Electric Companies - Cost Containment Plans - Requirement (Securing Affordable, Valuable Investments in Next Generation Grid Solutions (SAVINGS) Act)
HB0723 requires each electric company in Maryland to file a recurring “cost containment plan” with the Public Service Commission beginning January 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter. The plan must identify ways to reduce or avoid capital spending on electric distribution and transmission systems by using nonwires solutions, distributed energy resources, advanced transmission technologies, automated load management, demand flexibility, flexible interconnection, grid-enhancing technologies, grid flexibility measures, building electrification paired with efficiency, and virtual power plants. The bill also allows the Commission to stagger filing deadlines or align the plan with other utility filings such as multiyear rate plans, rate cases, or electric system plans.
The bill sets a performance target that the combined measures in each cost containment plan must reduce the utility’s peak electric system load by at least 20% from 2025 levels by 2030. The Commission must approve, conditionally approve, or deny each plan based on whether it includes the required elements, meets the peak-load reduction goal, and is projected to produce demonstrable cost savings under the Commission’s benefit-cost framework. If a plan is deficient, the Commission must require the utility to cure the deficiency.
Once a plan is approved, each electric company must file progress reports alongside its electric system plan. Those reports must describe ongoing and planned actions under the plan and explain the decision-making process used to select those actions and reject alternatives. If a utility fails to meet the 20% peak-load reduction goal, the Commission may impose fines, reduce the utility’s return on equity, or deny some or all cost recovery for implementing the plan.
The bill would amend the Public Utilities Article by adding a new Section 7-805 and by making a conforming reference to the definition of “distributed energy resource” in Section 7-1001. In practical terms, it expands the Commission’s oversight of utility planning and ties utility investment decisions more directly to cost containment, grid optimization, and peak-demand reduction.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Environment and Transportation Committee, with a hearing scheduled, but there are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at lowering long-term utility costs and improving grid efficiency, while potential concerns would likely center on utility compliance burdens, Commission enforcement authority, and whether the 20% peak-load target is achievable and cost-effective.
HB0723 would add a new utility planning requirement to the Public Utilities Article, directing electric companies to submit Commission-approved cost containment plans that prioritize nonwires alternatives, distributed energy resources, and other grid-modernization tools over traditional capital expansion where possible. It would also give the Public Service Commission explicit authority to evaluate, condition, deny, and enforce these plans, including through penalties and limits on cost recovery. The bill primarily affects electric companies, the Public Service Commission, and ratepayers, and it is intended to influence how utilities plan distribution and transmission investments in Maryland, including coordination with PJM regional transmission planning.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented public sentiment in the available context. From the bill’s structure and sponsors, the measure appears generally supportive of utility cost containment, grid flexibility, and ratepayer savings, with an emphasis on modernizing planning practices. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials means the level of support or resistance cannot be determined from the context alone.
The main points of potential contention are likely the mandatory 20% peak-load reduction target, the Commission’s authority to reject plans or impose penalties, and the requirement that utilities demonstrate significant cost savings under a benefit-cost framework. Utilities may view the bill as imposing new planning and reporting burdens and as constraining traditional infrastructure investment, while supporters are likely to argue that it encourages cheaper, more flexible alternatives such as demand response, storage, and distributed energy resources. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s coordination requirement with PJM and regional transmission planning, which could raise questions about implementation, timing, and cost allocation.