Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Ownership Evse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over utility ownership of public EV chargers surfaces at PSC hearing
Summary
At the Public Service Commission hearing utilities defended ownership of chargers in underserved locations while Office of People’s Counsel, staff and public EV drivers questioned whether utilities should continue to own and operate public EV charging stations.
A policy debate over whether Maryland’s investor‑owned utilities should own and operate public electric‑vehicle charging stations surfaced repeatedly at the Public Service Commission hearing on Aug. 1, 2025.
Several utilities told commissioners that they stepped into the public charging market to serve locations the private market would not, and that continuing ownership helps ensure equitable access in corridors and rural areas. BGE, PHI utilities and Potomac Edison said private network operators often decline sites with low expected utilization; utilities argued their participation filled gaps and supported drivers in less commercially attractive locations.
Opposing witnesses — including a coalition of public commenters, the Office of People’s Counsel, and EV drivers who monitor chargers — urged a phase‑out of utility ownership. They said utility programs have not delivered the promised reliability, that vendors and OEMs have provided inconsistent service, and that reliance on contractors has left utilities without “skin in the game.” Some urged that private providers, if properly incentivized, could build and operate chargers more efficiently.
Regulatory staff said the question of whether utilities should continue to own chargers is nuanced. Staff noted utilities are already responsible for equipment that has been placed in rate base or regulatory assets and said targeted utility ownership may still make sense where market gaps persist, for example in rural corridors. Staff and some commissioners favored a middle path: preserve some utility‑owned assets where they fill demonstrable gaps (workplace programs, multi‑unit dwellings and rural fast‑charging corridors), consider phased retirement or transfer of legacy, low‑use or obsolete equipment, and require clearer vendor performance obligations and reporting before any broad divestiture.
Public commenters at the hearing pressed the commission to clarify public participation channels and to hold utilities accountable for maintenance and replacement of aging chargers. The commission did not adopt a policy change during the hearing; commissioners asked staff and stakeholders to model phased scenarios, identify stranded‑asset risks, and examine how costs would be treated if ownership changed.
