News Stories

From Commission Letter: 

[ *** ] After considering the matter, the Commission hereby grants the Maryland Joint Utilities’ request. Accordingly, until further order of the Commission, PC60 is held in abeyance so that interested stakeholders, as well as the Commission, can focus on implementing SB 1 of 2024.

From OPC Request for Reconsideration: 

[ *** ] OPC recommends that the Commission reverse its decision to grant the Joint Utilities’ request to suspend PC 60, as well as their request to start a new proceeding to implement SB1, and instead consider regulations to implement SB1, together with all other proposed supplier reforms, within the existing PC 60 docket. [ *** ] 

In the absence of reconsideration, the Commission should modify its decision to make clear that any new proceeding it creates for consideration of SB1-mandated reforms will also include consideration of other proposed supplier reforms, including but not limited to those OPC proposed in its November 6, 2023 comments.

OPC recommends this reversal for several reasons. First, although SB1 includes a number of requirements that when implemented will make strides to reform the retail energy supply market in Maryland, there are outstanding customer protection issues that SB1 does not address that still need to be considered by the Commission. OPC and the Maryland Energy Advocates Coalition (“MEAC”), in their respective previous comments, proposed several revisions to regulations governing retail suppliers, some of which have not been addressed in SB1 but are important customer protection measures that should be considered by the Commission. A significant consequence of complying with the Commission’s decision to grant the request for abeyance would be the lack of contemporaneous consideration of these measures along with the requirements under SB1. As further discussed below, contemporaneous consideration of the proposed regulatory reforms provides for administrative efficiency, as well as the best ability to ensure all proposed regulations work coherently with each other and result in comprehensive reform of the retail supplier market. Importantly, the Commission has not indicated in its grant of abeyance when any already proposed reforms not mandated by SB1 would otherwise be considered. [ *** ] 

The Commission should take a holistic and proactive approach to reforming Maryland’s retail supply market instead of trying to reactively fix issues in piecemeal after complaints have been identified. The Commission in suspending PC 60 without ruling on the other additional reform proposals is missing an opportunity to proactively address significant issues that are preventing the retail supply market from providing economic benefits for all customer classes in Maryland. Furthermore, directing all supplier reforms to be handled in a single comprehensive proceeding will be more efficient and avoid the need to docket multiple rulemaking proceedings to implement any reforms the Commission determines to be in the public interest. There has already been a great deal of work done under PC 60 docket by a significant number of stakeholders that can assist the Commission in not only implementing SB1 in a timely manner, but also achieving a holistic reform of the retail supply market. Suspending the PC 60 docket runs afoul the intent of both the Commission in docketing PC60 and the legislature in passing SB1 to holistically reform the energy retail supply market so that it could truly work for the economic benefit of Maryland residential customers.

Finally, the Joint Utilities assert that their recommendation is based largely on certain requirements of SB1 going into effect on July 1, 2024. Although SB1 itself goes into effect on July 1, 2024, OPC is unable to identify any specific requirements within SB1 that the Commission must implement by July 1, 2024. The Joint Utilities fail to specify a particular provision of SB1 that underlies their assertion of urgency. [ *** ] 

From Maryland Energy Advocates Coalition’s Comments: 

[*** ] MEAC understands that the Public Service Commission (Commission) must carry out the numerous directives of SB1 within tight timelines and address the potential initiatives of MEAC and other stakeholders that are still on the table in PC60. However, MEAC disagrees with the Maryland Joint Utilities that this situation means that PC60 should be moved to the side while the utilities and all stakeholders focus on implementing the elimination of Purchase of Receivables (POR). MEAC agrees that the technical and operational details of utility implementation of a POR alternative will take significant effort. However, the Commission, utilities and stakeholders can accomplish this POR task while concurrently addressing the other important requirements of SB1 and other stakeholder proposals not explicitly addressed by SB1. MEAC agrees with OPC that the many initiatives in both PC60 and SB1 can be addressed while the extensive utility programming and project management to eliminate POR and establish an alternative billing option are pursued. For example, many of the SB1 requirements and PC60 stakeholder proposals include licensing, pricing and consumer protection requirements that require new or modified Commission regulations. The Commission could establish separate working groups within PC60 to address these issues with differing deadlines, with Commission guidance:

1. Purchase of Receivables: This will be the most labor intensive 2. Licensing: Existing licensing regulations provide a framework, which will need to be modified to include salespersons and vendors and consider proposed additions to application requirements, including proposals by MEAC and OPC. 3. Price restriction formulas: a. Non green power – new and modified regulations b. Green Power – new regulations 5. Consumer protections and disclosures – New and modified regulations 6. Training and education 7. Reporting processes 8. Other – Other issues raised by stakeholders, including MEAC and OPC, that do not have strict deadlines. 

MEAC raised several issues, as did OPC, that touch upon or relate to SB1 requirements. These include MEAC’s proposals for debt collection restrictions, data privacy, billing formats, and business records. It makes the most administrative sense to consider these proposals in tandem with the specific SB1 requirements related to licensing, consumer protection and disclosures. As a result of this order, it is not clear when or if the Commission intends to allow stakeholders to address these matters before the Commission. MEAC is concerned that the Utilities’ request, and the Commission’s order, foreclose stakeholders’ opportunities to pursue these proposals. 

MEAC requests that the Commission reconsider its order and maintain the June 11 date for additional comments and hold the June 27 hearing. At the same time, it should establish concurrent working groups within PC60. The additional comments will assist the Commission in identifying what issues are still outstanding in PC60 – that is, those proposals not specifically addressed by SB1. The Commission can quickly establish working groups and a deadline for POR implementation and solicit suggestions for additional working groups and deadlines. MEAC would be happy to join those timeline discussions and appropriate working groups to the extent feasible.

Finally, MEAC notes that retail suppliers currently are offering long-term contracts to residential customers. These contract terms will extend well past the January 1, 2025, effective date for certain SB1 price and other requirements. MEAC requests that the Commission take immediate action to notify the public that the terms of these contracts will extend past the January 1, 2025, date for SB1’s pricing restrictions and other protections.

Commission Letter – Grante of Request for Abeyance (No. 21) (06/04/2024)
OPC Request For Reconsideration (No. 22) (06/04/2024)
Maryland Energy Advocates Coalition – Request for Reconsideration (No. 23) (06/05/2024)
PC60 (06/02/2023) 
Maryland Energy Advocates Coalition’s Petition For Rulemaking