DG electric meter - SH

Maryland lawmakers are considering legislation that would require utility companies to increase the amount of energy they supply from renewable sources.

As Maryland eyes more ambitious renewable energy goals, FirstEnergy — the parent company of the local electrical utility Potomac Edison — warns that legislation could increase electric bills.

The General Assembly is reviewing Senate Bill 732 and House Bill 1453, which would increase the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires utilities to sell a specified amount of electricity from renewable sources, from 25 percent by 2020, and from 50 percent by 2030.

Anne Grealy, FirstEnergy’s executive director of state affairs, told the House Economic Matters and Senate Finance committees last week that the cost of buying renewable energy credits to meet the elevated standard would raise the cost of compliance for Potomac Edison by about $208 million. That cost would be paid by its ratepayers over the next 11 years, she said.

“The primary reason for FirstEnergy’s opposition to this bill is the cost impact it would have on Potomac Edison’s customers,” Grealy testified.

There are an estimated 1.6 million people in Potomac Edison’s Maryland service area and 270,659 metered accounts at residences, schools, industrial sites and others, said spokesman Todd Meyers.

The average residential customer in Maryland uses about one megawatt-hour of electricity each month, according to a fiscal analysis by the Department of Legislative Services. Analysts estimated a $1.40 to $1.85 increase per megawatt-hour if the bill passes.

FirstEnergy had not completed its own monthly cost calculation, said spokesman Doug Colafella.

The General Assembly passed the current Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2016, but it was vetoed by Gov. Larry Hogan (R). The Legislature then overrode the governor’s veto in early 2017.

Some legislators have questioned why representatives are back so soon with another change to the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Brian Feldman (D-Montgomery), told the Senate Finance Committee on March 6 that Maryland is no longer one of the country’s renewable energy leaders, despite having reached some of its targets.

“We have a very different landscape that exists today than existed just a couple years ago,” Feldman said.

Maryland developed its Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2004, and since then more than 20 states have followed and set higher goals, he said.

His bill would require further growth of the state’s solar and wind energy, and no longer allow electricity suppliers as of Jan. 1, 2019, to purchase credits from waste-to-energy and refuse-driven fuel sources, such as incinerators.

Representatives from the Dickerson waste-to-energy plant in Montgomery County and Wheelabrator plant in Baltimore supported the bill as long as it was amended to continue to allow the sale and purchase of renewable energy credits from waste-to-energy facilities.

Some of the committee’s members also questioned the bill’s proponents about how another increase would help jobs in the state.

David Murray, executive director of the Solar Energy Industries Association for Maryland, the District of Columbia, Delaware and Virginia, said the bill would stabilize the solar market, and its 14.5 percent goal for solar energy would increase demand and spur the investment needed to make solar economically feasible for Maryland customers again. Currently some of Maryland’s solar workers are being sent out-of-state projects where Solar Renewable Energy Credit prices are higher.


The House is also evaluating House Bill 878 from Delegate Shane Robinson (D-Montgomery), which would scrap the Renewable Portfolio Standard altogether and require electricity suppliers to purchase 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.

Rather than buying credits for the electricity from a plant outside Maryland, electricity suppliers would be required to enter long-term contracts to buy power from solar, wind, ocean energy, or small hydroelectric power plants that produce electricity in Maryland or are connected to its grid.

He hoped that getting rid of the credit system would reduce “greenwashing,” where utilities buy credits to claim environmental benefits of energy produced outside Maryland.

Robinson testified that the state would save an estimated $2 billion from no longer purchasing unbundled renewable energy credits. In an interview with The News-Post, he estimated the energy transition would cost customers $1.50 more per month on their electric bills.

But the savings were not clear to the Department of Legislative Services, whose analysts wrote in a fiscal note that they could not estimate the bill’s effect on electric rates. Administrative costs, the future of the state’s existing electricity infrastructure and the cost of procuring more offshore wind complicated the calculation.

Sally Jameson (D-Charles), vice chairwoman of the House Economic Matters Committee, questioned Robinson directly on March 5 on where funding for the bill’s incentives and rebate programs would come from. Robinson joked that he would take out his checkbook, but then seriously asked for time to go back, look at the bill and get the committee an answer.

“The bill has a long way to go to pass,” Robinson said.

Follow Samantha Hogan on Twitter: @SAHogan.

Samantha Hogan is the state house, environment, agriculture and energy reporter for The Frederick News-Post.

(3) comments


The democrats are really pushing this. It looks like somebody stands to make a lot money, and the taxpayers are the big losers as always. Who cares about renewable energy anyway, the present system is working????????


I wonder if Delegate Robinson understands what it would take to get 100% renewable energy in MD?

Consider using solar arrays. From my post from April 2016:

"I think it’s important to place the characteristics (size, output, contribution toward renewable energy goals) of these arrays in perspective. I’ve done that for you all in the past, but I’ll do so again, using figures extracted from recent government reports, e.g., http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf and http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/energy/18ener7.pdf

To meet Maryland’s total electricity needs would require the installation of nearly 3,200 Mount Saint Mary’s-type arrays (with a rating of 17.4 MWdc; 105.7 acres direct use; 158.6 acres total area.) By extension, meeting MD’s 20% renewable energy goal would still require nearly 640.

The 3,200 arrays would cover an area of 526 square miles, and additional land requirements for proper siting, drainage, etc. would tack on an additional 263 square miles, for a total of 789 square miles. By comparison, the land area of Frederick County is 660 square miles.

If one uses the figures for the array near Boyce’s [Rensberger, who was posting in the same thread] place (20 MW; 220 acres total), the total land allocation increases over 20% to 955 square miles – nearly 1 and ½ times the size of Frederick County and nearly one tenth the land area of Maryland."

Will Delegate Robinson offer up the entirety of Montgomery County (not just rooftops; the entire land area of 507 square miles) to partially meet this vital need? I suspect not.


Any other way we can frame this other than costs? Can we get more information on how it will help the environment over time? I already pay too dang much for my electric Potomac Edison, God forbid your CEOs don't get their huge bonuses.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominem criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.