Delegate Charcutian’s ACE Act would boost in‑state solar and battery storage, recycle ACP funds for rate relief

Delegate Lorig Charcutian told the Economic Matters Committee she is seeking a favorable report on House Bill 398, the Abundant Affordable Clean Energy Act (ACE Act), which she described as a package to expand in‑state solar and battery storage, support relicensing of Calvert Cliffs nuclear, and protect ratepayers.

"This bill creates a market for battery storage," Charcutian said, describing provisions she and stakeholders drafted over months to deploy storage and solar projects in Maryland while placing limits and protections on rate impacts. The sponsor and several witnesses told the committee the bill aims to address resource‑adequacy and peak‑demand issues without exposing residents to open‑ended cost increases.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill targets the timing problem on the grid — electricity is sometimes plentiful and cheap at night or when solar is producing but scarce during daytime peaks — and that battery storage can shift low‑cost electrons to peak hours. James McCullough of RWE Clean Energy described recent winter storms in Texas as an example: "Batteries quickly ramped up and discharged over 3,000 megawatts in the morning on January 19 and nearly 4,000 megawatts that evening," he said, adding that storage helped keep price spikes from reaching grid price caps.

Key provisions: The draft creates a two‑round procurement mechanism for front‑of‑meter battery projects (two rounds up to 1,600 MW in aggregate in the early drafts), a differentiated incentive structure for distributed and utility‑scale solar (drawing on New Jersey’s model), and a mechanism to recycle certain alternative compliance payments (ACPs) and a portion of data‑center related fees into an escrow account that can offset rate impacts for customers. The bill also contains an optional backstop for supporting Calvert Cliffs relicensing if federal tax credits lapse.

Support, concerns and PSC view: The public service commission testified in favor of the bill with amendments, saying the agency can execute procurements and work with the sponsor, but warned that the procurement timetables and deployment targets in the bill are aggressive and will require new PSC resources. The Maryland Energy Administration said it is still reviewing amendments and noted that ACP funds in the Clean Energy Investment Fund have already been used for low‑income programs; MEA cautioned that those programs are ongoing and that any reallocation should be handled carefully.

Opposition and caveats: Some witnesses urged stronger siting and mitigation requirements for new transmission and careful cost‑benefit comparisons before approving new lines. Alex Pavlak of the Future of Energy Initiative warned the committee that large renewables builds require system‑level planning and that relying on deployments without thorough analysis risks curtailment or dispatch problems seen in other jurisdictions. Trade groups and construction representatives supported building projects in Maryland but asked clarifications on workforce and contract language.

Next steps: Sponsors said they will file and circulate a set of amendments collected from months of stakeholder discussions; the PSC said it will continue to work with the sponsor on language and process details. No committee vote was held during the hearing.

Ending: The ACE Act drew broad support from renewable energy developers, labor unions and many environmental organizations at the hearing while prompting questions about transmission siting, the use of ACPs, the bill’s procurement timetable and whether the procurement targets are achievable. The PSC and sponsor said they will continue to refine the bill and its amendment package before the committee takes further action.