The Maryland Public Service Commission voted to adopt new regulations adding COMAR 20.50.15, "Electric System Planning," at a commission meeting, finalizing rules the commission said mirror statutory requirements for distribution system planning.

The regulations implement provisions in the Electric System Planning Scope and Funding Act requiring utilities to align distribution planning with 12 state policy goals and must be in place by Dec. 31, according to a work-group representative. Commissioners and stakeholders debated whether the word "efficiency" should remain in the regulations, how discovery in future utility filings should be limited, whether resiliency belongs in Phase 2 or Phase 3 of the work group, and the significance and breakdown of a combined cost estimate of roughly $101 million tied to implementing the new rules.

John Borkoski, speaking for the distribution system planning (DSP) work group, told the commission the regulations were drafted to mirror statutory language and reminded commissioners that "these regulations are required by statute to be implemented by December 31." He said the work group developed the proposed regulations for final approval and that two filings had been received during the comment period: a joint filing by the Maryland Exelon utilities and a separate filing by Paul Burzynski.

Crystal Barnett, speaking on behalf of the joint Maryland Exelon utilities, asked the commission to remove the word "efficiency" from one subsection, arguing that "the word efficiency creates an unmeasurable standard" and therefore introduces ambiguity into the regulation. Borkoski responded that the regulation's wording mirrors the statute and that similar qualitative terms (for example, "safety") are commonly used in regulations. Several commissioners voiced agreement with keeping the statutory language. One commissioner said, "I am in favor of just keeping the language in." The commission retained the term "efficiency."

Utility representatives also raised concerns about discovery. Doug Mikheel, representing Delmarva Power and related companies, said "discovery should not be unlimited" and proposed that reasonable limitations be modeled on established discovery rules; he added that federal and Maryland rules of civil procedure were offered only as illustrative examples. Doug said the utilities' suggested language aimed to cabin when discovery can occur and to avoid an open-ended process. Opposing that tightening, Jacob Auslander of the Maryland Office of People's Counsel emphasized that non-utility stakeholders will be "at an extreme disadvantage" without robust access to information early in the process and said discovery will be critical for meaningful participation. Deandre Wilson of commission staff said staff had no position on removing "efficiency" but suggested adding "resiliency" to the DSP objectives; Borkoski and others said resiliency had been directed to Phase 3 of the work group and should be considered in that later phase.

Commissioners pressed for process clarity on discovery. One commissioner asked whether discovery limitations could be addressed through case scheduling (as in rate cases) rather than by prescriptive regulation; stakeholders generally agreed that scheduling orders could address timing and scope when utilities file specific DSPs. Several commissioners said the topic could be revisited if discovery became burdensome.

Stakeholders and commissioners also focused on the economic-impact figures filed alongside the proposed regulations. Borkoski and staff recounted a combined estimate that appeared in the Maryland Register filings: a roughly $101 million figure described during the meeting as a gross, rough-order-of-magnitude cost that encompassed initial implementation costs and five years of ongoing costs for five investor-owned utilities. A staff member clarified the split reported to commission staff as about $99 million for the five utilities over five years, with agency costs reported separately. Commissioners asked for an itemized breakout and questioned whether the analysis included benefits; one commissioner said the filing's language could be read as presenting costs without offsetting long-term benefits and requested further detail. A utilities representative said the number was not intended to signal opposition to distribution system planning and that the utilities had participated extensively in the work group to reach consensus on the regulatory text.

Commissioners discussed assigning follow-up work to the Phase 3 work group to examine the cost estimate and provide more detailed, itemized information. One commissioner suggested the commission could refer the cost-question to the work group so stakeholders could "have some crosstalk about this" instead of providing only an aggregated number.

After discussion, a motion to finally adopt the new chapter and regulations published in the Maryland Register was made and approved. The motion as stated on the record read in part: "I move to finally adopt the following new chapter and new regulations as published in the Maryland Register on 09/05/2025, subject to nonsubstantive changes necessary to conform to COMAR drafting requirements, adding COMAR 20.50.15, Electric System Planning, and COMAR 20.50.15.01 through .06." The transcript records the vote as "Aye" from Commissioner McClain, Commissioner Linton and Commissioner Sutphren, and the motion passed.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to adopt new chapter and regulations (COMAR 20.50.15 and .01-.06): approved (voice vote). Recorded affirmatives in the transcript: "Commissioner McClain. Aye. Commissioner Linton. Aye. Commissioner Sutphren. Aye." The motion passed.

The commission's adoption finalizes Phase 2 regulatory text while leaving several process questions for later work: the retained statutory language on "efficiency," discovery timing/scope to be managed via case scheduling or Phase 3 work-group development, and resiliency to be addressed in Phase 3. Commissioners requested an itemized, documented breakdown of the utility cost estimates to accompany future implementation steps and noted that benefits of distribution system planning had been described in the Maryland Register but were not quantified in the cost filing.