Say no to another rate increase from BGE

Baltimore Gas & Electric just announced yet another rate increase that it says will add an “average” of eight dollars a month to its customers’ bills starting next year. In its filing with state regulators it calls this a “bare-bones strategy.” At the same time BGE was making this announcement, the governor announced plans to aid with state assistance those whom he calls the most vulnerable families, meaning payments to them of tax dollars to offset these high utility charges. This does nothing to solve the problem of excessive and, for many, unaffordable utility charges.

It is accurate that BGE would call its rate hike ‘’bare-bones” because its rate hikes over the last several years have indeed picked the flesh off of many of its customers’ bones to a point where they are bare. For a lot of people, there’s not much left. In asking for this increase at a time when inflation has been rising, and on the back of numerous other rate increases, BGE claims that the rate increase is necessary to ensure safe and reliable power to its customers. In other words, these increases are going to pay for BGE’s infrastructure, meaning its hard assets.

Two years ago last month, the Public Service Commission reported that since 2010, BGE rates have tripled, increasing from $.26 per therm to $.85 per therm. 2026 rates were projected to rise to $.94 per therm. These increases have been at a rate of at least three times the rate of inflation.

At the time of the 2024 report, Washington Gas rates had increased at a rate equal to inflation, not three times that rate. The reason cited was its slower pace of infrastructure spending.

Exelon, the owner of BGE also owns the other primary utilities that operate in the Maryland area. These are PEPCO and Delmarva Power. Clearly, its Maryland monopoly is complete.

The PSC is an independent state agency that is intended to regulate public utilities, such as BGE. It is supposed to assure safe, reliable and economical utility services. Services may be safe and they may be reliable, but they are hardly economical. It needs to approve these rate increases for them to go into effect, and likely it will.

In order for some to pay for electrical services, Maryland has had to provide subsidies using tax dollars in the form of assistance and rebates. Just as BGE announced its new rate increase request, the governor was explaining that the new utility RELIEF act will hold utilities accountable by capping some expenses, otherwise payable by customers, and will provide assistance to the most needy customers. Yet none of this serves to reduce the cost of utilities because BGE has applied for, and will very likely be granted by the PSC, yet another rate increase. It would appear that Maryland customers are the ones building the fixed assets on BGE’s balance sheet through these excess and excessive charges and are getting very little in return.

These are very hard times for a lot of customers, but even customers who are able to pay these increases should not be saddled with these constant increases and high costs.

We call upon the governor, the legislature and the PSC to scrupulously scrutinize these applications for rate increases.

It is time to think outside of the box and explore whether the state should invest in infrastructure that it can lease to BGE. At least then, BGE will not have an excuse to raise its rates over infrastructure costs and the state can earn some of the money, as a return on investment, that BGE is now taking from its Maryland customers. Whatever is being done is not working and something must be done to reduce these rates.

Editorial Advisory Board Members Arthur F. Fergenson, George Liebmann and Debra G. Schubert did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

Gary E. Bair

Jill P. Carter

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Liebmann

George Nilson

Steven I. Platt

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.