Maryland regulators publish draft electric system‑planning rules after hours of debate on metrics, data and “as feasible” language

The Maryland Public Service Commission voted on June 26 to publish proposed electric system‑planning regulations for public notice and comment, following a hearing in which utilities, state agencies and advocacy groups pressed competing views about data access, performance metrics, the role of non‑wire alternatives and the meaning of “approval.”

The regulations, developed by the commission's Distribution System Planning work group, are intended to implement statutory directives and the Electric System Planning Scope and Funding Act. John Borkoski, speaking for the DSP work group, told the commission “these regulations, once approved, will result in an annual multi day technical conference for commission consideration of electric company annual system, plan updates and also preliminary electric system plans,” and reminded commissioners the rules are required by statute to be effective by “12/31/2025.”

Why it matters: The rules will shape how Maryland utilities plan for increasing electrification, distributed energy resources (DERs), electric‑vehicle charging and grid modernization — decisions that affect reliability, customer bills and the state’s climate goals.

What stakeholders said - The Office of People’s Counsel argued the rules must require integrated, transparent and enforceable planning. Jacob Auslander of OPC said planning should not “treat this transformation like it’s optional,” and warned that without plan approval “there is no mechanism to compel revisions to deficient plans.” He urged standardized disclosures and stronger metrics so stakeholders can compare utility plans. - Environmental and electrification advocates called for more detailed DER and EV planning. Sari Amiel of Sierra Club urged the commission to use this docket and related dockets to ensure utilities develop granular load forecasts, hosting‑capacity analyses and timely interconnection standards that anticipate fast growth in EV loads. - State agencies pressed for more data and integration. Joyce Lombardi of the Maryland Energy Administration told commissioners the agency supports removing vague “as feasible” language from key provisions and urged mandatory coordination between electric and gas planning and with transmission planning. - Utilities said the rules should balance transparency with operational reality and cost impacts. Crystal Barnett (Exelon/BGE) said utilities have made “a step change” toward hourly forecasting but warned against overly prescriptive rules that would impose large IT and staffing costs on customers. Potomac Edison and SMECO asked for phased compliance and special timing for smaller utilities; SMECO highlighted affordability concerns and said uniform metrics could drive investments that are not cost‑effective for all customer bases.

On metrics and data: Many speakers urged quantifiable metrics that allow comparison across utilities; utilities warned that some proposed metrics duplicate other proceedings and would create undue burden. OPC and several nonprofits pushed for harmonized metrics and a data disclosure schedule that would allow meaningful stakeholder review; staff asked the commission to clarify which metrics belong in this docket and which are better handled in other, subject‑matter proceedings. Several parties recommended a bench order and continued work‑group work to align metrics and data reporting before the first full filing cycle.

On non‑wire alternatives and hosting capacity: Advocates urged explicit requirements to evaluate non‑wire alternatives (storage, targeted efficiency, demand response and flexible EV charging) and to incorporate locational analyses into planning. Utilities agreed these resources should be considered but said planning must remain flexible and recognize current technical limits.

Commission action and next steps The commission voted to publish the proposed COMAR chapter 20.50.15 (electric system planning) for notice and comment, with the chair saying staff and the work group will continue to refine regulatory text and the commission will issue a follow‑up order giving direction to the remaining work. The adopted motion (as read into the record) directs publication in the Maryland Register subject to non‑substantive COMAR drafting changes and continued work on remaining issues, including metrics, discovery/controlled data access and certain definitional matters.

Direct quotes from the record - “These regulations, once approved, will result in an annual multi day technical conference …” — John Borkoski, DSP work‑group representative. - “Planning also needs to include serious consideration of non wires alternatives, not just default to traditional capital upgrades.” — Jacob Auslander, Office of People’s Counsel. - “We absolutely, support that being, stricken.” — Joyce Lombardi, Maryland Energy Administration, on the phrase “as feasible.” - “We don't want to over invest, we don't want to under invest because both of those circumstances result in suboptimal impacts to our customers.” — Crystal Barnett, Exelon/BGE.

What the rulemaking will require or prompt - Utilities must develop and publish electric system plans and annual updates under a multi‑day technical conference process. The draft rules reference planning goals tied to state policy and an iterative work‑group process to refine metrics and data disclosures. - The commission and staff will continue work‑group activity to harmonize metrics and to determine the practical scope and timing of data reporting. Commissioners signaled willingness to accept phased or staggered implementation for some utilities while preserving an expectation of more detailed DER forecasting, locational analysis and stakeholder access to information.

Limitations and outstanding questions The commission and stakeholders agreed the work is iterative. Parties asked for clarity on (1) how commission review or “approval” of electric system plans will interact with later prudency reviews in rate cases; (2) where to draw lines between data that can be made public and confidential system or CEII material; and (3) how to align metrics across multiple dockets (EVs, storage, empower) so planning uses consistent inputs. The PSC recorded that additional orders and further work‑group proceedings will address many of these points.

Next events The regulations will be published for public notice and comment in the Maryland Register; the PSC directed the DSP work group to continue refining metrics, disclosure schedules and related procedures ahead of the first filing cycles. The rules are intended to be in place by statute by December 31, 2025.