PSC pauses action on Pepco/Delmarva 'no checks accepted' tariff language; companies agree to withdraw filing amid ongoing case

Commissioners at the Maryland Public Service Commission on May 14, 2025 reviewed proposed tariff language from Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) and Delmarva Power and Light Company intended to formalize a longstanding company policy restricting a customer's ability to pay by check after multiple returned checks.

Drew McAuliffe of commission staff said the companies filed revisions to incorporate a no-checks-accepted policy that “has been in place since at least 2015.” Staff had discovered a discrepancy between Delmarva’s “At Your Service” guide and its tariff and recommended updating the tariff to eliminate customer confusion; staff noted the filings are governed by sections of the Public Utilities Article cited in the companies’ and staff’s filings.

Assistant staff counsel Ruthie Herman told the bench the commission must act on the filing within the statutory review period, saying the commission “has to decide today about this tariff” because statute gives the commission 30 days from filing to act. Representatives for the companies and the Office of People's Counsel (OPC) debated whether commission action before an evidentiary hearing in case 9727 (phase 2) would affect that litigation. Isaac Lindenbaum of OPC urged deferral, saying the commission “should not approve DPL's request to tariff revisions and should instead defer consideration of the requested revisions until after case 9727 has concluded.”

Matt Seager, counsel for Pepco and Delmarva, said the proceeding before the administrative law judge “does not concern the no checks policy,” and described the filing as consumer-protection language that aligns the tariff with the customer guide. Seager added that the practice is used by all PHI companies and appears in Delmarva’s Delaware tariff.

Commission discussion explored procedural options. Chair Hoover proposed suspending the tariff for up to 180 days while the pending litigation proceeds. Commissioner Linton suggested the companies instead withdraw the filing; the utilities offered to do so. That course would remove the immediate procedural obligation on the commission while leaving the companies' operational practice unchanged.

Key policy details discussed: under the proposed language a customer who has two returned check payments in a rolling 12-month period would have the return-check fee waived on the first occurrence, would be charged a return-check fee on subsequent returned checks, and could be placed on a 12-month no-check payment status starting from the second returned check. Staff and company witnesses described alternative payment methods available to customers (cash, certified check, money order, credit/debit card, wire, direct debit) and said energy-assistance referrals remain an option for customers with payment difficulties.

The commission did not adopt tariff language at the meeting. Instead, after discussion the filer agreed to withdraw the tariff filing; staff and OPC will continue to monitor the related case, No. 9727, which had an evidentiary hearing scheduled for May 15, 2025.

The commission flagged procedural follow-up: if the filer re-files language later the commission would resume its statutory review obligations; if the commission had suspended the tariff it would have been able to do so for up to 180 days under statute.

The companies and staff emphasized the policy had been in operational use for years and the filing was intended to bring Maryland tariff language into alignment with customer-facing materials.