Office of People's Counsel budget edges up as caseload and consumer calls surge; counsel flags PJM cost-allocation concerns

The Office of People's Counsel (OPC) will see its operating budget rise by $35,000 (about 0.4%) to $8.3 million in fiscal 2026, a budget analyst told the Transportation and the Environment Subcommittee as OPC staff described a larger, more complex caseload and record-high consumer contacts.

Saviksha Pujell, a budget analyst, presented the Department of Legislative Services review and said 53% of the OPC budget — about $4.4 million — is for personal expenses and 40% — about $3.3 million — is for outside legal services. Pujell said OPC has 27 authorized positions for fiscal 2026, unchanged from fiscal 2025, and that the agency’s workload and related costs account for the modest budget increase.

The budget update came amid testimony from David Lapp, Maryland People's Counsel, about sharply higher case volumes and growing complexity of matters before state and federal regulators. "Our case participation levels reached 288 cases in fiscal 2024 — an increase of 53 cases, or 22.6% from fiscal 2023," Lapp said. He added that OPC recorded 37 favorable decisions in those matters and that the consumer-assistance phone line handled 19,307 calls in fiscal 2024, a 41.2% increase from fiscal 2023.

Why it matters: OPC represents residential utility customers in proceedings before the Public Service Commission, federal regulators and courts. Rising caseloads and consumer inquiries reflect volatile supply and rate pressures that can affect large numbers of households, committee members said.

Lapp warned lawmakers that several regional market and transmission developments driven by data centers and other factors could shift costs onto Maryland residential customers. "We continue to be skeptical," Lapp said of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, saying OPC is challenging how PJM allocates costs and is a party to the certificate of public need and necessity (CPCN) proceeding. "We challenge the cost allocation for that project — it is primarily driven by data centers mostly in Northern Virginia — and we don't think Maryland residential customers should be paying hundreds of millions of dollars for projects driven by data centers," he said.

Lapp outlined the office's dual concerns: (1) accuracy of PJM load forecasts and whether transmission or local generation investments will leave ratepayers with stranded costs, and (2) proposals that could place investment risk on ratepayers — for example, utility-owned generation put into rate base or long-term power purchase agreements. He said OPC supports cost causation principles: parties that drive grid investments should bear the associated costs where appropriate.

Committee members pressed OPC for context on the agency's funding cap. Lapp said OPC's statutory cap is set as a percentage of total utility revenues statewide and that the current cap for the office is 0.074% of those revenues; he said OPC's approved budget is roughly $1 million under that cap at present and that the office is not pursuing a cap increase in this session.

Several lawmakers asked about policy options to ease rate pressure. Lapp and the analyst emphasized near-term steps that can reduce peak demand or defer capital costs, including expanded energy-efficiency programs, demand-response measures, grid-enhancing technologies (for example, dynamic line ratings), reconductoring existing lines and accelerated deployment of storage. "Storage can actually come online faster than generation and it can also help mitigate some of those peak loads," Lapp said.

The session noted recent supplemental budget action: five positions were authorized in fiscal 2025 in response to rising workload; four of the five positions were filled, and OPC said additional training is required before those hires reduce workload materially. OPC also reported a fellow funded by New York University and internal shifts to add attorney capacity.

The subcommittee concluded with members thanking OPC staff for handling high call volumes and complex federal and state dockets. Lapp closed by praising OPC employees for their work and saying the office will provide additional detail as new analyses and filings develop.

Less critical details: the DLS analyst recommended concurring with the governor's operating budget; committee questioning ranged across technical topics such as the federal-jurisdictional share of customer bills (Lapp said about 60% of a typical Maryland customer's electric bill relates to federally regulated costs flowing through PJM), and the interplay between transmission solutions and planned coal-plant retirements in Maryland (Brandon Shores and Wagner were discussed).