The Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday for legislation that aims to reduce Marylanders’ electric bills, setting up a clash with the House of Delegates, which took some more aggressive steps to lower bills.
The two chambers have a week to iron out their differences on the Utility RELIEF Act before the end of this year’s 90-day session.
At least so far, both sides appear to be digging in their heels. House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George’s) has argued that some Senate changes are too friendly to the utility companies. More recent amendments have only caused more frustration for the House’s presiding officer.
On Monday, only four Senators voted against the massive omnibus bill, all Republicans.
Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready (R- Carroll and Frederick) said he cast a “cautious” yes vote, because he said it’s unclear whether several amendments added by Senate Republicans will survive the conference committee with the House.
“Our understanding on this side of the aisle, from conversations we’ve had, is that the Senate will fight to keep those important amendments in this bill,” Ready said. “I believe very strongly that we should push in conference to add more relief, to do more.”
Both bills are similar on a number of issues, including boosting new solar energy projects using already-collected ratepayer funds, giving regulators more control over transmission lines and adding more data centers to a separate energy tariff for big customers.
“It’s a very comprehensive a piece of legislation,” said Sen. Brian Feldman (D-Montgomery), chair of the Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee. “It goes far beyond just providing short-term relief, through a variety of program changes and adjustments to rate-making policies within the control of the General Assembly.”
In the near-term, both the House and Senate plans would trim utility bills by reducing a state-imposed surcharge to support the EmPOWER Maryland program, which is used to fund home improvements meant to reduce energy use.
The bills would shrink the EmPOWER program beginning in 2027, meaning Maryland homeowners will likely have less access to rebates for home improvement projects, but they would also pay less in the EmPOWER surcharge, which currentky averages $15 to $20 a month.
It’s estimated that the short-term changes could result in at least $150 in annual bill savings for the average household.
Gas customers would see the EmPOWER surcharge disappear under the House bill, but a Senate amendment would allow Washington Gas to continue its EmPOWER programming.
Accompanying language in the budget would also throw $100 million from a Maryland clean energy fund into EmPOWER, which would also reduce the surcharge paid by customers.
But it’s possible that, due to other differences, the Senate’s version of the bill could result in less savings for Maryland ratepayers over time, compared to the House version.
In a statement Monday evening, consumer group Maryland PIRG argued that the Senate version of the bill “guts consumer protections.” Emily Scarr, a senior adviser at Maryland PIRG, argued that the Senate’s changes to the bill “reward the utility companies that are driving our high bills.”
The Senate declined to limit a practice used by the electric utilities called “forecast test years,” under which utilities can get rate increases for expected costs — rather than costs they’ve already incurred.
The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel estimated that six years of forecasting has cost Baltimore Gas & Electric customers an extra $100 per year, compared to the six years before forecasting was allowed.
Another provision added in the Senate last week aims to overturn a Maryland Public Service Commission decision that prevented gas companies from spreading the cost of new gas line extensions to all customers. That change was expected to save gas customers $952 million through 2035, at least for Washington Gas and Baltimore Gas & Electric ratepayers.
The House also took a more aggressive stance than the Senate on utility salaries, capping the amount of any supervisors’ salary that can come from ratepayers. The Senate only capped “officer” salaries, decreasing the number of employees that the provision would affect.
The Senate also embraced a controversial GOP-backed study, which opponents argue will disadvantage renewable energy.
Sen. Johnny Mautz (R-Middle Shore) said Friday that he was casting “a red vote with a very heavy heart.” He was disheartened by the failure of a Republican amendment that would have reduced the state’s renewable energy goals, in hopes of lowering the costs of compliance for energy suppliers — and therefore ratepayers.”
“That would have been something that we could have actually had a major impact — not just a short-term, minor refund, but something that would have lasted longer and have been more substantial,” Mautz said.
Mautz was joined in opposition by Sen. Jack Bailey (R-Calvert and St. Mary’s), Sen. Jason Gallion (R- Harford and Cecil) and Sen. Mike McKay (R-Western Maryland).
Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey (R-Upper Shore) said in a message Monday that he would also have voted against the Utility RELIEF Act. He missed Monday’s vote because of the earlier-than-usual time of the floor session.
“Our constituents want us to go further than $12.50 per month savings,” Hershey wrote. “We can do better than that through some meaningful changes to the green energy policies that have put us in this position to begin with.”
On the Senate floor, Sen. Ben Kramer (D-Montgomery) argued that some Republicans were acting as “climate deniers” as they pushed against Maryland programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and also influence ratepayers’ bills.
Last week, Republicans made several failed attempts to combat climate programs, including a proposal to pull Maryland out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, a multistate cap-and-trade program that limits power plant emissions.
Republicans have argued that the program has cost energy providers — and in turn ratepayers. But Democrats dispute that data, and point to economic benefits.
“Every year we hear from the climate deniers, who claim Maryland cannot possibly make a difference in addressing the climate crisis because we are just but one little state,” Kramer said. “But nearly two decades ago, Maryland joined with like-minded states across the mid-Atlantic and the Northeast in the RGGI pact to do exactly that — work together, not alone.”
Kramer argued that RGGI has produced immense success in reducing carbon emissions and improving health outcomes.
“What was the response from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle? A floor amendment. A floor amendment that would have pulled Maryland out of the overwhelmingly successful cooperative, forcing us to go it alone in the face of a global challenge,” Kramer said. “Colleagues, the hypocrisy is blinding.”
Ready pushed back.
“There has to be middle ground between the idea that you either deny there’s anything happening, or climate fanaticism,” Ready said. “We cannot ask our ratepayers to pay more and more and more all the time, when what they’re paying for is not making any appreciable difference.”
