News Stories

On June 2, 2026 the Maryland PSC issued order regarding monthly price data filings for electric and gas suppliers and utilities, and under PUA §7-604.2(e).  This order details the type of reports that are required to be filed by the suppliers and utilities and whether such reports should be reported publicly.

From Commission Decision:

• “Having considered Staff’s requests and the filed comments, the Commission hereby approves Staff’s recommendation and directs that the retail suppliers continue confidential filing of the total energy usage to customers (in kwh or therms), under PUA §§ 7-510(g)(2)(i) and 7-604.2(e)(2)(i), since the Commission has previously authorized this information to be redacted from public view in its initial Order.”
• “The Commission hereby approves Staff’s recommendation and directs utilities to publicly file information on total accounts served by both SCB and dual billing customers, as described in Table 1. This reporting should begin 30 days following the issuance of this Order, should include electric and gas supplier names, and should be incorporated within regular monthly price reports, as opposed to a separate document.”
• The Commission hereby declines Staff’s recommendation and directs that information in Tables 2 and 3 that identifies suppliers by preferred billing type, be filed publicly. The Commission does not find that information that provides customer counts by billing type to be proprietary, nor does disclosing billing type provide a competitive advantage. It should be noted that as of January 1, 2026, dual billing has become the sole viable billing option since SCB testing is not occurring at this time and since utility consolidated billing with purchase of receivables is generally terminated. Competitors should expect that any retail suppliers who submit monthly price reporting are offering dual billing.
• The Commission also hereby directs that other monthly price data under PUA §7-510(g) and PUA §7-604.2(e) (such as supply costs and comparison of retail supply costs to default service), except for supplier-specific total usage, as described in Item 1, be reported publicly. This information will be informative and in the interest of protecting consumers and similar to the Commission’s justification publicly requiring billing type, will be beneficial for accountability and reporting to the Maryland General Assembly. Monthly price data requires only an average of retail supply costs by supplier, instead of providing each supply contract cost by customer, and the data ensures compliance with other SB1 limitations, such as retail costs being under the trailing 12-month averages by service territory). The Commission may revisit this directive at a later date.”
• The Commission hereby declines OPC’s recommendation that an explanation should accompany blank tables and agrees with Staff that utilities lack necessary information to describe why a SCB or dual billing supplier would lack customers.

As background, on November 6, 2025, the Commission opened a docket, requesting that comments be filed by November 14, 2025, addressing: (1) whether it is in the public interest to require monthly price data under PUA §§ 7-510(g) and 7-604.2(e) and any of the tables proposed by Staff in its Recommendations to be filed publicly; and (2) any legal and policy considerations if monthly price data under PUA §§ 7- 510(g) and 7-604.2(e) and any of the tables proposed by Staff in its Recommendations are filed publicly, including the applicability of the Maryland Public Information Act.

On November 14, 2025, the following parties filed comments: Maryland Energy Advocates Coalition (“MEAC”), Staff, and OPC.

“MEAC argued that all monthly price data from a supplier should be publicly filed to align with the intent of SB 1, and Staff’s confidentiality argument is weakened by the fact that customer numbers and total energy distribution data are published annually, by supplier, in U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) reports.”

“Staff continued to argue for confidential filings in its comment, stating that a supplier’s expectation of privacy exists because this monthly price data has been filed confidentially in the past.14 Staff asserted that publicizing monthly price data would exceed the intent of SB 1, would give other suppliers competitive advantages, and would be counter to how its related filings have been docketed historically.15 Staff also contended that SB 1 only required one offer to be made public (via the Commission’s energy choice websites), but the legislation did not require suppliers to publicize all offers, which would be disclosed should the data in Tables 2 and 3 be made public.”

“OPC argued that any expectation of the supplier’s privacy can and should be removed by Commission order directing this data into public view, and all data should be public in order to meet transparency and accountability standards.17 OPC stated that a side by-side comparison of SOS and retail supply costs can help competitors determine how to market to customers.18 OPC argued further that the monthly price data is mostly in the aggregate and does not identify trade secrets, heavily protected algorithms, customer information, or proprietary strategy.”

The Commission, previously in Order No. 91638, included in its directives a requirement that utilities and retail suppliers submit monthly price data reports, as required by Senate Bill 1 (“SB 1”), under Annotated Code of Maryland, Public Utilities Article (“PUA”) §7-510(g).