PSC hears Choptank case on joining Empower Maryland; staff and OPC recommend delay

The Public Service Commission heard arguments and questions on whether Choptank Electric Cooperative should be required to participate in the state's Empower Maryland program, a statutory decision the commission must make by Oct. 1, 2025. Choptank representatives said the surcharge and fixed costs of a full Empower portfolio would fall disproportionately on its roughly 56,000 member accounts and asked the commission to continue the cooperative's exemption. Staff and the Office of People's Counsel recommended that Choptank remain exempt from full Empower for now while improving and better documenting existing programs.

Choptank's presentation and questions to staff opened the hearing. Sarah Dahl, speaking for Choptank Electric Cooperative, said the cooperative is "a not-for-profit distribution cooperative owned by our member consumers" and described three sections of the cooperative's filing: a cost'benefit analysis of an Empower program for Choptank, a summary of existing demand-response and energy-efficiency programs, and results from a member survey. Dahl said modeling by Choptank and its consultant estimated a residential surcharge of about $20 per month and an average nonresidential surcharge of roughly $110 per month if Choptank were included in Empower.

The filing, Dahl said, showed low projected member participation and sizable fixed administrative costs, which the cooperative's consultant argued would push per-customer costs well above those in larger utilities. David Spiegler of the Spiegler Group said the program's fixed costs are amortized over fewer accounts at Choptank, driving a higher average cost per member. "The fixed cost amortized over a much smaller consumer base, like Choptank has, that's where the concern is," Spiegler told the commission.

The Office of People's Counsel (OPC) urged caution in applying Empower to Choptank now. An OPC commenter argued that Choptank's estimate of an approximately $20 million annual portfolio cost and the $20-per-month surcharge projection could be "understandable reasons for customers to express concern" given current affordability pressures. OPC recommended the commission not require full Empower participation at this time and suggested alternatives: coordination with neighboring utilities such as Delmarva Power, targeted adoption of highly cost-effective measures (for example, quick home energy checkups and residential new-construction programs), and greater use of Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) programs for low-income customers.

Staff recommended maintaining Choptank's current exemption from full Empower while establishing a process for stakeholders to work with the cooperative to improve participation and measurement of existing programs. Charles Herbert, presenting for staff, summarized the cooperative's existing portfolio: the low- and moderate-income CHOPAWAT program (administered by a third party and funded principally by state grants and some ODEC contributions), a voluntary "Beat the Peak" notification program, load-control riders (including an irrigation rider), and a conservation voltage reduction (CVR) program. Staff reported that Choptank had not historically tracked comprehensive energy or greenhouse-gas savings for several programs but would begin collecting more complete metrics in 2026.

Herbert told the commission that staff had reviewed the cooperative's reported savings from CVR in 2024 (Choptank reported roughly 76.5 megawatt-hours in energy savings and about 4.5 megawatts of demand reduction for that program in 2024) and noted those company-reported values had not yet been independently verified. Staff emphasized that Empower portfolios must pass standard cost-effectiveness tests; low expected participation (Choptank's member survey drew 3,237 responses and showed only about 7% support for Empower after respondents were informed of the surcharge) would reduce avoided-energy benefits and likely cause an Empower-style portfolio to fail those tests for this territory.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about Choptank's programs, member survey methodology, coordination opportunities with Delmarva and ODEC (Old Dominion Electric Cooperative), and whether the commission could direct additional reporting or program requirements. Choptank told the commission it would file annual reports under the revised statute beginning March 1, 2026, quantifying energy-efficiency gains and greenhouse-gas reductions if it remained outside the full Empower framework. Choptank representatives said they were open to stakeholder collaboration and to the commission's direction on improving and documenting programs.

The hearing produced no formal vote. Staff recommended that the commission keep Choptank exempt from full Empower now and open a stakeholder process to help Choptank expand participation and improve measurement. OPC similarly opposed immediate inclusion and urged the commission to consider targeted, low-cost measures and coordination with DHCD and neighboring utilities. Choptank asked the commission to confirm its continued exemption and recognized the new March 1, 2026 reporting obligation under the statute if not included in Empower.

The commission said it would issue an order in the case. The hearing record and staff briefing leave three clear next steps: (1) the commission must decide by Oct. 1, 2025, whether Choptank will be included in Empower or remain subject to the alternate reporting and program obligations; (2) Choptank will submit annual metric reports beginning March 1, 2026, if not placed into Empower; and (3) staff recommended forming a stakeholder process to help Choptank improve participation and measurement of its existing programs.