This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for Maryland Matters’ free email subscription today.
The House passed a potentially transformative package of energy reform bills Saturday that are aimed at hastening new power generation in Maryland and curtailing costs for ratepayers.
The move tees up the three-bill package, backed by General Assembly leadership, for final passage, even if it may come on the 90-day session’s final day.
The Senate, which previously approved the energy bills, is likely to concur with amendments made in the House, sending the bills to the governor’s desk, said Sen. Brian Feldman (D- Montgomery), chairman of the Education, Energy and the Environment Committee.
“We’ve been in pretty close consultation,” he said. “Unless there’s some surprise, I would anticipate that we’d be concurring.”
The legislation, which will spur in-state power generation, came as a response to escalating electric bills for Maryland consumers. In the run-up to the General Assembly session, new transmission line projects also stirred frustration from rural parts of the state, which will bring energy through Maryland from other states, spurred by coal plant retirements and increased power demand from data centers and other users.
Together, the bills would create uniform siting standards for solar arrays, replacing a patchwork of local policies, and set up a new state office focused on energy planning.
They would also establish expedited procedures for new power facilities in Maryland, potentially including nuclear and natural gas, as well as battery energy storage. In an effort to reduce costs for power customers, the bills would also limit certain utility spending and ratemaking practices, and hand out an electric bill rebate averaging $80 per household.
“We are an energy desert because the policies of the Maryland General Assembly do not like and do not promote anything but green energy, and green energy in the year 2025 cannot meet the needs of Maryland’s population,” said Del. Jason Buckel (R- Allegany), the chamber’s minority leader, on the House floor Saturday.
In response, Del. Lorig Charkoudian (D- Montgomery) took to the microphone to list off provisions in the bill she expects to save power customers money. Under the bill, Maryland’s utility regulator wouldn’t be able to approve multiyear rate plans, which can lock in successive rate increases over a period of several years, unless there is a benefit to customers. The bill also wouldn’t allow utilities to use a “reconciliation” process to recoup additional spending through rates.
The bill also places new limits on using ratepayer dollars to replace gas pipelines, requiring utilities to show a safety need. And it restricts other spending of ratepayer dollars, Charkoudian said, including on trade association memberships.
“These things, over the next years and decades, will save hundreds of millions of dollars for our ratepayers, and we should be proud to vote green for that,” Charkoudian said. “Oh, and as a bonus, ratepayers aren’t going to be paying for private jets for Exelon.”
The broadest bill (House Bill 1035 and Senate Bill 937), focused on utility regulation and power generation, has garnered pushback from environmental groups, who argue that natural gas plants would get a fast track, flying in the face of the state’s ambitious climate change goals and burdening nearby communities with air pollution.
The bill does require that any new natural gas plants approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission under the bill have the ability to convert to hydrogen or zero-emissions biofuel when “feasible.” It also requires the Commission approve renewable projects at a 4 to 1 ratio.
After Del. Brian Chisholm (R-Anne Arundel) slammed the legislature as “hostile to business” with excessive regulations, Del. Brian Crosby (D-St. Mary’s) pushed back.
“Much to the chagrin of some of the environmental groups, it promotes gas. There has not been, nor is there, a cap on gas in this bill. All it does is streamline a permitting process to cut down costs,” Crosby said.
The package’s bill focused on solar energy (House Bill 1036 and Senate Bill 931) also stirred considerable pushback from Republicans. The bill prevents local governments from adopting certain laws that block solar developments and sets statewide standards.
Solar farms are allowed to occupy up to 5% of any one county’s “priority preservation area,” which is agricultural land. After that ceiling is hit, counties can restrict solar on the remaining 95% of farmland.
Republican members of the House argued on Friday that the 5% cap was set too high. They argued that solar companies, bolstered financially by the government’s backing, could offer large sums to lease or buy farmland for massive solar arrays.
The associated loss of farm acreage could destroy the fabric of the Eastern Shore’s agriculture industry, said Del. Jefferson L. Ghrist (R- Upper Shore). And if acres of grain production are lost, the Shore’s poultry houses could be forced to import chicken feed, undermining their business as well, he said.
“This bill doesn’t explicitly hurt farmers. I want to make that crystal clear,” Ghrist said. “It does make an attempt to reduce the acreage to improve this, but the reason why I’m so adamantly against it, is because it just doesn’t go far enough. We could potentially lose up to 54,000 acres on the Eastern Shore front from grain production.”
Del. C.T. Wilson (D- Charles), chairman of the House Economic Matters Committee, which approved the energy bills, said that farmers should have the choice to bring solar onto their land, and shouldn’t be blocked by local governments. In turn, the panels will bolster the state’s energy generation goals, Wilson said.
“It’s [the bill] not an attack on a way of life,” Wilson said. “It is creating an opportunity for some of these farmers that simply do not wish to farm anymore.”
But Ghrist argued that counties weren’t stepping out of bounds by restricting solar, but rather exerting their proper zoning authority.
“If somebody wants to put a nudie bar next to a church or a school, and the county says: ‘No, you can’t do that,’ I don’t think anybody in this chamber will say: ‘You know what? The county’s taking away their property rights,’” Ghrist said.
Del. April Miller (R-Frederick) pushed back against the funding mechanism for the package’s new “Strategic Energy Planning Office” (House Bill 1037 and Senate Bill 909).
“I still am struggling with setting up this office on the backs of ratepayers,” Miller said Saturday.
But Crosby said that all three of the energy bills, when taken together, are likely to yield ratepayer savings that go beyond the $5 million cost of setting up the planning office. And the data provided by the office will allow Maryland to be less reliant on the regional grid operator to answer its own queries.
“We think it’s money well spent,” Crosby said.
