People's Counsel questions ChalkPoint witness on ELCC floor and procurement comparisons

People's Counsel (Mr. Byrd) read from and challenged portions of ChalkPoint's rebuttal testimony, saying the ELCC floor recommended by OPC witness Michael Freeman "would place a substantially higher risk" on participating projects and asked whether comparable state programs include an ELCC floor. Byrd also asked whether state programs rely on capacity revenues to offset ratepayer payments.

Colin Scofield said the Maryland structure is different from New Jersey's Garden State Energy Storage Program and Illinois' procurement and that he could not confirm every detail of other states' contract structures from memory. "So I would say, generally, they are of similar characteristics, especially with respect to accreditation, ELCC capacity risk," Scofield testified. He also distinguished his earlier comments as focused on whether post-offer price negotiation features had been widely used in other procurements rather than on ELCC mechanics alone.

The exchange highlighted the technical disagreement over how to allocate ELCC risk between developers and ratepayers and whether Maryland should adopt features used elsewhere. Counsel Byrd pressed on precise program mechanics and sought to clarify whether the structures under discussion guarantee payments to developers or shift performance and ELCC risk away from ratepayers.