Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Tariff topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SMECO and staff clash over lighting tariff rate changes; commission takes matter under advisement
Summary
At a Dec. 3 PSC meeting staff recommended accepting language clarifications to SMECO's street- and area-lighting tariffs but opposed changing distribution-based rate components outside a full rate case. SMECO said changes are revenue-neutral and willing to forego certain charges; the commission took the matter under advisement.
The Public Service Commission took up proposed revisions to Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative’s lighting tariffs on Dec. 3, hearing staff analysis and a detailed response from the cooperative before deciding to take the matter under advisement and issue a written order.
Brandon Bowser, a PSC staff analyst, told commissioners that SMECO’s filings (Sept. 15, Sept. 23 and Nov. 13, 2025) would clarify customer eligibility, itemize LED options, correct untariffed charges that had been applied to some bracket lengths, and improve tariff language. Staff recommended accepting the revised tariff language (Attachment C) but recommended denying proposed modifications to base distribution rates and handling untariffed charges in a separate proceeding. Staff noted the filings produced a revenue-recovery shift of $61,491 from schedule AL to schedule SL.
Damon Krieger, representing Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, said staff and the cooperative were 'about 90% of the way aligned' but that the remaining issues were important to SMECO and its customer members. Krieger said the cooperative supported the Nov. 13, 2025 filing and asked for an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026. He argued the proposed changes are 'revenue neutral' and framed them as administrative streamlining to make LED options clearer, not an attempt to increase authorized revenues. Krieger said SMECO was 'willing to forego' pole- and bracket-related revenue and asked the commission not to include those line items in the tariff for administrative simplicity.
Staff replied it supports tariff-language reforms but opposes changing distribution-based rate components outside the full base rate case process, citing commission precedent against single-issue rate making. Commissioners questioned both sides on the practical impact for customer bills and on whether the changes properly belong in a rate case. The cooperative said any remaining distribution recovery differences would be addressed in a future base rate proceeding and that it was not seeking special accounting treatment.
After debate, the commission did not vote on the substance at the meeting and instead said it would take the filings under advisement and issue a written order in the coming days.
