OPC urges regulators to keep existing energy-saving programs under EmPOWER, not shift them to the DRIVE Act pilot
BALTIMORE – The Public Service Commission should reject utility proposals to shift existing EmPOWER demand response programs into the new DRIVE pilot program, a move that could allow the utilities to raise customer bills more than necessary, the Office of People’s Counsel said in comments filed yesterday. Maryland law requires these programs to remain part of EmPOWER, OPC’s filing explains, and it does not authorize utilities to simply relabel them to bypass existing rules.
“The utilities are trying to take programs that already exist and count them as part of a new pilot program,” said Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp. “That is not what the law intended. This move would undermine the DRIVE pilot’s ability to test new ways of supporting the electric grid and could lead to higher bills for Maryland households.”
EmPOWER is Maryland’s long-standing program for energy efficiency and demand response, which helps customers lower their energy use during peak times. While EmPOWER recently shifted its primary focus from simple energy savings to meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals, demand response remains an important part of the program under State law. The DRIVE Act, passed in 2024, created a separate framework for new, experimental pilot programs designed to test how small-scale energy resources—like home batteries or electric vehicles—can support the electric grid.
In its filing, OPC explained that while the two laws both aim to improve the electric system, the DRIVE Act does not give utilities permission to pull existing programs out of EmPOWER to make them “DRIVE” projects. The Commission opened a proceeding, known as Public Conference 77, to find ways to increase customer participation in energy-saving programs. In response, several major utilities argued that because EmPOWER’s goals have changed, their existing demand response programs should be moved into the DRIVE pilot.
OPC opposes the utilities’ proposals because they would undermine the purpose of the pilot, which is to test whether a new framework can actually attract new participants and develop new grid capabilities. Furthermore, OPC warned that such a shift could lead to higher costs for consumers by allowing utilities to use more favorable accounting methods to increase their profits. By simply changing a program’s label, utilities like Baltimore Gas and Electric could secure cost recovery mechanisms that are more expensive for customers than allowed under EmPOWER.
OPC’s filing asks the Commission to keep these programs under EmPOWER. If the Commission allows utilities to move programs to DRIVE pilot programs, OPC argues that utilities should not be permitted to obtain more favorable cost recovery than EmPOWER now allows.
The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel is an independent state agency that represents Maryland’s residential consumers of electric, natural gas, telecommunications, private water and certain transportation matters before the Public Service Commission, federal regulatory agencies and the courts.
* * *
|
