The Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee began attaching amendments to the state legislature’s mega energy package known as the UTILITY Relief Act on Monday.

The 104-page omnibus cleared the House of Delegates nearly two weeks ago with a promise of at least $150 in annual utility savings for Maryland ratepayers.

Those savings will come from a $100 million downpayment on the state’s EmPOWER program, which aims to improve energy efficiency through the incentivization of free or discounted energy audits, weatherization and energy efficient appliances.

EmPOWER is paid for by all ratepayers through a surcharge of around $10 to $20 per utility bill, but the state-led downpayment will cover that fee.

In its current form, the bill would also roll back the program’s greenhouse gas reduction goal from 2.5 percent each year to 1.75 percent each year from 2027 through 2029 — effectively reducing EmPOWER’s spending.

Climate advocates like the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and the PIRG Foundation — a consumer protection non-profit — argue that scaling back these goals, as well as further cuts to EmPOWER being considered by the Senate, will have the opposite of their intended effect.

“It's a program that lowers energy bills for all Maryland ratepayers through the benefits to the aggregate grid by reducing the amount of energy that we use,” said Maryland CCAN Action Fund Director Brittany Baker at a rally on Monday. “This program provides job opportunities, small business opportunities for individuals all across the state. And every cut to the EmPOWER program affects homes, businesses, families, and we have to take that into account.”

Advocates are concerned about a Senate proposed change that would require EmPOWER benefits to be proven cost effective, arguing that metric is difficult to quantify and varies based on how each utility company implements the program.

However, Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) says it's time to take a deeper dive into how EmPOWER is benefiting Maryland ratepayers.

“I wouldn't say it's a cut to EmPOWER. It's an adjustment. It's a temporary review and pause of the program to ensure that it's getting the best value,” Ferguson said at a press conference on Friday. “The shrinking of the program will be based on which features and functions are the most cost effective.”

Advocates worry these proposed cuts to the energy efficiency program will result in higher energy use and utility bills and ultimately increase profits for utility companies.

The House-approved version of the UTILITY Relief Act would ban the use of spending forecasts when a utility comes before the public utility regulator — the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) — and asks for a rate increase.

Advocates applauded this move, often pointing to rising distribution rates as the reason utility bills have skyrocketed in recent years.

Distribution rates cover the cost of transmission and infrastructure that delivers electricity into the home.

For the past several years, utility companies have been using multi-year rate plans, which allow them to ask for years’ worth of rate increases in advance of spending money on infrastructure replacement and upgrades.

Last year, the state legislature implemented the Next Generation Energy Act to try and rein in multi-year rate plans, which required that those plans demonstrate “customer benefits” before approval.

The UTILITY Relief Act would take that regulation one step further if it bans forecast testing altogether.

But the Senate could be scaling back that proposition and instead leave it up to the PSC to evaluate forecast test years and how cost-effective they are for utility customers.

“We want to know where [utilities’] intended investments are, and then we want to be able to evaluate whether they are the best cost and most necessary for the moment,” Ferguson said. “That is more difficult to do when you don't have a forecast option available. And so this is where I think the Senate has asked the PSC, ‘We want you to dive into this and evaluate what is better for ratepayers.’”

Maryland PIRG Foundation Senior Advisor Emily Scarr expressed strong opposition to this change on Monday.

“We don't need another study to tell us what we already know,” Scarr said. “Forecasted rate making has led to excessive spending, outrageous profits and unmanageable bills. The House has demonstrated bold leadership in prohibiting forecasted ratemaking, and it's time for the Senate to get on board.”

The Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee voted to adopt an amendment from Sen. Katie Fry Hester (D-Howard and Montgomery) that would outline data center regulations in a more concrete fashion than the House version.

As is, the bill requests that data centers pay for their own energy infrastructure upgrades, prioritize hiring in-state workers for construction, purchase significant amounts of energy capacity to offset the cost burden on ratepayers and to engage with the local community they intend to set up shop in.

But that provision is just that — a request.

Hester’s amendment would create a voluntary “clean capacity rating program,” for data centers looking to connect to the electric grid in Maryland.

Under the program, the state would offer incentives for data centers that are rated as either “platinum” or “gold,” which will be based on how much generation the center can cover for its own electricity needs.

Those data centers who provide at least 80 percent or more or 100 percent of their own capacity needs would be allowed to “cut the line” in front of other large load customers when connecting to the regional grid.

“I think it… will ultimately put us in a place where the large load customers are paying their fair share, and we're incentivizing the best of the best to come with 100% clean capacity to the state,” Hester said during the committee meeting.

All of these changes are tentative — if adopted by the committee and the full Senate, a conference committee would be needed to see if the House agrees with the various proposals.

The Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee is scheduled to hear more amendments on Tuesday, and the full amended version is likely to reach the Senate floor for its first vote this week.