House debate on utility pay caps: two amendments fail, HB1 specially ordered

The Maryland House spent its floor session on House Bill 1, a measure to limit what investor-owned electric and gas companies may recover from ratepayers. Lawmakers debated two amendments and then voted to special-order the bill for later consideration.

The bill’s sponsor, identified on the floor as the delegate from Anne Arundel County, introduced an amendment that would let utilities ask the Maryland Public Service Commission for permission to exceed the bill’s proposed cost-recovery limits in specific circumstances. The sponsor argued the change ‘‘gives us a little bit of an off-ramp’’ and said it would help ensure grid reliability by allowing utilities to pay more in emergencies to retain critical workers.

The floor leader opposed that amendment, saying the purpose of HB1 is to protect ratepayers by capping recoverable executive and other compensation. The floor leader noted the bill’s proposed $250,000 limit and warned that carving exceptions would ‘‘undermine the entire underpinnings of this bill.’’ He cited constituent complaints about sharply higher bills and said allowing costs above the cap shifts the burden to consumers.

Members exchanged estimates of the amendment’s likely effect on individual bills, with figures offered on the floor ranging from about 50 cents to $1.70 per month per customer. The sponsor said some estimates put the impact at less than $1 per month; opponents said the cumulative effects over large customer bases could still be substantial.

After debate, the presiding officer put the amendment to a voice vote. The chair announced the ‘‘no’s have it’’ and the amendment failed; the clerk later confirmed the result, reporting 97 votes in the negative.

The sponsor then offered a second amendment to exempt frontline storm-restoration and emergency-response workers from the bill’s limitations, saying the change would protect the ability to respond quickly to hurricanes and other emergencies. Opponents, including the committee chair and floor leader, warned this carve-out could allow additional costs — including line items the House had previously disallowed, such as corporate jet travel — to be included in the rate base and funded by ratepayers. The second amendment was rejected after a roll call; the clerk again reported 97 negative votes.

Following those votes, a delegate from Baltimore County raised questions about a clause on ‘‘entertainment events’’ and whether the bill would prevent utilities from maintaining suites at local sports venues. Proponents said the bill’s intent is limited: it prevents ratepayers from subsidizing corporate entertainment expenses and that refinements could be addressed during third reading or in conference with the Senate.

The House agreed to special-order House Bill 1 to allow further consideration at the appropriate time, voting ‘‘ayes’’ on the motion to special order the measure. The presiding officer announced House Bill 1 had been special-ordered until the appropriate time.

Key claims and figures cited during the debate included a floor remark that chief executives at utility companies and parent firms earn millions (a figure of $14,200,000 for an Exelon executive was cited on the floor), estimates that the bill would reduce individual bills by roughly $0.50–$1.70 per month depending on the assumptions used, and a legislator’s statement that an ‘‘Empower’’ program loaned utilities about $900 million to $1 billion at 9% interest. Those statements were offered as floor arguments and were not resolved or confirmed during the session.

There were no final votes on the substance of House Bill 1 during the session; the critical procedural outcome was the rejection of two amendments and the granting of special-order status so the bill can return for further action.