Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Choice Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County asks PSC to limit utility-consolidated-billing changes to counties authorized for CCA
Summary
At a Public Service Commission rulemaking, Montgomery County asked that edits to COMAR require utilities to provide utility consolidated billing (UCB) and purchase-of-receivables (POR) only to counties authorized under section 7-5-10.3 to implement a community choice aggregation (CCA). Staff and utilities agreed on clarifying wording but raised implementation cost and litigation-timing concerns; commissioners put contested lines on hold.
Montgomery County asked the Public Service Commission to limit certain changes to Maryland's utility consolidated billing rules so they apply only to counties authorized to run a community choice aggregation (CCA).
At the PSC rulemaking, Montgomery County read its proposed addition into the record: "A utility shall provide utility consolidated billing to a county authorized to implement a community choice aggregation, as established by section 7-5-10.3 of the Public Utilities Article of the Maryland Annotated Code." Montgomery County said the insertion clarifies that the new billing and purchase-of-receivables provisions should apply only to counties authorized by statute to operate a CCA, which by statute today includes Montgomery County.
Staff witness David Hoppeck told the bench the county's edit should be narrowly written so the provision does not unintentionally apply statewide, stressing that "only Montgomery County may implement a CCA" under the cited statutory section. Staff and several utilities proposed minor wording adjustments to make clear the service is for customers participating in a CCA rather than to the county itself; parties agreed conceptually to substitute phrasing such as "customers participating in a community choice aggregation." The Commission asked staff to prepare a written consolidated draft reflecting that language.
Utilities raised practical concerns. Baltimore Gas & Electric's representative said she had no objection to the county‑limited concept but urged the rule to state that utilities provide consolidated billing "to customers participating in a community choice aggregation," not "to the county," because billing applies to customer accounts. Other utilities said SB1's changes and the Commission's recent orders already modify how UCB and POR operate and urged caution before expanding obligations.
Several utilities also flagged implementation costs. A witness said a BGE analysis estimated implementation expenses in the $5 million–$6 million range for roughly 15,000 customers, and utilities urged reconvening a technical workgroup to sort out programming and cost-allocation issues.
Staff emphasized the Commission has addressed related issues in prior orders (including order 91463) and noted Montgomery County's requested edits do not explain how associated implementation costs would be funded if non‑POR UCB were required by Jan. 1, 2028. Commissioners also flagged pending litigation and asked staff to consult counsel on whether that case warrants delaying publication of final regulations.
Outcome: The Commission and staff agreed to "pin" several contested lines, ask staff to compile a single redline document incorporating stakeholders' edits, and schedule further work to resolve costs and legal timing before finalizing the rules.
