News Stories

On August 14, 2026 the Maryland Work Group filed a timeline update for the Unified Benefit Cost Analysis (UBCA) framework Phase II for all Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) in Maryland.

The Maryland PSC opened this proceeding in response to a filing from the leader of the Electric Vehicle Work Group.

Most Recent Activities:

UBCA Work Group held Meeting 1, reviewing draft report section on Distributional Equity + Rate & Bill Impact Analyses Guidance on August 12, 2026.

Parties also filed comments on UBCA Work Group Phase II, Part 1 report as highlighted below:

OPC said that it now supports all proposed methodologies, inkling “use of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s (LBNL) Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) calculator to estimate the value of electric utility system reliability… in the absence of an alternative approach to monetizing reliability in the UBCA,” provided MDPSC: (i) require the utilities, when including “reliability impact for the first time using the ICE 2.0 calculator… conduct the UBCA test with and without electric utility system reliability to understand the magnitude of this impact on a program’s BCA results”; and (ii) “does not solely rely on the results of the ICE calculator for determining the prudency of utility investments”

MEA recommended that: (i) “project-specific benefit-cost analyses for major utility capital investments should be developed and reviewed through the Electric System Planning” process; (ii) “affordability considerations receive greater emphasis during implementation”; and (iii) MDPSC “resolve the methodologies that involve partial agreement or no consensus so that a consistent UBCA framework may be implemented across the state”;

Joint Solar Parties: (i) recommended the “use of power system modeling (PSM) for avoided energy costs should have a goal of corresponding as closely as possible to locational marginal prices (LMPs) in the PJM energy markets”; (ii) cautioned that the proposed “’ [f]uture marginal energy and capacity costs should be estimated using power systems modeling that compares scenarios with and without DER projects and programs’… may become unworkable as DER amounts increase, because the ‘DER-Out’ case becomes increasingly unrealistic as expected DER penetration grows”; (iii) recommended that, “to avoid difficult judgement calls about whether a distribution investment is summer- or winter-related, the calculation of avoided distribution costs at the system level should calculate a single value that includes… all distribution investments that add capacity to the system in any season divided by… the increase in distribution capacity at the annual peak that is added by these investments,” where this “system-wide marginal distribution cost then can be annualized and allocated across the peak hours of the year… based on a metric like the Peak Capacity Allocation Factor”; and (iv) questioned the report recommendation “that consideration of the resiliency benefits of DERs be optional given that ‘the likelihood of such a DER initiative providing measurable additional resilience benefit to the grid as a whole is relatively low’,” since “DERs that include storage can provide an assured back-up supply of electricity, improving the availability of a basic level of electric service during less-frequent, higher-consequence ‘black sky’ events when the grid is out for a lengthy period,” which can have broad ratepayer benefit during extended interruptions.

Next Steps – UBCA Work Group Meetings

Meeting 2, reviewing draft report section on UBCA Test Implementation/Process Recommendations, scheduled for 9/8/26.

Meeting 3, reviewing draft report section on Economic Development Analysis Guidance, scheduled for 10/13/26.

Meeting 4, reviewing full report, scheduled for 10/13/26.

The Phase II, Part 2 report is due by October 31, 2026.