News Stories

The Mediator filed WGL and Pepco mediation report.

The mediation report notes that the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the Mediator requests that the Maryland PSC “to decide the issues underlying this matter, as follows”: (1) whether “HB 864’s realignment of EmPOWER Maryland goals to focus on GHG reductions mean that Pepco (and other electric utilities) can claim savings based on therms,” and, if so, whether “such an interpretation mean Washington Gas (and other gas utilities) can claim savings based on kWhs”; (2) the “appropriate method to allocate savings between electric and gas utilities for cross-fuel-claiming incentives and projects”; (3) “an appropriate way to ensure a customer does not pursue duplicative incentives from multiple utilities,” given that “savings are claimed from non-equipment measures in EmPOWER programs”; (4) what would be “an appropriate way to account for potential impacts to another utility’s ability to meet its GHG reduction goals” if “cross-fuel-claiming incentives are allowed by a single utility”; (5) whether it is “more or less beneficial to customers for a single utility to offer cross-fuel-claiming incentives”; and (6) how to treat “therm savings that have already been claimed in 2025 and currently being claimed in 2026 by Pepco.”

BGE filed its EmPOWER compliance filing report EmPOWER Compliance Filing Report.

WGL filed a report providing additional information on its incentive and non-incentive EmPOWER expenditures.

Excerpts of comments filed in the proceeding:

Maryland Energy Administration: (i) noted that “In 2025, all utilities met their annualized statutory lifecycle GHG reduction targets” and “demonstrated cost efficiency, achieving statutory reductions using less than 100% of annual budgets”; (ii) said that some “programs are exhibiting poor performance, with general underachievement in programs such as the school education program,” suggesting that addressing “poor performance may require streamlining program delivery for better performance or reallocating costs to better-performing programs” and encouraging “utilities to clearly identify the root causes of underperformance and propose targeted, actionable solutions to address them”

Maryland Energy Efficiency Advocates or MEEA – Noted that demand response (DR) “is a critically important tool for managing customer costs,” but that the Forward Power Working Group (FPWG) “has disparate views of whether [DR] goals should be framed based on participation or MW savings”; and said that it “continues to believe that the potential for significant improvements in the benefits Empower provides merits further investigation” of “a third-party EmPOWER Administrator model.”

MEEA also recommended MDPSC: (i) “Direct the electric utilities to propose both participation and callable MW DR/DM goals for the 2027-2029 program cycle” (ii) “Initiate an independent study to assess the potential risks and benefits of transitioning EmPOWER implementation from the six utilities and DHCD to a uniform, fuel-neutral state-wide third-party administration model”; (iii) “Direct the FPWG to recommend amended lifecycle goals for the utilities based on enacted EmPOWER reform legislation”; and (iv) “Reaffirm its position that any savings claimed towards EmPOWER goal attainment comply with EmPOWER EM&V protocols.”