[ad_1]
House Bill 1, the first piece of energy legislation approved in the 2026 General Assembly, comes as legislative leaders aim to address high electric bills in the state and across the region.
This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for Maryland Matters’ free email subscription today.
The Maryland House of Delegates voted Friday to set new limits on the use of ratepayer dollars to pay salaries for employees of investor-owned utilities.
House Bill 1, the first piece of energy legislation approved in the 2026 General Assembly, comes as legislative leaders aim to address high electric bills in the state and across the region, though it’s unclear precisely how much ratepayer relief the bill could provide.
Under the bill, investor-owned utilities can still pay their supervisory staff whatever compensation they deem fit. But only a certain amount can be recouped using money from customers.
That ceiling is set just above the salary of the state’s top utility regulator, the chair of the Maryland Public Service Commission, who makes about $259,000 annually, according to the most recent data.
“Their executives and shareholders are swimming, absolutely swimming, in profits,” said Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo (D-Montgomery), “while our ratepayers are trying to figure out whether to pay their rent, or buy milk, or buy eggs.”
The bill would affect only the state’s investor-owned utilities, which include Exelon companies Baltimore Gas & Electric, Delmarva Power and Pepco.
Republicans argued the bill would accomplish little in the way of reducing rates, and would demonize utility executives. They’re pushing for Democrats to roll back climate and energy efficiency programs, some of which are also line items on utility customers’ bills.
“We don’t want ratepayers to actually know why their bills are going up,” said Minority Whip Jesse Pippy (R-Frederick). “It’s better to villainize a few people at the utilities for a dollar.”
Three Republicans did, however, vote to approve the measure — Dels. Nino Mangione (R-Baltimore County), Joshua Stonko (R- Carroll) and Stuart Michael Schmidt, Jr. (R- Anne Arundel).
Mangione said he believes that Democrats’ policies in Annapolis have forced ratepayers to pay more for their energy.
“With that said, I want to make the point that BG&E is out of control,” he said. “I think this bill does very little but I think it does something.”
The bill’s scope was narrowed somewhat in the House Environment and Transportation Committee. The original language would have prevented utilities from paying any bonuses to new non-union staff members using ratepayer funds. BGE estimated that the bonus provision would save customers about $1.70 on their monthly bills. But an updated estimate has yet to surface.
“I don’t care whether it’s a dollar, two dollars, 40 dollars — it does reduce utility bills,” said Del. Linda Foley (D-Montgomery).
Now, all eyes turn to the Senate, where that chamber’s version of the measure, Senate Bill 2, had its hearing Thursday in the Education, Energy the Environment Committee.
During that hearing, BGE lobbyist Brittany Jones indicated that a substantial number of the company’s employees could come under the purview of the bill, because its broad definition of compensation included not only wages, but bonuses and other benefits.
“This bill says total compensation. So that’s not just our base pay. That’s looking into incentive compensation. It’s looking into pension 401K matches, tuition reimbursement,” Jones said. “So, it is not that difficult to get up to that $250,000 figure.”
Union leaders at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 410, who support the bill, said they are pushing for the Senate to prevent any bonuses beyond a certain level from being recovered through rates — even though that would include bonuses for union members. IBEW Business Manager Brian Terwilliger said that all BGE employees get bonuses, but the structure heavily favors management — and lets them receive high payments even if the company doesn’t meet all benchmarks for customer service.
BGE has argued that bonuses let them attract and retain top talent, amid intense competition from the tech industry, among others.
BGE spokesperson Nick Alecxopulos noted that bonuses for represented and non-represented employees are based on the same scorecard.
“Our bonus program aligns with prevailing rates for similar roles in the labor market and is built on a balanced scorecard design, with goals and outcomes that are rigorously reviewed by an external compensation consulting firm and approved by our Board of Directors,” Alexopulos wrote. “The scorecard includes measurable, objective goals that reflect the priorities of our customers and our business.”
On Friday, the company announced that a layoff announced in December would affect 68 employees. BGE cited policy uncertainty in Maryland, adding that it has slowed work on proactive line replacements and gas transmission upgrades.
“Like many utilities, BGE is facing regulatory uncertainty and reduced planned work, which has required us to align our workforce with current business needs. This was a difficult but necessary decision,” read a statement from the company.
During House debate on the bill Wednesday and Thursday, Republicans pushed several amendments, all of which were soundly rejected by the chamber’s Democratic majority.
Two amendments from Del. Brian Chisholm (R-Anne Arundel) would have given the Public Service Commission — which can already review salaries at utility companies, but has no firm cap — the flexibility to approve paying salaries with ratepayer money after a “public evidentiary proceeding,” or if it was needed to ensure the reliability of the electric system or the utility’s response to storms.
But Fraser-Hidalgo argued that the amendments would undermine the very “underpinnings” of the bill.
Del. Mark Fisher (R-Calvert) took a different approach, pushing an amendment that required utilities to itemize all charges for consumers. Fisher argued that would make clear to ratepayers just how much they are spending because of policies passed in Annapolis, including the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires utilities to pay for an increasing number of renewable energy credits from suppliers of wind, solar and other clean energy.
He also assailed Maryland’s EmPOWER program, which funds energy efficiency improvements for low-income Marylanders using a surcharge on customer bills.
But his amendment failed. Several Democrats argued that the idea at least deserved a full bill hearing, rather than being tacked on as an amendment to a bill on a different subject.
When Republicans attacked the EmPOWER program again on Friday, Del. Lorig Charkoudian (D-Montgomery) rose to defend it, noting that it provides twice as many benefits as costs. A 2025 report from the Public Service Commission found that every dollar utilities spent on EmPOWER generated $2.21 in savings.
“We put money into making homes more efficient. It reduces peak load and it keeps us from having to build new substations, poles and wires,” Charkoudian said.
“So, of course, you have utilities sitting there saying, ‘Oh, if you want to save money, cut EmPOWER,’” Charkoudian added. “Because they make money off of the substations, we save money off of the EmPOWER investments.”
Democrats argued that even if the ratepayer relief from the bill is minimal, more work is coming.
“This bill helps to reduce cost to ratepayers. It’s one of many cost-saving bills coming this year,” Fraser-Hidalgo said. “If anybody in this body has other ideas, we welcome them. Bring the stakeholders together, do the work and bring the bill.”
In his remarks, Del. Jeffrie Long (D-Calvert and Prince George’s) referenced the bill’s status as HB1, a signal of its importance to chamber leaders.
“When I learned to count, my mother told me, don’t stop at one, but keep counting,” he said.
[ad_2]
Diane Morris
Source link
