IT IS TELLING that the “Accomplishments” page of the Governor’s Office on Energy Resources reads: “Coming soon” ( http://www.energy.ri.gov/news/accomplishments.php). Unfortunately, that assessment seems overly optimistic. With one stroke of his veto pen, Governor Carcieri has delivered a major setback to Rhode Island’s efforts to shift away from oil and gas and toward increased reliance on clean, renewable sources of energy.

On June 27, Governor Carcieri vetoed legislation that would have delivered concrete results in a measurable time frame. The bill required National Grid to enter into long-term contracts with developers of renewable energy, ensuring private developers that there was a market for their product in order to secure the investment of private funds into renewable-energy projects. Under the legislation, National Grid would be held responsible for meeting certain renewable-energy thresholds, and given financial motivation for meeting those thresholds. Governor Carcieri certainly understands that businesses are most often motivated not by altruism but by profit. National Grid needs to be incentivized to align its goals with the public interest and the legislature’s goals of decreasing our state’s dependence on oil and gas. The legislation Governor Carcieri vetoed did just that.

Further, the governor’s objections are based on specious reasoning. Mr. Carcieri raises three objections, all of which ring hollow when scrutinized.

First, the governor fails to recognize the necessity of a payment to National Grid of 3 percent of renewable-energy revenue after it is produced via the contracts entered into, once the projects begin. That payment offsets higher borrowing costs borne by National Grid under the plan. Such a payment is not only necessary but is also a better deal than that negotiated in our neighboring state. The Massachusetts statute, signed into law July 1, includes a 4-percent remuneration to National Grid for the same risk-taking.

Second, Mr. Carcieri objects to the fact that renewable-energy projects are not required to be located in the state. In fact, projects are required to make a direct and substantial economic-development impact in Rhode Island, as overseen by the governor’s Public Utilities Commission. Requiring projects to be limited to Rhode Island, moreover, closes the door to other economic-development opportunities for the state. It is feasible, for example, that the immense, difficult-to-transport blades of wind turbines could be constructed at Quonset Point and shipped to nearby Massachusetts wind farms. This economic opportunity would be lost if projects eligible for long-term contracts were required to be located exclusively in-state.

Nevertheless, both in the stated legislative purpose and in the statutory mandate contained in the bill, a substantial economic benefit — defined as jobs, taxes and similar revenues — is required from these renewable-energy projects. Therefore, this recently vetoed bill is an economic-development stimulus bill that also happens to be good for the environment and good for the stabilization of energy prices.

Finally, the governor raised objections to the inclusion of a solar-energy component in the bill. The most recent studies show that with new photovoltaic technology and the production of solar-grade silicon, solar-energy costs are declining, by as much as 25 percent in the next year. To be conservative, the legislature capped the requirement for National Grid to contract with solar-energy developers at a low volume (1/20th of 1 percent of our needs), and we gave the Public Utilities Commission contract approval and oversight.

Both Massachusetts and Connecticut are offering state incentives to develop solar energy. Connecticut has budgeted $70 million over two years for projects, and Massachusetts has attracted 350 solar manufacturing jobs through its goals and incentives. Solar production in the summer months may offset the power brown-outs that could occur from air conditioning.

The governor has long touted a plan to use wave energy off of our coast that is not only very expensive and cumbersome to harness, but its productivity (outside of Australian waters) has been called into question. Ironically, by vetoing this bill, the governor will hinder the development of solar energy, while he promotes the use of hundreds of generators floating in our surf.

Fortunately, three additional bills that were part of the major renewable-energy package of legislation introduced in the Senate and House appear to be headed into law. These complementary bills include:

• The Renewable Energy Investment and Coordination Act, which shifts some responsibility to the Economic Development Corporation and better coordinates state policies, priorities and investments to promote the development of renewable energy.

• The Net Metering Act, which lets consumers who produce their own energy get credit for the energy they produce. They offset the energy they use by what they produce, and are credited for the “net” energy they feed back to their meter. This will promote small-scale and solar and wind projects, and benefit private residences, municipalities, educational institutions, farms and affordable-housing developments, among others.

• A requirement that existing state buildings buy a percentage of their energy from renewable sources.

The centerpiece of the renewable-energy package, however, was the long-term contracting bill that the governor vetoed. It is not a stretch to say that this was potentially the most significant clean-energy legislation in Rhode Island history. It is the culmination of many years of bipartisan work by members of the Senate and the House. It enjoyed the strong support of the environmental community. Mr. Carcieri’s own chief energy adviser, Andrew Dzykewicz, testified in favor of the bill during the committee process.

So now, unfortunately, we are left with only the governor’s uncertain plans to develop renewable energy, which ultimately may not materialize. The governor’s approach so far has been to issue a request for proposals to developers who might be able to build a wind farm, in a patch of ocean they might get permits to build in, along a timetable they might meet, and with financing they might obtain. Under that plan, we might see some renewable energy produced in the state in the next decade. Or, of course, we might not.

Joseph A. Montalbano is president of the Rhode Island Senate.