Wide debate as bill would let PSC require utilities to build clean generation to shore up supply
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
HB 15-61 would allow the PSC to require regulated utilities to develop and own short-lead-time clean resources (community solar, battery storage) where the market fails to deliver capacity; sponsors, utilities and unions supported the backstop, while competitive developers and consumer advocates opposed the shift of construction risk to ratepayers.
Delegate Doug Queen presented HB 15-61 to give the Maryland Public Service Commission the authority to require investor-owned utilities to develop, own or contract for short-lead-time clean resources'such as community solar and battery storage'when the PSC finds a resource adequacy shortfall the competitive market is not filling.
"HB 15 61 provides a proven energy generation approach," Delegate Queen said, framing the bill as a backstop to PJM market failures and a way to stabilize capacity-driven price spikes that have appeared in recent auctions.
Support came from utilities (BGE, Pepco/Delmarva), unions, contractors and some developer groups arguing that the competitive market and PJM price signals have not brought sufficient firm resources quickly enough. BGE and Exelon representatives said the bill focuses on short-lead-time renewable and storage projects and requires PSC oversight with market revenues returned to customers.
Opponents, including the Office of People's Counsel, independent power producers, and groups representing competitive developers, warned the bill would transfer construction and market risk to captive ratepayers, weaken competitive markets and could raise bills. David Lapp (OPC) said the measure "isn't about affordability" and could drive up customer bills by obligating ratepayer-funded generation.
Analytical testimony (Charles River Associates) modeled a scenario where state-regulated generation reduced PJM expected outages and produced large short-term supply savings, but opponents questioned long-term cost allocation and competition impacts.
Committee members probed project types, timing, interconnection queue barriers, cost recovery mechanics and how market revenues would flow back to customers. Sponsors and utility witnesses said proposals would focus on community solar and battery storage, use PSC-approved cost-of-service recovery, and require market revenues to offset customer costs.
Next steps: PSC and staff analysis requested; committee members signaled interest in amendments clarifying customer protections, return of market revenues, and selection criteria for generation types.