Lawmakers hear calls to study PJM and alternatives as capacity costs bite ratepayers
Loading...
Summary
HB 143 would direct state agencies to study PJM governance, capacity mechanisms, and alternatives including FRR or bilateral contracting; consumer advocates and the Office of People's Counsel urged a favorable report citing rising auction and transmission costs.
Delegate Charcutian urged passage of HB 143 to direct the Public Service Commission and Maryland Energy Administration to study PJM’s governance and market rules and evaluate alternatives such as the fixed resource requirement (FRR) and greater use of bilateral contracts for capacity. The sponsor framed the bill as a factual, multi‑state study rather than an immediate plan to withdraw from PJM.
Multiple witnesses testified that PJM’s capacity auction and interconnection queue have raised costs and delayed clean resources. Emily Scar (Maryland PERRG) said PJM’s practices have favored legacy plants, and cited an Office of People’s Counsel finding that planning errors led to hundreds of millions charged to customers. David Lapp for the Office of People’s Counsel recommended the committee support the measure with a sponsor amendment, arguing state‑led study and multi‑state coordination are appropriate responses.
Committee members asked how the PSC would administer the study, which states might participate, and whether existing administration efforts overlap with the bill’s work. The sponsor said the bill anticipates coordination with neighboring states and that the study would assess feasibility and cost‑benefit before any policy change.
No formal action or vote occurred during the hearing.
