News Stories

The Maryland PSC issues an order denying the Office of People’s Counsel (OPC’s) request for hearing order, in which the Commission clarified the filing requirements for the electric and gas utility and retail supplier monthly price data reports, as required by Senate Bill 1 (“SB 1”).

On July 29, 2026, the Commission issued a Request for Comments in response to the motion. The Commission’s Technical Staff (“Staff”) filed its comments on August 7, 2026, and the Retail Energy Supply Association (“RESA”) filed comments on August 12, 2026.

For the reasons stated below, the Commission denies the motion.

As background, Order No. 92427 directed retail suppliers to 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 had authorized the redaction of this information in a previous order. The Commission also required retail suppliers to publicly report their monthly supply costs and compare those costs with default service. Additionally, Order No. 92427 directed utilities to publicly list retail suppliers by customer count and post purchase of receivables billing method. The Commission noted in its Order that retail suppliers have shielded their total energy supply information from public disclosure since the inception of monthly billing reporting, and referenced publicly available information, pertaining to total energy supplied to customers, provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”).

In its motion, OPC argued that the Commission should require supplier-specific total energy supply data to be reported publicly unless there is an established, legally sufficient basis for keeping the information confidential. OPC adds that alternatively, the Commission can adopt reporting standards similar to EIA by shielding monthly supplier data for a period of time before ultimately making it public.

Staff argued that OPC’s request for rehearing did not satisfy Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) 20.07.02.08(D)(2)(a)-(b), which requires that a petition to reverse or modify a Commission 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.”

Staff and RESA also argued that OPC mischaracterized the data that it requested to be publicly filed, noting that EIA publicly discloses Maryland residential retail supplier sales data by supplier, but it differs from the data relevant to OPC’s motion, which comprises residential sales by service territory. RESA elaborated on the EIA data, describing it as “monthly and annual residential retail supplier sales data at a statewide level, while the data OPC seeks to be publicly disclosed involves more sensitive, proprietary business information.

Staff and RESA further maintained that the two sets of supplier data are “not comparable in terms of data another retail supplier could use to target another supplier’s existing residential customers.”13 RESA also noted that OPC had made similar arguments prior to the issuance of Order No. 92427, which the Commission had rejected.

For the reasons articulated by Staff and RESA the Commission denies OPC’ request for rehearing.