The Senate Finance Committee resolved a brouhaha over energy efficiency programs late Wednesday, directing some money from the sale of greenhouse gas emission credits toward programs to cut power use, and sending some back to ratepayers to reduce bills.

A bill that creates a “Strategic Energy Investment Fund” originally would have sent money to the Maryland Energy Administration to help renters and low income electric customers reduce their power use. That money would come from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multi-state compact that would see Maryland sell carbon allowances to power plants.

But Eastern Shore Republican E.J. Pipkin passed a committee amendment Tuesday that would have sent the money directly back to ratepayers. At the last second, Sen. Rob Garagiola, a Montgomery Democrat, succeeded in suspending the discussion. Environmental groups cried foul, and on Wednesday, the committee agreed to split the difference between bill credits and efficiency programs.

One Senate estimate projects that the combined programs could save residential ratepayers around $9.35 per month. The credits were projected in the $5 range, but the efficiency programs may take longer to phase in.

So what’s better? Spending on efficiency programs or sending it all back to ratepayers? Or do you like the combo?

Check out my story in Wednesday’s paper on the various proposals for electric restructuring.

One bill before lawmakers would redefine some of the Public Service Commission’s responsibilities, directing the regulators to focus more on reliability and low price than promoting a competitive power market.

Del. Brian K. McHale, the Baltimore City Democrat who sponsored the bill, referred to price and reliability as twin “goal posts.” This was a metaphor that was used (perhaps overused) throughout the day.

Here’s a quote from Glen Thomas, a lobbyist for PJM Power Providers, a group of generation and transmission owners in the regional power grid. He’s explaining why he believes a free market is the best way to ensure a healthy electric system.

“We have to agree with the goal posts. Reliability and price are the appropriate goal posts for any electricity policy in Maryland or any state,” he said. “[What we] disagree with is how to get the ball through the uprights.”

Maybe these guys are San Diego Chargers fans?

The Maryland Energy Administration could lose five of seven new positions proposed in the fiscal 2009 budget by Gov. Martin O’Malley. A Senate budget subcommittee voted Monday to eliminate the five jobs at the state’s energy policy arm.

The new workers, projected to cost around $250,000 next year, would manage energy contracts, alternative fuels, and “green collar” jobs, oversee greenhouse gas limits and prepare a plan to safeguard the state’s energy supply and infrastructure. The subcommittee also voted to maintain $290,500 in solar energy grants, despite analysts’ recommendation to cut them.

Check out my story on the proposed cuts from a few weeks ago (subscriber-only link).

Administration officials say they need the new employees to help the state cut power use, but lawmakers have so far been wary of new spending. Still, this is far from a done deal. It still has to go to the full Senate Budget & Taxation Committee, then to the full Senate along with the rest of the budget. The House will also do its own budget work before the two chambers work out their differences. So stay tuned.

So the state wants to increase the amount of renewable energy that is produced in Maryland. A major proposal before lawmakers would toughen requirements for what power companies can include when they calculate how much renewable power they provide.

Right, that’s one way to do it. Another way — this is more fun – is to add new types of renewable power, and the General Assembly appears well on its way to doing that.

On Thursday the Senate approved a measure that makes poultry litter a “tier 1” energy source under the state’s renewable portfolio standard. The standard requires that utilities make renewable energy a part of their power portfolio, and sets standards for how much they have to use.

Tier 1 sources are preferred by the state, and include power sources such as wind and solar. Tier 2 sources include things like landfill gas and hydroelectric dams. The state will keep tier 2 requirements steady, while tier 1 requirements are poised to increase over the next several years. This change, which gets its first hearing in the House next week, makes chicken litter a tier 1 resource instead of tier 2.

Had enough? Long story short, it looks like Marylanders may be burning more chicken poop for power over the next few years. The Eastern Shore can rejoice.

Most of the power reforms being discussed in Annapolis this year give the state a heavier hand in the market, but re-regulation is tough to define. The state has never been absolutely deregulated, per se, since the Public Service Commission has retained many oversight powers over electric supply in the state.

Some legislators want to tighten things up, though, as the General Assembly moves to increase state control over power pricing and other aspects of the market.

One bill before lawmakers would tell the PSC to stop encouraging retailers to compete in the market. Instead it would direct the regulatory panel to focus on “ensuring safe, reliable and affordable electricity for Maryland’s consumers and small businesses.”

The mission statement has been the source of some divides between the policy debate and PSC regulatory actions in recent months. For instance, a move last year by the PSC allowed independent suppliers to sell their accounts receivable to utilities. That move was touted by supply companies as a way to make the market friendlier. But consumer advocates panned it as running counter to the tenor of discussion in the state, which has trended toward increased regulatory control.

Check out my story on the issue from November.

What does re-regulation mean to you? And is it a good goal for Maryland?

Gov. Martin O’Malley repeated his outrage today over the “appalling” threats of Constellation Energy to sue its ratepayers for $386 million the company said it was bullied into giving up.

O’Malley pledged to “spare no expense” in order to stand up for the interests of Marylanders. What level of spending do you think is justified, given the state’s recent fiscal woes? He also said he would be open to moves that would help the state make electricity prices more predictable.

Suggestions on how to do that have abounded.

Sen. E.J. Pipkin, the self-proclaimed “fighter for the ratepayer,” and Republican candidate for Maryland’s hard fought 1st Congressional District seat, said the legislature needs to focus on returning the state back to re-regulating the energy market. What do you think? Will re-regulation be the answer to Maryland’s energy issues?

DANIELLE ULMAN, Business Writer

Ever wonder, with all of the talk about electricity costs, just how Maryland stacks up?

Me, too. Turns out it’s an awfully tough comparison to find because of all the variations among utility coverage areas.

Finally, in a sparsely attended meeting Tuesday, I got it. We’re the second-highest in the region.

From Malcolm Woolf, director of the Maryland Energy Administration (he got it from the U.S. Energy Information Agency):

(Average retail prices for residential customers in cents per kilowatt-hour, July 2007)

Delaware – 13.64

MARYLAND – 13.38

Washington, D.C. – 12.72

Florida – 11.18

Georgia — 9.85

North Carolina – 9.56

South Carolina – 9.34

Virginia – 9.26

West Virginia – 6.81

So what do you think? Does this seem reasonable to you or are you taking the next bus to West Virginia? Talk to me.