Maryland PSC bars Pepco from offering live rejoinder after surrebuttal filings

The Maryland Public Service Commission on the record in case No. 9655 declined Pepco’s request to present live rejoinder testimony after the utility filed surrebuttal testimony shortly before the hearing.

The decision followed competing arguments from parties and staff about whether allowing rejoinder after surrebuttal would be customary and fair. Chair, Maryland Public Service Commission, citing the company’s surrebuttal filings, announced the commission would not permit live rejoinder in this proceeding, a ruling Pepco opposed as a departure from prior practice.

Why it matters: The commission’s ruling determines whether Pepco — which bears the burden of proof in the reconciliation — would be allowed an additional oral opportunity to respond to issues raised in surrebuttal testimony. Allowing rejoinder can affect the record parties may rely on and influence how witnesses are questioned and examined at hearing.

Pepco counsel Kim Curry argued the company has repeatedly used surrebuttal and live rejoinder in prior multi-year rate plan (MYP) proceedings and that rejoinder is an important way to complete the record and respond to material filed late. Curry cited multiple prior Pepco cases going back to 2016 and said the company intended to limit rejoinder to responses to surrebuttal testimony.

Intervenors including the Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) and the Apartment and Office Building Association (AOBA) objected. OPC counsel said Pepco had included substantial new material in its surrebuttal and that permitting rejoinder would deprive intervenors of time to review, consult witnesses, and pursue discovery. AOBA asked the company to identify specifically what new issues rejoinder would address and which witnesses would offer rejoinder testimony, or else the hearing should proceed without rejoinder.

Staff counsel told the commission staff did not join the objection but noted it is "very unusual" for a company both to file surrebuttal and seek live rejoinder. Commissioners discussed a middle ground — limiting rejoinder strictly to matters raised in surrebuttal — but the chair ultimately ruled that because Pepco filed surrebuttal testimony the company would not be allowed live rejoinder in this proceeding.

The chair's ruling drew company protest that it represented a change from what Pepco characterized as a long-standing practice and would impair Pepco's ability to present its last word in the case. The commission instead directed Pepco to identify portions of surrebuttal that would have been the focus of rejoinder and allowed parties to raise objections during examination if they believed questioning rehashed prior written testimony.

Other preliminary rulings at the hearing included permitting one witness to testify virtually for medical reasons and several witnesses being waived for cross-examination by parties. The commission also admitted several exhibits into the record during the session.

The commission will proceed to hear testimony and exhibit evidence without Pepco presenting live rejoinder; parties signaled they will object at the line-by-line level if questioning strays beyond the scope of surrebuttal.