News Stories

Most recently, Staff and RESA filed responses opposing OPC’s Request for Rehearing of the Office of People’s Counsel’s (“OPC”) request for rehearing of Order No. 92427 maintaining the confidentiality of supplier specific energy usage.

Staff and RESA requests that the Commission deny the Motion because it does not satisfy the rehearing requirements in COMAR 20.07.02.08 D and, in any event, the Commission’s decision in Order No. 92427 maintaining the confidentiality of supplier specific energy usage was correct.

Staff and RESA reiterate that filings in this proceeding reveals that the Commission has already considered and rejected OPC’s arguments in its Motion. This process began on September 2, 2025, when Commission Staff (“Staff”) submitted its Recommendations for Utility Reporting of Dual-Billing and Supplier Consolidated Billing for Residential Customer Prices Paid Reporting.

On November 6, 2025, the Commission requested 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 to be filed publicly, including the applicability of the Maryland Public Information Act.

On November 14, 2025, Staff and OPC filed comments (“Staff’s Comments” and “OPC’s Comments,” respectively). Staff continued to advocate for confidential filings, stating that a supplier’s expectation of privacy exists because this monthly price data has been filed confidentially in the past.3 Staff asserted that publicizing monthly price data would exceed the intent of Senate Bill 1 (“SB 1”), would give other suppliers competitive advantages, and would be counter to how its related filings have been docketed historically.4 Staff also argued that SB 1 only required one offer to be made public, 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.

In OPC’s July 2, 2026 motion, requested once again that the Commission require suppliers to publicly disclose their total energy usage. OPC repeated previous arguments presented in its prior OPC Comments. OPC argues that the Commission’s disposition in Order No. 92427 erroneously permits suppliers to continue filing supplier-specific total energy usage confidentially, despite the information consisting of aggregate usage totals and comparable information that becomes publicly available through U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) reporting after a defined period. OPC again argues that the Commission should require supplier-specific total energy usage to be reported publicly unless a legally sufficient basis for confidential treatment is established.

On July 29, 2026, the Commission invited interested stakeholders to file comments on OPC’s Motion by August 12, 2026.

Staff – “A petition seeking to reverse or modify a decision, order, or requirement of the Commission shall: (1) Fully set forth the facts, circumstances, and consequences relied upon; and (2) Allege: (a) The facts and circumstances which have arisen after the hearing or order which justify the reversal or modification; or (b) The consequences resulting from compliance with the decision, order, or requirement which justify or entitle the applicant to the reversal or modification.”

“OPC’s request for rehearing does not satisfy COMAR 20.07.02.08(D)(2)(a)-(b). As stated above, a petition seeking to reverse or modify a decision “shall allege the facts and circumstances which have arisen after the hearing or order which justify the reversal or modification, or the consequence resulting from compliance with the decision, order, or requirement which justify or entitle the applicant to the reversal or modification. OPC has not satisfied either of these requirements. OPC has not alleged any new facts since the Order was issued. OPC has not proven the consequences that would result from compliance with the Order. In fact, OPC has confused the data it requests. While it is correct that EIA makes Maryland residential retail supplier sales data publicly available by supplier, it is not the same data OPC wants made public. On page 10 of the request, OPC states “and comparable electric usage information becomes publicly releasable through federal EIA reporting after a defined period”. The data OPC references, EIA 861 data, is different than the data OPC wants utilities to report in a key respect. EIA 861 unbundled supplier data provided on the EIA website is statewide data.”

“The data OPC is asking to be made public is by utility service territory. The PC 67 monthly filings by suppliers provide residential sales by service territory. It is not the same as the monthly and annual residential retail supplier sales data EIA makes publicly available on its website; the EIA data is statewide. Statewide residential sales data differ greatly from retail supplier sales data by service territory. The two data sets are not comparable in terms of data another retail supplier could use to target another supplier’s existing residential customers.”

“For the reasons stated above, Staff respectfully recommends that the Commission deny OPC’s request for rehearing in the referenced matter.”

RESA – “opposes the Motion on several grounds and respectfully requests the Commission to dismiss the Motion in its entirety. . . . “OPC has not satisfied the specific requirements for a petition under COMAR 20.07.02.08 D, which provides as follows: A petition seeking to reverse or modify a decision, order, or requirement of the Commission shall: (1) fully set forth the facts, circumstances, and consequences relied upon; and (2) allege: (a) the facts and circumstances which have arisen after the hearing or order which justify reversal or modification; or (b) the consequences resulting from compliance with the decision, order, or requirement which justify or entitle the applicant to the reversal or modification.”