[{"_1":2,"_134":-5,"_135":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112,124],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6613850,"mediaKeyId","2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e","parentId",2867499,"title","Votes at a glance: Economic Matters Committee actions (selected)","audioSeconds",6093,"startMs",3435000,"endMs",9528000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e&start=3435&end=9528","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e/thumbnail_3435000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6613850/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Economic-Matters-Committee-actions-selected","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6613850-68ff8c9f0588c5ca1c5320a5fb98444f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158106&Signature=idZe9qhYSlLB8sKfLhrUMG6Gq3rBqwiVbWTcOdDApPa0TWyk0GxLwVKrjl9nqmvHIwRrVJA06eSqG-LmjPHruf1v2qFKdQlxWfGHcShZGG3G3oBukncQHIEKTmEmH5BJv68ecH9mfzLgzXD~gcxrYIiSbei7k2Ofr~8gXtKsirHGsLreiKZ7tFoMPOcRv8ChVhVyZDAbHwKoFGmo4hN2NqU4VJmMckoAN~0IzWsMc90KIHK5XAahc4HryFs71opquO2szCM7pT6V5I5XS0Kww88lmwi~FTonyjtqk4whfmLuE5vkkqm0r8H1Uhh3HzHY4IjFI-Fn1qWHtR1Dt5hM8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Economic Matters","date","2025-04-03T19:55:43.6Z","article","The Economic Matters Committee considered a large set of measures during the hearing. This roundup lists selected bills and formal committee actions recorded on the transcript with outcomes where recorded.

Moved as amended (committee actions)
- House Bill 1035 — omnibus energy package (procurements for storage and nuclear, expedited CPCN, rate protections): moved as amended; committee approved and forwarded.
- House Bill 1036 — solar siting and contractor licensing: moved as amended; committee approved and forwarded after extensive debate.
- House Bill 1037 — establishment of Strategic Energy Planning Office (tri‑annual risk reports): moved as amended and forwarded.
- House Bill 505 — renames RPS and incorporates nuclear for accounting: amended to narrow scope and moved as amended.
- House Bill 957 — apprenticeship residency requirements for state contracts: amendments adopted and bill moved favorably.

Concurrences and other committee votes (selected)
- Concurred: House Bill 99 (Anne Arundel County liquor board population ratio changes) — concurrence recorded in committee.
- Concurred: House Bill 107 (consumer protection automatic renewals) — committee concurred with senate amendments.
- Not concurred: House Bill 78 (real estate appraisers commission sunset extension) — committee moved not to concur with senate amendment.

Holds and procedural notes
- Several bills were held for additional consideration or technical fixes, including some producer responsibility and recycling items; certain bills were explicitly held for the next voting session.

How to read this
This roundup captures committee motions and recorded concurrence votes noted on the hearing transcript. For bills with extended debate, reporters should consult the full transcript and the committee packet for amendment texts and recorded roll calls.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ECM Committee Session, 4/3/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of committee actions and concurrences from the May hearing, including bills moved as amended, technical fixes, concurrences and holds.","taxTitle","Economic Matters Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15059,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6613855,"Committee approves apprenticeship residency requirement on state contracts with modifications",563,1587000,2150000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e&start=1587&end=2150","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e/thumbnail_1587000.jpg","/articles/6613855/Maryland/Committee-approves-apprenticeship-residency-requirement-on-state-contracts-with-modifications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6613855-07b01b4068d68a09e1dd0cf8861c39bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158106&Signature=JUxcHjqLVvLocuPLB6lLJH~Lb5w3s9XRUdEfeUjRBlcfwdoyV6TsWfNR68Zq7x8TaCzesaLmZgBWPUrvaDRVmVV7bGoXC1XrJcyZPBe8yRQghbQkRE9hjlo0qP-MLitG9KBAAxTQ-FvS~7SQ24zajLAhN3gMOQQEpjg9oSwhyHIyXWhM1DPyTNSJqeA2VslV~v9wUaZ5lj2S6LNgEw3aRRcN3EwvLEnu-YtcXKcliDf40UlQ6t-kB5VOQo6vzaMscMwpvVKUZFzcCw2A~j5i5ppmOLjiE3TsXc4M1dl6sjwSI2t0Vx6yySfe002FC~2Q7XIZPQ1bBzuGUWP7~4yfPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee approved House Bill 957, which establishes residency requirements for apprentices working on state contracts and assigns enforcement responsibility to the Maryland Department of Labor. The bill was amended to limit its application to specified projects, to allow certain contributions in lieu of meeting residency hour requirements, to authorize excess hours to be applied to future contracts, and to alter the penalty and debarment thresholds.

Why it matters: supporters framed the bill as an effort to ensure state contract dollars support Maryland workers and apprentices, while opponents and some committee members warned it could create compliance burdens and limit hiring flexibility in border counties.

Key discussion points
- Scope and exemptions: Amendments narrowed the bill to apply to projects in counties above a population threshold and limited the number of covered projects, in response to concerns about cross‑border commuting in counties near neighboring states.

- Compliance and reporting: Committee members asked whether contractors would face heavy reporting obligations; staff and sponsors said the bill expects good‑faith certifications at bid and administrative enforcement rather than burdensome weekly payroll reporting.

Votes and outcome
The committee moved the amendments and voted the motion favorable. A roll call recorded largely favorable support with a small number of no votes noted on the record. The bill will proceed to the next legislative stage.

Attribution
Bill summary and amendments described by committee staff; several delegates and contractors spoke in support and to clarify enforcement and applicability.","House Bill 957 would require certain residency requirements for apprentices on state contracts, limit application to selected large projects and allow contributions in lieu of meeting hours; after amendment the committee voted the bill favorable.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6613859,"Committee amends and advances bill renaming RPS to clean energy standard and adding nuclear for accounting",4342,811000,5153000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e&start=811&end=5153","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e/thumbnail_811000.jpg","/articles/6613859/Maryland/Committee-amends-and-advances-bill-renaming-RPS-to-clean-energy-standard-and-adding-nuclear-for-accounting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6613859-2d329fd7117a9534f1a0e839cbbbb184/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158106&Signature=Y42YRXQxGKuScFtUL6VYBbHwRKctm3jGc9L4RD37TXpTXm42PM2YK4OygmIV7sg8Ag4I01jAerlS0X8j1Fzq3r5d6ygyMGZnJXsDBnuBQBsfFMHMK6WhMHy2WOCfEBgcuJ5ty2vcAP3G~otrHJKUCqwVVZ3Gg6EnHllPycpCRRIdIUo6x52LoEgSZGuYEpK44kAlAmatNcEdibtBRK24csUDLx8r268k4s-atFKXP9aZvQG9ZFwpL-R-c0QtcQPW39uhsXD13NF2snfC0XAs1Cc1Yv~6SahNBxY~TVNsMfXQBRDriFvy6VWeB7lL-dRGHmTmivzVtxDuOCohif8KGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Economic Matters Committee amended and advanced House Bill 505, which renames Maryland’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) the Clean Energy Portfolio Standard and incorporates nuclear energy into the state’s accounting for clean energy goals. Committee discussion and amendments narrowed the bill so that the text retained primarily the inclusion of nuclear energy for accounting purposes.

Committee staff told members the bill’s amendments “strike most of the bill except for what was just mentioned,” meaning the core change was to count nuclear generation when measuring progress toward the renamed clean energy standard. Staff said the amendment does not place nuclear into a tier 1 or tier 2 renewable bucket and does not create a subsidy; instead the change is “for accounting purposes” so that the state can attribute nuclear‑generated electricity toward clean‑energy goals.

Members asked whether the numerical goals in the statute changed; staff said any numeric changes in the clean energy percentages are only to account for the inclusion of nuclear and that the Public Service Commission (PSC) has a clause to adjust targets to reflect actual in‑state nuclear generation. A question arose about whether in‑state generation is required; staff clarified counting is for end‑state (in‑state) generation only.

Votes and outcome
After a brief hearing earlier in the session, the committee later took up the reprint and, following the adoption of the amendment, moved the bill as amended and recorded a favorable vote in committee.

Context
Members noted the bill has been the subject of negotiation with other measures concerning generation procurement; committee staff and PSC staff answered technical clarifying questions about whether existing nuclear plants would automatically meet any new accounting goals (they would not receive new credits for past output absent upgrades).

Attribution
Bill summaries and technical clarifications are from committee staff and PSC staff who testified during the hearing. Members’ questions are quoted from the committee record.","House Bill 505, reprinted and amended, renames the renewable portfolio standard as a clean energy portfolio standard and adds nuclear generation to the accounting for the standard; committee adopted amendments narrowing the bill to that change and advanced the measure.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6613864,"Panel backs creation of energy planning office to draft risk reports and model future scenarios",115,8253000,8368000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e&start=8253&end=8368","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e/thumbnail_8253000.jpg","/articles/6613864/Maryland/Panel-backs-creation-of-energy-planning-office-to-draft-risk-reports-and-model-future-scenarios","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6613864-9b8701bcb493aefc953a94d11bc75d67/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158106&Signature=V5aCK49Bhr8dGCIjm5o-wFaFLPwV3muviLrtH6MXflg37pyeK9JtfmeiYMppQGIGV8MEgIzi4veMLd7WVKJ6m8SXdRDm6t8JcubI0b3ihFWHkR2BO6Y0REiDluVAdYnFqo4W6lTjkMrMuXqfm-3W5ow3qoxIr6dpipN1t9cnr3kq6Rrc1EGF7tvuVY01401H5wOqtyJZXQjLpVlh0lScGTYGyL7GNiDI~8WhbdLSYGRHg8crcpfp9CbxpTJ~q-MnGs4ZVBJ2xy5yql1MBX6TrfG5nP6HhHom-PvO6kN7KyiuxL-EPE3NfTBcUO8MeigrULXSSIBjO9Sy6AJs9SBHcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Economic Matters Committee voted to advance House Bill 1037, which would establish a Strategic Energy Planning Office within the Public Service Commission. The office would be charged with producing a comprehensive risk report roughly every three years assessing supply, demand, environmental and market risks; the office is required to solicit stakeholder input as it develops modeling assumptions and proposed mitigations.

Committee staff said the office will coordinate inputs from state agencies (including the Maryland Energy Administration, Department of the Environment, and the Power Plant Research Program), solicit technical feedback from utilities and other stakeholders, and create a public, repeatable modeling process. The bill as amended clarifies timelines and stakeholder input points during modeling, report drafting and post‑publication reviews.

Why it matters: lawmakers described the office as a tool to provide state policymakers with independent forward‑looking analysis on generation, storage, transmission and other systemic risks to the grid — with an explicit charge to identify actions that could reduce costs for ratepayers and improve system resilience.

Key points
- Stakeholder process: The office must create stakeholder touchpoints during inputs/assumptions, after report publication to assess mitigation options, and during PSC proceedings every three years. The statute names state agencies as required collaborators but the office must solicit and publish industry and public feedback.

- Funding and independence: Committee debate included whether to fund the office from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (CIF) or general funds. Supporters argued CIF funding would align resources with energy priorities; others said independent standing and stable funding were important. The bill was approved with the office structured as an independent PSC office; funding streams and budget details will be addressed in follow‑on steps.

Votes and outcome
Committee moved the bill as amended and approved it on a roll call. The committee emphasized that the office’s statutory duties require published stakeholder processes and that the PSC will facilitate follow‑up proceedings as needed.

What’s next
If enacted the office will begin data collection and stakeholder convenings and the first risk report will set out modeling assumptions, scenarios and recommended mitigations for state policymakers and regulators to consider.","House Bill 1037 would create a strategic energy planning office within the Public Service Commission to publish tri‑annual risk reports and convene stakeholders; the committee approved the bill with amendments clarifying timelines and stakeholder processes.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6613869,"Committee advances solar siting bill after contentious debate over farmland carve‑outs and 5% threshold",450,7200000,7650000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e&start=7200&end=7650","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e/thumbnail_7200000.jpg","/articles/6613869/Maryland/Committee-advances-solar-siting-bill-after-contentious-debate-over-farmland-carveouts-and-5-threshold","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6613869-1b55df9dab14a93b8513a93f83581839/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158106&Signature=CQjBo27JUqhpUgyj2fZ1G7vnes~dXJegyntq~GW7wzgx7i026cUNSwcfGklhk1vE1OUgfWvlVUmab7EMl7i2nzHK2z2DguEXn46tz1gNFwCJwVgNO0-2g1AcOcHFsCgaIyzUf~WtewPCdvREfwE71y0o4vE2jFF57ZgWPYxFsQTmAfe8pGYMH88dWMmnGLXYGmoOuHi0rRLVrspOTXGJpIkNQRYVwfbh~386iNrhlKnI2zqhRMeSCD2fueNSRXCeEpseiyEougsUZMBxoMiaVoqlIyfz0O86Yq7QUA8zfoMuMQoVqgRPUCYh4tJEy5cMRaHuB76mW~vyHTJgXHfY5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Economic Matters Committee advanced House Bill 1036, which establishes standardized siting requirements for solar energy generating stations and storage devices, creates a distributed‑generation CPCN path, and tasks the Maryland Department of Labor with creating a special solar contractor license. The bill, as amended and approved by the committee, also directs the Department of Natural Resources to identify state lands suitable for solar development and includes provisions limiting solar development on certain preserved lands.

Why it matters: Delegates from Eastern Shore counties strongly opposed portions of the bill, arguing that even a 5% threshold applied to priority preservation areas would convert thousands of acres of farmland to solar and fundamentally alter agricultural economies. Supporters and sponsors said the bill protects most preserved acreage while creating a reliable statewide framework for siting and permitting projects and for contractor licensing.

Key discussion points and excerpts
- Preservation, acreage and local control: Several Eastern Shore delegates said local farmland and agricultural economies risk being overwhelmed by utility‑scale solar if state law allows site selection at scale without local concurrence. “That 5% is equal to 5, 6, 7000 acres of land per county,” a delegate from the Eastern Shore said, warning of long‑term effects on poultry and farming industries.

- Protections and caveats in the bill: Committee members who supported the bill noted the statutory language protects easement‑encumbered preserved land and that the 5% measure applies to a priority preservation subcategory rather than county‑wide acreage. One committee member emphasized that properties protected by conservation easement cannot be converted to solar under the bill.

- Notification and public meetings: Witnesses and members discussed existing CPCN public notice timelines (60‑day public meeting requirement and 90‑day county notice) and the bill’s supplemental documentation requirements for local engagement. Committee staff said the CPCN framework already includes public meeting and county notification requirements; the bill’s additional requirements were clarified to avoid redundant timelines.

Votes and outcome
The committee moved the bill as amended and recorded a roll call vote. Several members from both sides of the aisle recorded “no” votes in the final tally (including Delegates Adams, Wybel, Fisher and Pippy in the committee record). A majority voted to advance the bill.

What’s next
If enacted, the bill will require agencies to issue additional guidance for siting, will create a special solar contractor license, and will prompt counties to adjust local siting processes to the new statewide standards. Delegates warned that claims of eminent domain or forced conversions are not part of the bill but said they will monitor implementation closely.

Attribution
Bill description and technical clarifications provided by committee staff; multiple delegates on the record representing Eastern Shore counties raised concerns; Ben Baker (PSC staff) and committee staff answered technical questions about notice requirements and CPCN procedures.","House Bill 1036, setting statewide siting rules for solar and storage and enabling up to 5% of certain priority preservation land for solar without local approval, passed the Economic Matters Committee after prolonged debate about impacts on Eastern Shore agriculture and preserved lands.",{"_33":125,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":126,"_41":127,"_43":44,"_45":128,"_47":129,"_49":50,"_51":130,"_53":131,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":132,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":133,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6613874,"Panel advances wide-ranging energy package creating nuclear procurement, storage solicitations and new rate protections",2845,6280000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867499-68bd12a5613eece090ba295d5429048e&start=3435&end=6280","/articles/6613874/Maryland/Panel-advances-wide-ranging-energy-package-creating-nuclear-procurement-storage-solicitations-and-new-rate-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6613874-139b8f8737cc673dba198a28bbefb098/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158106&Signature=Ri-oUCwoLR79EWLrbXx-kE0Q4Sk5qhGkQvI5eDKajbF50RqkE7A1SjUFHTm-DETDq27XvmJPih6aTIW-GtHom74wR7ZZcRGgyVx51LlOhv-QOiNtMfN3o-Q6DLrRsRPr1mCNG7WxyzmFVqRksN3tbLShHD7Gc1YVTFpSCLSYBLV5lj8y3HPvzW6Espc2LEAG9uzW5m2LI2Jt4ljrJ5hFEGGAyvFbJ7kmMRU1yPtZ~iahTdHCEBMZGV2bPAwPLYNhYzzJhMNe1yiegbhLDtDX8iZ8wi4MUAhbY~LO22hAYxSDRtl9CmBI7wORwjJfw0wV22vzDMo7JTjOti6Kk1iWRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Economic Matters Committee on an amended voice-and roll-call vote advanced House Bill 1035, a wide-ranging energy package that creates new procurement paths for transmission-level energy storage and for zero‑emission (including new) nuclear generation, establishes an expedited solicitation process for certain certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), and adds several consumer protections and ratepayer credits.

Committee staff summarized the bill as amended as establishing “ratepayer protections related to gas infrastructure investment, trade association fees, and multi‑year rate plans,” while also creating solicitations for transmission‑scale storage and a nuclear procurement and requiring electric companies to propose tariffs for very large customers. The amendments described in committee packet include a 150‑megawatt distribution‑level storage goal, a proposed 1.6‑gigawatt transmission‑level storage procurement, limits on use of reconciliation in certain multi‑year rate plans, and an allocation of funds to provide near‑term bill credits for residential customers.

Why it matters: lawmakers and witnesses framed the measure as an attempt to balance near‑term rate relief and consumer protections with longer‑term reliability and new generation options. Supporters said the combination of short‑term credits and structural changes to rate filings should reduce near‑term upward pressure on bills and create clearer pathways for new generation; opponents warned the measures still carry tradeoffs and urged tighter guardrails on policy choices and siting.

Key discussion points and excerpts
- Ratepayer relief and reconciliations: Committee members and staff said limiting reconciling mechanisms and tightening the conditions for multi‑year rate plans would reduce future upward adjustments to customers’ bills. Committee staff estimated an immediate reconciliation savings (from previously filed amounts) and additional projected savings tied to reforms of multi‑year rate plans.

- Nuclear and gas procurement: The bill authorizes a public process for procuring zero‑emission generation that would include a mechanism to solicit proposals for new nuclear facilities; staff clarified that existing nuclear generation would not automatically qualify for new credits unless it were part of a new, upgraded generating facility. “If an existing nuclear generator wanted to take advantage of this program, they would have to upgrade,” committee staff said.

- Expedited CPCN and siting: The amended bill creates an accelerated administrative route to resolve siting and permitting questions sooner. Ben Baker of the Maryland Public Service Commission told the committee that applicants for CPCNs already must show they considered routing through existing rights of way and that the expedited process would emphasize more timely regulatory certainty but not create direct state subsidies.

- Consumer protections: The package includes requirements that utilities justify use of contract labor versus in‑house labor, bar certain trade association dues from rate recovery, and require measurable consumer benefits for multi‑year rate plans. It also creates a legislative “hardship” or bill credit program to send a near‑term rebate to residential customers drawn from a strategic energy fund in the short term.

Votes and outcome
The bill was moved as amended and approved by the committee on a roll call. Several members recorded “no” or “no for now” votes during the final tally. Committee members who explicitly voted no in the record include Delegate Wybel and Delegate Fisher; a majority voted in favor and the bill advanced to the next stage.

What’s next
The bill’s procurement, CPCN and storage provisions will require PSC rulemaking and timelines for requests for participation; committee discussion noted that the state expects to post solicitation details in October with a short response window for prospective generators. The committee also directed that several technical amendments be filed to fix cross‑references in the draft language.

Sources and attribution
Summaries and bill descriptions cited in this article come from committee staff remarks during the May hearing. Direct technical answers came from Ben Baker, Maryland Public Service Commission (staff). Other quoted and paraphrased comments were from delegates speaking on the committee record.","The Economic Matters Committee moved House Bill 1035, an omnibus energy bill that would create procurements for transmission-level storage and nuclear generation, an expedited CPCN process, limits on certain utility reconciliations and new ratepayer credits; the bill won committee approval after extended debate and amendment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Economic Matters Committee actions (selected)

Committee approves apprenticeship residency requirement on state contracts with modifications

Committee amends and advances bill renaming RPS to clean energy standard and adding nuclear for accounting

Panel backs creation of energy planning office to draft risk reports and model future scenarios

Committee advances solar siting bill after contentious debate over farmland carve‑outs and 5% threshold

Panel advances wide-ranging energy package creating nuclear procurement, storage solicitations and new rate protections