News Stories

As reported previously on May 12, 2026 the Maryland PSC issued a notice initiating a rulemaking and opportunity to comment regarding revision to the retail electric and gas rules to Subtitles 53 and 59 of COMAR Title 20.

Most recently on June 25, 2026 RESA filed comments  requesting permission to submit comments out of time to address the proposed revisions.  RESA’s comments notes that the proposed rules generally address the following issues: 1) Senate Bill 1’s prohibition of residential purchase of receivables (“POR”); 2.) The elimination of residential utility consolidated billing (“UCB”) unless directed by the Commission; 3) The imposition of new language regarding payment posting for partial customer payments, applicable to all customer classes; and  4)  The imposition of new rules addressing late payment charges imposed by retail suppliers that utilize dual billing to serve residential customers.

“RESA’s comments are targeted and limited. RESA takes no position on the proposed elimination of residential POR, but opposes the unnecessary elimination of residential UCB, recommends preserving existing pro-rata payment posting principles, and urges the Commission to conform the proposed dual-billing late-fee provisions to the already-established supplier consolidated billing (“SCB”) rules. In sum, the proposed rules go beyond what SB1 requires and introduce unnecessary complexity that will harm competitive supply and customers without a demonstrated consumer-protection benefit.”

1. Elimination of POR – Proposed Rules 20.53.05.06(A)(1) and 20.59.05.03(A)(1):

Proposed rules 20.53.05.06(A)(1) and 20.59.05.03(A)(1) generally track the language of SB1 to eliminate residential POR and provide for usage and billing adjustments. RESA takes no position on these revisions.

2. Elimination of UCB – Proposed Rules 20.53.05.03(A) and 20.59.05.01(A):

“RESA opposes the elimination of residential UCB. As RESA has previously explained, SB1 did not require elimination of UCB, only residential POR. Eliminating UCB exceeds what is necessary to implement SB1 and unnecessarily impairs retail choice. RESA has also previously explained the importance of UCB: (1) residential customers overwhelmingly desire to receive one energy bill; (2) suppliers rely on UCB to reduce their operating costs and offer lower prices and various products and services to customers; and (3) the existence of UCB helps to level the playing field between a utility, which has an inherent competitive advantage as a result of being a legacy monopoly with captive customers, and suppliers, who must recover their costs through the prices they charge to non-captive customers. The Commission has acknowledged that a residential market that allows only for dual billing “is a regression of a positive market for customers or retail choice providers and thus is not a preferred option.”

Note that RESA’s  proposed language providing that, “A utility is required to provide utility consolidated billing for residential retail supply after December 31, 2027, as directed by the Commission.”

More specifically, the current rule language states that, “A supplier may elect to use utility consolidated billing,” but Maryland PSC Staff proposed additional language conditioned upon the proviso “if provided by a utility.”

3. Payment Posting – Proposed Rules 20.53.05.06(A)-(B) and 20.59.05.03(A)-(B):

“The proposed rules expand the utility’s authority to choose between POR (for nonresidential customers) or to prorate a customer’s partial payments between the utility and supplier.

The proposed rules are unnecessarily complicated. First, SB1 did not apply to nonresidential customers. Therefore, there is no reason to change the current process that allows the utility to choose between POR or pro-rata for non-residential customers.

Second, for residential customers, the Commission years ago determined that, absent POR, pro-rata was a reasonable methodology that treated the utility and the supplier equally when partial payments are received. Suppliers do not have the “stick” of service termination for non-payment and, therefore, should not be paid last for arrearages and last for current charges.

Moreover, the Commission determined in 2019 that pro-rata was appropriate for SCB. In doing so, the Commission rejected what appears to be the same “payment posting sequence” that the proposed rules seek to incorporate here. There is no reason to have a different payment posting mechanism for UCB. Furthermore, the proposed rules refer to POR, pro-rata, or “a Commission approved payment posting sequence to apportion customer payments between the utility and a supplier.” A pro-rata posting system is a “payment posting sequence” that apportions payments between a utility and a supplier.”

4. Supplier Late Payment Charges for Residential Dual Billing – Proposed Rules 20.53.07 and 20.59.07:

“The proposed rule is inconsistent with the SCB rules and is administratively complex. First, in COMAR 20.53.08.04(B) and 20.59.08.04(B), the Commission adopted rules that simply and plainly allow an SCB supplier to charge a late payment fee up to 5% (“A supplier may not charge a late fee in excess of 5 percent.”). Rather than follow that straightforward precedent, the proposed rules here would adopt an unnecessary and administratively complex month-to-month methodology with incremental consumer protection benefit that will result in significant customer confusion.

Second, the proposed late fee rules will result in higher operational costs by suppliers that utilize dual billing. A supplier providing dual billing, and that wants to charge late payment fees to incentivize timely payment, will be required to incorporate these late payment charge capabilities into its systems and to track them monthly, which will result in higher operational costs and higher prices for its customers.

“A supplier providing dual billing takes on significant non-payment risk – just as a supplier providing SCB – and cannot disconnect for non-payment. SCB has a process to address SCB customers who do not pay – non-paying customers are returned to utility service, and the utility is required to reimburse the supplier for the distribution charges for which the supplier paid the utility. The SCB supplier is then responsible for the commodity charges, similar to the risk assumed by a supplier that utilizes dual billing. The only recourse for the SCB supplier and the dual billing supplier to collect unpaid commodity charges is to return the customer to utility commodity service and commence collections proceedings. They cannot disconnect a customer’s service. Thus, there is significant payment risk for suppliers that engage in both SCB and dual billing, and the late payment charges should be the same for both billing methods.

Finally, arbitrarily basing the calculation on net costs versus gross costs inexplicably ignores other legitimate charges owed (taxes and surcharges) and for which a supplier carries the time value cost of money. All other businesses/creditors calculate late fees based on gross amount, which is standard commercial practice. There is no reason, and none has been provided, to calculate late charges based on a net amount.”

As background the Commission invited interested parties to file comments on the matter by June 8, 2026.

The Commission further gave notice that it will conduct an in-person only rulemaking session on Wednesday, June 24, 2026.  The purpose of the rulemaking session is to consider whether to publish the proposed regulations as submitted in the May 11, 2026 request, as initially submitted, or revised based on comments received. If the Commission approves the proposed regulations for publication, the proposed regulations will be published in the Maryland Register for notice and comment as provided for by the Maryland Administrative Procedures Act.

As reported previously, on May 6-8 Washington Gas Light Company,  Montgomery County, and the Maryland and Office of People’s Counsel  filled comments.