projects that pollute or harm the health of residents.
In the Senate, leadership's performance was substantially worse than in 2021 with far fewer bills being allowed through by the Senate President, Dominick Ruggerio. In addition to identical bills as those listed above, Senate leadership blocked a number of key bills from a vote including the following:
- S2261 - State Vehicle Electrification: Would require the state to convert at least half of its fleet of applicable vehicles to zero-emission models by 2030.
- S2687 - New Gas Hookups: Would eliminate incentives for hooking up new buildings to natural gas, to encourage alternative energy usage.
- S2866 - Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: Would prohibit the sale of environmentally harmful CFL bulbs beginning in 2024.
- S2049/S2449 - Eliminating PFAS: Would prohibit the use of harmful PFAS in food, food packaging and other products.
- S2046/S2047 - PFAS in Drinking Water: Would require public water suppliers to test and report the level of PFAS in their drinking water and work to eliminate them.
The average member of the Senate was able to vote on 16 environmental bills that made it to the floor. Overall, members performed worse than in 2021 with an average score of 73 this year vs. 81 last year. In the House, legislator performance was substantially worse than the Senate with the average score coming in this year at just 60 vs. an average score of 75 last year. House members on average were able to vote on 11 bills.
Bills Blocked by Leadership - 2022
General Assembly:
Senate:
House:
Bills Blocked by Leadership - 2021
General Assembly:
Senate:
House:
How We Ranked Environmental Voting Records
We evaluated the 65 bills with assigned Senate and House bill numbers in which the Environmental Council of Rhode Island publicly supported or opposed during the 2022 legislative year. Members were awarded points (see below) for floor votes that supported ECRI's position, and zero points if they did not support the ECRI position, either by voting against, not voting (i.e. "taking a walk"), or being absent. If a member recused themselves, usually due to a conflict of interest, the bill was not counted on their record. Those serving on committees that voted on applicable bills were awarded points for a vote that aligned with ECRI's position, and zero points for not supporting the ECRI position. An absence from a committee vote was not counted on the legislator's record, but being present and "not voting" was counted as not supporting the ECRI position. 3 points were awarded for votes in alignment with the ECRI position on the highest priority bills. 1 point was award for all other bills.
In both chambers the rules require that all bills must get a committee vote. Leadership has historically gotten around this by taking up bills in bulk, then blocking them by requesting a vote to hold them for further study. In the majority of cases, the bills undergo no study and simply die. If a committee member voted to hold an ECRI-supported bill for further study and it was the final vote on the bill for the year, it was considered a vote to block the bill(s). Members were penalized for doing so when the vote opposed ECRI's position. If ECRI opposed the bill, a final vote to hold the bill for further study was considered a vote in favor of the ECRI position. Bills were categorized by RI Rank in three categories: Energy and Climate, Health, and those focusing on Nature and Conservation.
NOTE: RI Rank is not affiliated with ECRI and our grading system differs from ECRI's own legislator report card. Report cards from ECRI and other organizations primarily grade floor votes, which consist only of legislation leadership allowed to pass to the full chamber. In these cases, leadership essentially dictates the contents of the report card, which can skew performance in favor of those who vote alongside leadership. RI Rank includes all-important committee votes, ensuring that every legislator is accountable for every vote they cast.
Senate Environmental Rankings
Excellent OK Poor
| # | Senator | Dist | Score | Energy & Climate | Health | Conservation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bell, S | 5 | 95 | 90 | 100 | N/A |
| 2 | Quezada, A | 2 | 93 | 92 | 100 | 67 |
| 2 | Zurier, S | 3 | 92 | 92 | 90 | N/A |
| 2 | Acosta, J | 16 | 92 | 92 | 90 | N/A |
| 5 | Mack, T | 6 | 91 | 83 | 100 | N/A |
| 5 | Calkin, J | 30 | 91 | 82 | 100 | N/A |
| 7 | Anderson, K | 31 | 89 | 82 | 100 | N/A |
| 8 | Seveney, J | 11 | 88 | 86 | 90 | N/A |
| 8 | Picard, R | 20 | 88 | 100 | 67 | N/A |
| 8 | Murray, M | 24 | 88 | 92 | 90 | 67 |
| 11 | Mendes, C | 18 | 85 | 81 | 100 | N/A |
| 12 | Pearson, R | 19 | 83 | 100 | 60 | N/A |
| 13 | Gallo, H | 27 | 82 | 88 | 67 | N/A |
| 14 | Sosnowski, S | 37 | 81 | 89 | 60 | N/A |
| 15 | Felag, W | 10 | 80 | 92 | 67 | 67 |
| 16 | Ciccone, F | 7 | 79 | 85 | 67 | N/A |
| 17 | Goodwin, M | 1 | 78 | 100 | 50 | N/A |
| 18 | Cano, S | 8 | 77 | 86 | 60 | N/A |
| 18 | DiPalma, L | 12 | 77 | 86 | 60 | N/A |
| 20 | McCaffrey, M | 29 | 75 | 93 | 50 | N/A |
| 21 | Burke, J | 9 | 73 | 100 | 50 | 67 |
| 21 | Lombardi, F | 26 | 73 | 100 | 50 | 67 |
| 21 | Valverde, B | 35 | 76 | 73 | 100 | 50 |
| 24 | Lombardo, F | 25 | 72 | 72 | 67 | N/A |
| 25 | Euer, D | 13 | 69 | 78 | 74 | 38 |
| 25 | Lawson, V | 14 | 68 | 70 | 70 | N/A |
| 27 | Kallman, M | 15 | 67 | 73 | 68 | 50 |
| 28 | Algiere, D | 38 | 67 | 70 | 67 | N/A |
| 29 | Raptakis, L | 33 | 64 | 100 | 25 | N/A |
| 30 | Miller, J | 28 | 64 | 76 | 60 | 50 |
| 31 | DiMario, A | 36 | 63 | 59 | 71 | 50 |
| 32 | Coyne, C | 32 | 60 | 82 | 50 | 44 |
| 33 | Ruggerio, D | 4 | 55 | 67 | 48 | 40 |
| 34 | Morgan, E | 34 | 50 | 67 | 33 | N/A |
| 35 | Archambault, S | 22 | 49 | 56 | 42 | 50 |
| 36 | Paolino, T | 17 | 42 | 58 | 30 | N/A |
| 37 | de la Cruz, J | 23 | 41 | 62 | 25 | N/A |
| 38 | Rogers, G | 21 | 32 | 53 | 23 | 11 |
Key / Scoring
Score is the cumulative total of the senator's floor and committee vote points that support the ECRI position divided by the total number of points the Senator could have earned (committee votes were only counted if the senator was present for the vote). We then multiplied the score by 100 to create a scale from 1-100.
Vote points are assigned by RI Rank based on how ECRI prioritized the bills. High priority bills are worth 3 points and all other bills are worth 1 point.
Scores for each individual category were tabulated as above. A senator must have been able to vote on at least 3 of the bills in each category listed below to be scored for that segment, otherwise they were given a score of N/A. Their votes in those categories, however, still apply to their overall score.
Senators with scores above 89 are considered "Excellent" environmental advocates, scores between 70 - 89 are "OK", and scores below 70 are considered "Poor". For both individual categories and overall score, the maximum possible score is 100. The lowest possible score is 0.
Bills Scored
All bills listed are from the 2022 voting session. Underlined bills are ECRI-rated highest priority bills. Bills in red were opposed by ECRI and points were awarded for opposing the bill.
Energy and Climate: S2274A, S2261, S3043, S2179, S2293, S2585A, S2583A, S2687, S2737, S2740B, S2301, S2392, S2596A, S2039, S2448, S2015A, S2209, and S2700.
Health: S2087, S2788A, S2182, S2866, S2044A, S2447, S2049, S2046, S2047, S2765A, S2298A, and S2449.
Nature/Conservation: S2296, S2843, S2651, S2050, S2140, S2446, S2300, and S2299.
House Environmental Rankings
Excellent OK Poor
| # | Representative | Dist | Score | Energy & Climate | Health | Conservation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ackerman, M | 45 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 1 | Blazejewski, C | 2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 1 | Cassar, L | 66 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 1 | Fellela, D | 43 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 5 | Giraldo, J | 56 | 93 | 88 | 100 | 100 |
| 5 | Kislak, R | 4 | 93 | 88 | 100 | 100 |
| 5 | McNamara, J | 19 | 93 | 88 | 100 | 100 |
| 8 | Azzinaro, S | 37 | 92 | 100 | 100 | 67 |
| 8 | Biah, N | 3 | 92 | 100 | 100 | 67 |
| 8 | Casimiro, J | 31 | 92 | 100 | 100 | 67 |
| 8 | Henries, B | 64 | 92 | 100 | 100 | 67 |
| 12 | Lombardi, J | 8 | 88 | 100 | 75 | 80 |
| 13 | Donovan, S | 69 | 86 | 88 | 67 | 100 |
| 13 | Morales, D | 7 | 86 | 75 | 100 | 100 |
| 15 | Ruggiero, D | 74 | 81 | 78 | 75 | 100 |
| 16 | Alzate, K | 60 | 80 | 67 | 100 | 100 |
| 17 | Cardillo, E | 42 | 79 | 75 | 100 | 67 |
| 18 | Perez, R | 13 | 77 | 86 | 100 | 33 |
| 19 | Amore, G | 65 | 76 | 64 | 100 | 100 |
| 19 | Shanley, E | 24 | 76 | 88 | 50 | 100 |
| 21 | McGaw, M | 71 | 75 | 100 | 33 | 100 |
| 21 | Messier, M | 62 | 75 | 100 | 33 | 100 |
| 23 | Ajello, E | 1 | 74 | 100 | 43 | 80 |
| 23 | Corvese, A | 55 | 74 | 100 | 43 | 80 |
| 25 | Batista, J | 12 | 73 | 100 | 25 | 75 |
| 26 | Felix, L | 61 | 72 | 100 | 43 | 75 |
| 27 | Williams, A | 9 | 71 | 75 | 100 | 33 |
| 27 | Lima, C | 14 | 71 | 80 | 50 | 67 |
| 29 | Handy, A | 18 | 70 | 85 | 56 | 63 |
| 30 | Kennedy, B | 38 | 68 | 75 | 75 | 50 |
| 30 | Potter, B | 16 | 68 | 75 | 75 | 50 |
| 30 | Solomon, Jr., J | 22 | 68 | 75 | 71 | 50 |
| 30 | Caldwell, J | 30 | 68 | 69 | 86 | 50 |
| 30 | Cortvriend, T | 72 | 68 | 86 | 67 | 45 |
| 35 | Bennett, D | 20 | 65 | 86 | 60 | 46 |
| 35 | Knight, J | 67 | 65 | 86 | 60 | 46 |
| 35 | McEntee, C | 33 | 65 | 86 | 60 | 46 |
| 38 | Serpa, P | 27 | 64 | 75 | 75 | 33 |
| 39 | Diaz, G | 11 | 63 | 64 | 67 | 60 |
| 39 | Carson, L | 75 | 63 | 85 | 63 | 36 |
| 39 | Craven, R | 32 | 63 | 57 | 50 | 80 |
| 39 | Tanzi, T | 34 | 63 | 57 | 50 | 100 |
| 43 | Fogarty, K | 35 | 60 | 77 | 57 | 40 |
| 43 | Shallcross Smith, M | 46 | 60 | 75 | 43 | 50 |
| 45 | Marszalkowski, A | 52 | 59 | 71 | 67 | 36 |
| 45 | Speakman, J | 68 | 59 | 79 | 43 | 45 |
| 45 | Kazarian, K | 63 | 59 | 62 | 100 | 33 |
| 48 | Phillips, R | 51 | 55 | 65 | 60 | 36 |
| 48 | Casey, S | 50 | 55 | 58 | 75 | 33 |
| 50 | Abney, M | 73 | 54 | 58 | 50 | 50 |
| 50 | McLaughlin, J | 57 | 54 | 54 | 75 | 29 |
| 52 | Edwards, J | 70 | 52 | 55 | 50 | 50 |
| 52 | Hull, R | 6 | 52 | 58 | 33 | 67 |
| 52 | Vella-Wilkinson, C | 21 | 52 | 58 | 43 | 50 |
| 55 | Baginski, J | 17 | 50 | 58 | 50 | 33 |
| 55 | Barros, J | 59 | 50 | 58 | 33 | 50 |
| 57 | O'Brien, W | 54 | 49 | 65 | 50 | 29 |
| 58 | Shekarchi, J | 23 | 46 | 54 | 47 | 33 |
| 59 | Hawkins, B | 53 | 45 | 45 | 67 | 33 |
| 60 | Noret, T | 25 | 38 | 25 | 75 | 25 |
| 60 | Slater, S | 10 | 38 | 50 | 33 | 17 |
| 62 | Place, D | 47 | 29 | 0 | 67 | 50 |
| 63 | Ranglin-Vassell, M | 5 | 27 | 36 | 50 | 0 |
| 64 | Newberry, B | 48 | 25 | 0 | 33 | 67 |
| 65 | Filippi, B | 36 | 22 | 0 | 50 | 33 |
| 66 | Price, J | 39 | 21 | 0 | 67 | 33 |
| 66 | Roberts, S | 29 | 21 | 0 | 33 | 50 |
| 68 | Nardone, G | 28 | 19 | 0 | 38 | 33 |
| 68 | Chippendale, M | 40 | 19 | 0 | 75 | 17 |
| 68 | Quattrocchi, R | 41 | 19 | 0 | 40 | 33 |
| 71 | Fenton-Fung, B | 15 | 15 | 12 | 11 | 23 |
| 72 | Tobon, C | 58 | 11 | 0 | 20 | 25 |
| 73 | Lima, S | 49 | 10 | 0 | 25 | 17 |
| 74 | Morgan, P | 26 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 10 |
| 75 | Costantino, G | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How We Rank
Score is the cumulative total of the representative's floor and committee vote points that support the ECRI position divided by the total number of points the representative could have earned (committee votes were only counted if the representative was present for the vote). We then multiplied the score by 100 to create a scale from 1-100.
Vote points are assigned by RI Rank based on how ECRI prioritized the bills. High priority bills are worth 3 points and all other bills are worth 1 point.
Scores for each individual category were tabulated as above. A representative must have been able to vote on at least 3 of the bills in each category listed below to be scored for that segment, otherwise they were given a score of N/A. Their votes in those categories, however, still apply to their overall score.
Representatives with scores above 89 are considered "Excellent" environmental advocates, scores between 70 - 89 are "OK", and scores below 70 are considered "Poor". For both individual categories and overall score, the maximum possible score is 100. The lowest possible score is 0.
Bills Scored
All bills listed are from the 2022 voting session. Underlined bills are ECRI-rated highest priority bills. Bills in red were opposed by ECRI and points were awarded for opposing the bill.
Energy and Climate: H7277A, H7611A, H7336, H7278A, H7755, H7971A, H7850, H7600, H8074A, H7333, H8181, H7374, H7125, H7275, H7653, H7448, and H7112.
Health: H8036, H8089, H7530, H7788A, H7438A, H7851, H8112, H8113, H7234, H7413, H8153, H7233A, and H7436.
Nature/Conservation: H7531, H7279, H7126, H8179, H8180, H8055A, H7066, H7439, H7063, H7064, H7065A, H8037, H7378, and H7129.
