04/09: The House Economic Matters Committee in the Maryland House of Representatives
voted nearly unanimously to kill Governor Martin O’Malley’s electric
re-regulation bill. The governor stated that he plans to resubmit the bill
to the legislature sometime in 2010.
Source: Maryland Energy Administration
http://energy.maryland.gov/
02/09: The Maryland State Finance Committee introduced Senate Bill 795, titled “the
Maryland Electricity Reregulation and Energy Independence Act of 2009.” The
bill stated that competitive retail electric markets have not developed as
envisioned by the state’s nearly 10-year old electricity industry restructuring
law. Furthermore, Governor Martin O’Malley issued a media release stating
that deregulation had failed in the state of Maryland and that the Governor
and his administration would support reregulating Maryland’s electricity
markets.
Source: Maryland Energy Administration
http://energy.maryland.gov/
12/08: The Maryland Public Service Commission issued a report that said the
State should not try to buy back power plants that were sold when the State
deregulated its electricity markets. Instead it should consider new laws to
protect consumers. The report was ordered by the Maryland State General Assembly
in 2007 and recommended that the General Assembly consider placing future power
supplies under some form of regulation to stabilize prices and to guarantee
that the State's electricity needs are met. The report also suggests that the
Public Service Commission and State legislature work together to partially
re-regulate electricity rates by shifting the jurisdiction of future power
plants to the State. Maryland's still-regulated utilities could be required
to build new plants or enter contracts for regulated electricity. The commission
said it plans to study those options next year.
Source: The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com
05/07: Senate Bill 400 was passed by the Maryland General Assembly. The bill
requested that the Public Service Commission “reevaluate the general
regulatory structure, agreements, orders, and other prior actions of the Public
Service Commission under the 1999 Maryland Customer Choice and Competition
Act. The newly passed bill also requested the “determination of and allowances
for stranded costs” and to “conduct hearings” as part of
its evaluation of the 1999 Settlement.
Source: Maryland Public Service Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/
11/06: “On November 8, 2006, the Public Service Commission (“Commission”)
issued Order No. 81102, establishing, inter alia, a procurement program for
Standard Offer Service (“SOS”) for Residential and Type I commercial
customers. The program applied to the investor-owned electric public service
companies for the provision of SOS which was scheduled to begin on June 1,
2007. In Order No. 81102, the Commission also stated that bid week schedules
for SOS procurement would include a public hearing for the purpose of receiving
a briefing from the Commission’s SOS consultant and the Commission’s
Technical Staff (“Staff”) concerning the conduct and results of
the SOS solicitation.”
Source: Maryland Public Service Commission
http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/Casenum/NewIndex3_VOpenFile.cfm?ServerFilePath=C:\CaseNum\9000-9099\9064\107.pdf
10/06: Constellation Energy and FPL Group terminated plans to merge.
Source: Constellation Energy
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=112182&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=921050&highlight=
09/06: Maryland Court of Appeals overturned legislature’s efforts to
depose the Public Service Commission (PSC). However, the court stated that
the legislature was in it rights to remake the PSC and did have authority over
appointing members.
Source: Maryland Court of Appeals
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2006/140a05.pdf
07/06: The Maryland General Assembly planned to limit the 72-percent rise
in BGE electricity prices by placing a cap on price increases of 15-percent
and to defer the BGE from collecting the difference for 11 months.
Source: Department of Legislative Services, Office of Policy Analysis
“
The Road to Electric Restructuring in Maryland, December 2006 (hard copy).
07/06: The rate freeze in the BGE service territory expired. The market price
obtained through the Standard Offer Service competitive auction process in
the BGE service territory was expected to increase 72 percent.
Source: State of Maryland Public Service Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/Info/brochures/BGE_MitigationPlanFactSheet.pdf
07/06: The Maryland General Assembly planned to limit the 72-percent rise
in BGE electricity prices by placing a cap on price increases of 15 and to
defer the BGE from collecting the difference for 11 months. PEPCO and Delmarva
customers were offered a similar arrangement with the opportunity to pay back
deferred expenses over 18 months.
Source: Department of Legislative Services, Office of Policy Analysis
“
The Road to Electric Restructuring in Maryland, December 2006 (hard copy).
06/06 Senate Bill-1 and House Bill-1 vetoes were overwritten.
06/06: Senate Bill-1 was vetoed by Governor Ehrlich.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006s1/billfile/sb0001.htm
06/06: Senate Bill 1 (SB1) and House Bill 1 (HB 1) were introduced in the
Maryland General Assembly. SB1 and HB 1 were intended to implement the following
goals: “Limiting the increase in electricity rates in a specified service
territory for a specified period; requiring specified electric companies to
obtain electricity supply for extended standard offer service to specified
customers in specified manners; authorizing the Public Service Commission (PSC)
to take specified actions concerning competitive auctions and implementation
of electricity rates; altering the criteria for appointment to the PSC and
the method of appointment of the People's Counsel; etc.” SB 1 also proposed
eliminating the People’s Council.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006s1/billfile/SB0001.htm
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006s1/billfile/hb0001.htm
06/06: Maryland Public Service Commission instructed BG&E to implement
Order No. 80764.
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Council
http://www.opc.state.md.us/c/202/Request-for-Rehearing-Commission-Order-Case-No.-9052
06/06: Maryland state government held a special session to deal with electricity
price crisis. Governor Ehrlich suggested following a rate stabilization plan
with utilities allowing “customers to limit the rate increase exposure
to 15% this year, 25% next year, and then market level in January 2008. Opting
in to this plan would allow customers to repay the deferred charges interest-free.”
Source: State of Maryland, Office of the Governor
http://www.gov.state.md.us/
05/06: Baltimore city Circuit Court issued an order “vacating, reversing,
and remanding Order No. 80764.
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Council
http://www.opc.state.md.us/c/202/Request-for-Rehearing-Commission-Order-Case-No.-9052
05/06: Maryland Office of the People’s Council restated its opinion
released in March 2006:
“The current process for procuring power, as approved by the previous
Public Service Commission and agreed to by the utilities and the former People’s
Counsel, requires the utilities to buy power using a particular mix of one,
two, and three year contracts. This method is not optimal for customer pricing…In
our complaint, we argue that the current method of procuring electricity must
be changed to encourage:
1. competitive energy procurement solicitations for contracts covering varying
lengths of time;
2. the purchase of existing plants or construction of new generating facilities
by our local utilities;
3. long-term contracts for various electricity products, including output from
a particular generating plant or generating facilities;
4. new utility risk mitigation strategies, including hedging in the electricity
and natural gas markets;
5. diversity of suppliers;
6. diversity in the types of power-generating plants supplying our energy needs;
7. conservation and load management approaches; and
8. creation of a state power authority that could purchase an ownership interest
in generating plants with ratepayer or taxpayer funds.”
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Council
http://www.opc.state.md.us/c/190/ELECTRIC-DEREGULATION:--LONG-TERM-SOLUTIONS%20AND%20CHANGE
05/06: Maryland Office of the People’s Council recommended eliminating
the interest payment.
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Council
http://www.opc.state.md.us/c/202/Request-for-Rehearing-Commission-Order-Case-No.-9052
04/06: Constellation Energy announced that: “its subsidiary, Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company, has filed a comprehensive rate stabilization plan
with the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) that would allow BGE's residential
electric customers to reduce and defer the pending July 1 rate increase…The
rate stabilization plan is optional; it provides the time for customers to
plan for the inevitable impact of a global energy crisis." If approved
by the PSC, the plan would allow BGE customers to select or "opt-in" to
a rate stabilization program that would reduce the initial increase and spread
out the remainder. Those who opt-in would see a rate increase of 19.4 percent
July 1.”
Source: Constellation Energy
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=112182&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=845637&highlight=
04/06: The Public Service Commission of Maryland released a Rate Stabilization
Plan to help Pepco and Delmarva Power and Light Company customers more gradually
adjust to upcoming electric bill increases. The standard offer service prices
resulting from this year’s procurement process would go into effect on
June 1, 2006 for Pepco and Delmarva residential customers. Based on the competitive
bidding process, for Pepco residential customers, a typical bill would increase
by approximately 39%, or $468 annually at that time. For residential customers
of Delmarva, a typical electric bill on an annual basis would increase approximately
35% or $464 annually.
Source: Maryland Public Utilities Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/AboutUs/Press/Pepco_DelmarvaRateStablizationPlan.pdf
04/06: Public Service Commission issued Order No. 80764 which modified Order
80638 “to make it an opt-in plan, to treat interest as a deferred asset,
and to extend the plan to three and four years.”
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Council
http://www.opc.state.md.us/c/202/Request-for-Rehearing-Commission-Order-Case-No.-9052
03/06: On March 6, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 80638 (the “March
6 Order”), “which adopted a payment plan option for Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company (“BGE”) residential customers. The plan adopted
by the March 6 Order is an opt-out plan, includes interest charges at five
percent, and is two or three years in duration.”
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Council
http://www.opc.state.md.us/c/202/Request-for-Rehearing-Commission-Order-Case-No.-9052
03/06: Senate Bill 1102 (SB 1102) was put forward and is a parallel piece
of legislation to House Bill 1713 in the Maryland Senate. SB 1102 was vetoed
by Governor Ehrlich.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/SB1102.htm
03/06: House Bill 1713 (HB 1713) Emergency Bill intended to change PSC review
requirements related to electricity or gas acquisitions and mergers involving
either a public service company or a nonpublic service company. Essentially,
requires PSC approval of proposed merger between Constellation Energy Group
and Florida-based FPL Group. HB 1713 was vetoed by the governor.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/HB1713.htm
03/06: Senate Bill 1102 (SB 1102), prohibited “a specified merger between
FPL Group, Inc., and Constellation Energy Group, Inc., from occurring and prohibited
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) from increasing specified electricity
rates until Constellation Energy returned a specified amount of money in transition
costs to BGE; requiring BGE to use specified transition costs to reduce a specified
increase in specified electricity rates; etc.” SB 1102 effectively removed
the current members of the Maryland Public Service Commission. SB 1102 was
vetoed by the governor.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/SB1102.htm
03/06: Senate Bill 1050 (SB 1050) intended to “repeal the authority
for an electric company to earn a specified return in providing standard offer
service to residential and small commercial customers after the Public Service
Commission has made a specified finding that requires the extension of the
electric company's obligation to provide standard offer service.” Standard
Offer Service was viewed as a temporary measure which would be used by fewer
customers over time. SOS was meant to be automatically provided to any user
who did not designate an electricity supplier or a consumer who opted to choose
SOS. SOS was supposed to last only until July 1, 2003. During an intended four-year
transitional phase, utilities were supposed to provide SOS under frozen rates
after an initial price reduction of 3 to 7.5 percent. The rate freeze was intended
to come to an end on June 30, 2003; however, the rate freeze was extended until
June 30, 2004, and then until July 2006 and July 2008 under certain circumstances.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/SB1050.htm
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Council
http://www.opc.state.md.us/assets/documents//SOS%206-16-06%20comments%206-15-06.pdf
03/06: Senate Bill 1099 (SB 1099) intended to prohibit the “specified
merger between FPL Group, Inc., and Constellation Energy Group, Inc., from
occurring and prohibiting Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) from increasing
specified electricity rates until Constellation Energy returns a specified
amount of money in transition costs to BGE; requiring BGE to use specified
transition costs to reduce a specified increase in specified electricity rates.” Measure
was vetoed by Governor.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/SB1099.htm
03/06: Maryland Office of the People’s Council “petitioned the
Maryland Public Service Commission…to undertake an examination of the
current procurement practices of the electricity industry in Maryland, which
were the result of deregulation and restructuring of the electric industry
by the General Assembly in 1999. OPC requested the Commission to explore what
the optimal structure of the procurement process should be within the structure
of retail competition in the market for suppliers of electricity and safeguarding
the consumers from radical and volatile prices swings in the wholesale market.”
Source: Maryland Office of the People’s Counsel
http://www.opc.state.md.us/c/178/Electric-deregulation-OPC-Pursues-Comprehensive-Analysis?search_keywords=public%20service%20commission
03/06: Senate Bill 1099 (SB 1099) was passed and required Constellation Energy
to refund approximately $528 million dollars in stranded recovery costs as
a condition of its proposed merger with FPL group. Governor Ehrlich vetoed
this senate bill.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb1099t.pdf
03/06: Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. offered $25 million to help defray the
costs of higher electricity to Maryland’s poor.
Source: Baltimore Sun.
http://www.baltimoresun.com
03/06: Senate Bill 1048 (SB 1048) was put forward and required that: “the
Public Service Commission, when a specified rate cap or price freeze expires,
to determine a specified impact on residential customer bills; requiring the
Commission, if the expiration of a specified rate cap or price freeze occurred
before a specified date, to determine a specified impact on residential customer
bills; requiring the Commission to develop a specified price mitigation plan
under specified circumstances; requiring a price mitigation plan to phase in
a specified rate under specified circumstances; etc.”
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/sb1048.htm
03/06: Senate Bill 972 (SB 972) and House Bill 1736 (HB 1736) were intended
to reregulate electricity companies. The synopsis of HB 1736 and SB 972 read: “Returning
electric generation to the status of a utility service subject to regulation
by the Public Service Commission; requiring a public service company to charge
just and reasonable rates for its utility services; requiring a public service
company to file a specified tariff schedule of specified rates and charges
with the Commission; providing that a specified electric company or electricity
supplier may apply to the Commission to adjust specified rates and charges;
etc.”
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/SB0972.htm
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/HB1736.htm
02/06: House Bill 1334 (HB 1334) was enacted with the purpose of prohibiting
standard offer service rates from increasing more than five percent for residential
customers.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/hb/hb1334f.pdf
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0972f.pdf
02/06: House Bill 1334 (HB 1334) was enacted and prohibits an electric company
in any year in which the electric company has an obligation to provide standard
offer service under a Public Service Commission order from increasing the rate
for electricity charged to residential customers by more than 5%; allowing
an electric company to recover the portion of the total rate that exceeds 5%
through a standard offer service transition charge over a 5-year period; etc.
Source: State of Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/HB1334.htm
02/06: Senate Bill 814 (SB 814) was enacted and “prohibits an electric
company in any year in which the electric company has an obligation to provide
standard offer service under a Public Service Commission order from increasing
the rate for electricity charged to residential customers by more than 5%;
allowing an electric company to recover the portion of the total rate that
exceeds 5% through a standard offer service transition charge over a 5-year
period; etc.? Prohibiting an electric company in any year in which the electric
company has an obligation to provide standard offer service under a Public
Service Commission order from increasing the rate for electricity charged to
residential customers by more than 5%; allowing an electric company to recover
the portion of the total rate that exceeds 5% through a standard offer service
transition charge over a 5-year period; etc.”
Source: State of Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/
12/05: Constellation and FPL Group announced plans to merge.
Source: Constellation Energy
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=112182&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=796853&highlight=
02/05: House Bill 1525 (HB 1525) was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates.
During the winter of 2005, the market-based cost of electricity skyrocketed.
In the wholesale electricity auctions, the market-based cost of electricity
for an average residential customer was due to increase 72 percent in July
2006 in the BG&E service territory. Increases of 35 percent and 39 percent
were expected in services territories covered by Delmarva and PEPCO, respectively.
In response to a pending 72 percent electricity price increase for residential
customers of BG&E, HB 1525 required the Public Service Commission (PSC)
to extend the obligation to provide standard offer service (SOS) to residential
and small commercial electric customers unless the PSC makes specified findings;
altering the required findings and terms for extending SOS; requiring investor-owned
electric companies to obtain electricity supply for extended SOS to residential
and small commercial customers in specified manners; authorizing the Commission
to take specified actions; etc.” HB 1525 failed in the Maryland Senate.
SOS was automatically assigned to any customer who did not opt to select an
electricity supplier.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/HB1524.htm
10/03: Maryland’s four investor-owned electric utilities, Allegheny
Power, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light, and
Potomac Electric Power Company, “issued requests for proposals to solicit
bids to provide Standard Offer Service (SOS) for a share of its customer load.
Source: State of Maryland Public Service Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/Reports/Technical_Consultant_Final_Report_5-25-06.pdf
09/03: The Public Service Commission issued Order No. 78710, which approved
the technical details that support the standard offer service policy framework
set forth in April 2003.
Source: Maryland Public Utilities Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/AboutUs/Press/Phase2AgreementApproved_8908.htm
04/03: The Public Service Commission issued Order No. 78400, which required
electric utilities to continue to provide electric supply to their customers
via a standard offer service.
Source: Maryland Public Utilities Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/AboutUs/Press/PSCApprovesStandardOffer.htm
04/02: Senate Bill 285 (SB 285) required electric companies in Maryland to "conduct
a study that tracks shifts in generation and emissions as a result of restructuring
the electric industry." The electric companies must submit their studies
twice to the PSC and the Department of the Environment on or before December
31, 2003 and on or before December 31, 2005. If it is determined that restructuring
has a negative impact on Maryland's environment, then the PSC will consider "establishing
an air quality surcharge or other mechanism."
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/2002rs/billfile/SB0285.htm
01/02: The Office of the People's Counsel of Maryland claimed that the state's
electric industry deregulation plan did not produce competition. In the year
and a half since the commencement of deregulation, only 2.6 percent of residential
customers of utilities with Electric Choice programs switched suppliers. The
Office of the Peoples Counsel commanded that the General Assembly consider
revising the Electric Choice program.
12/01: The Public Service Commission established a plan for four utilities
to provide electric services at fixed rates, which was scheduled to expire
around 2004. “A central question was whether retail competition had advanced
to such an extent that the Commission could end this obligation or must the
Commission require the four utilities to provide some form of Standard Offer
Service (SSO).”
Source: State of Maryland Public Service Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/Reports/Technical_Consultant_Final_Report_5-25-06.pdf
09/01: BG&E awarded contracts for its wholesale power supplies over the
final three years of the transition period. Constellation Energy Source would
supply 90 percent and Allegheny Energy Supply Company would supply 10 percent
of BG&E's power needs, from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2006. The contracts
were awarded through a competitive bidding process. BG&E stated that the
wholesale contract prices did not exceed the frozen retail rates in effect
through the transition period.
09/00: A Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge issued an order and opinion upholding
the Maryland Public Service Commission's (PSC) approval of Baltimore Gas & Electric's
(BGE) electric restructuring settlement and generation asset transfers. The
decision followed an August 23 hearing in which the Mid-Atlantic Power Supply
Association (MAPSA) and Shell Energy LLC challenged the PSC deregulation settlement
and generation asset transfer orders.
08/00: In a hearing on August 4, 2000, the Baltimore City Circuit Court allowed
Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E) to implement a 6.5-percent rate reduction
and stranded cost recovery plan, lifting a stay imposed in July. BG&E would
provide retroactive savings from July 1, when customer choice began in Maryland.
BG&E was scheduled to defend the restructuring agreement in court at an
upcoming hearing.
08/00: The Maryland Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit
Court in Baltimore on July 20, reversing the stay issued earlier. The Circuit
Court, however, issued an interim 2 week stay on the restructuring order, scheduling
a hearing on August 4. Meanwhile, BG&E's consumers would not begin receiving
the rate reductions or the ability to choose generation supplier that were
to go into effect July 1.
07/00: The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled to delay the beginning of retail
access in Baltimore Gas & Electric's territory. The Court issued the stay
on the Maryland PSC's November 1999 order that approved BG&E's restructuring
settlement at the request of MAPSA, a trade organization representing a group
of competitive generation suppliers. MAPSA had complained that the standard
offer rate set in BG&E's territory was too low to attract competitive suppliers.
Retail access and a 6.5-percent rate reduction for residential consumers would
have gone into effect July 1 in BG&E's territory. The other utility territories
in the State were not affected by the court ruling.
07/00: Standard offer rates at the four investor-owned utilities in Maryland
went into effect July 1, with the opening of retail access across the State.
Standard offer rates for residential consumers at Allegheny Power were 4.34
cents/kWh; Conectiv's were 4.92 cents/kWh; Potomac Electric Power's were 4.99
cents/kWh; and BG&E's were 4.06 cents/kWh, and scheduled to rise to 4.28
cents/kWh by May 2003.
07/00: Rate reductions went into effect July 1, as approved in the settlement
plans for the investor-owned utilities.
07/00: As planned in the restructuring settlement, BGE froze retail rates
at a level approximately 6.5 percent below the current rates at the time. The
rate freeze was scheduled to be in effect until June 2006.
01/00: The PSC approved PEPCO's restructuring plan. PEPCO customers were scheduled
to begin retail direct access in July 2000. PEPCO also received approval to
sell its generation assets.
01/00: Allegheny Energy Inc.'s settlement plan for restructuring was approved
by the PSC in December 1999. Highlights of the plan included: Retail direct
access for almost all Maryland customers by July 1, 2000; a 7-percent residential
rate reduction, effective January 1, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2008; a cap on
residential generation rates from Jan. 1, 2002, through January 1, 2008; a
cap on nonresidential rates through Jan. 1, 2004; a cap on transmission and
distribution rates for all customers from January 1, 2002, through January
1, 2004; authorization to transfer all generation assets to Allegheny's unregulated
affiliate company, Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, at book value; the
recovery of purchased power costs incurred as the result of contracts with
PURPA QF facilities; and establishment of a fund for the development and use
of energy efficient technologies.
12/99: PEPCO began a consumer education program, PEPCO Answers, to provide
information to Maryland consumers on electricity competition. Consumers were
told that they may begin "shopping" for power in the spring of 2000,
and begin receiving power from competitive companies by July 2000. PEPCO had
filed proposals with the Maryland and DC PSC's to sell its power plants.
11/99: BG&E's restructuring settlement was approved. All consumers were
scheduled to have retail choice on July 1, 2000. Residential consumers would
receive a 6.5-percent rate reduction.
09/99: PEPCO is seeking approval of its deregulation plan that would include
a 3- percent rate reduction over 4 years beginning in July 2000, and another
4-percent reduction by eliminating a surcharge that had funded energy conservation
programs over the last decade.
09/99: Under its proposed restructuring plan, BG&E's shopping credit for
residential consumers would be 4.224 cents per kilowatt-hour and rise to 5.02
cents in 6 years, too low according to competitive companies seeking to enter
the retail electricity market in Maryland at the time. The Mid-Atlantic Power
Supply Association suggested the credit be set at 5.7 cents. BG&E said
that the low credit reflected its low prices.
08/99: Public hearings on BG&E's proposed restructuring settlement began
in August. The Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Association (a coalition of energy
supply companies) opposed the settlement on the grounds that the price to compare
for BG&E, set at 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, was too low to allow competition.
Also suggested was that the stranded cost recovery for BG&E get lowered.
The three-day hearings were concluded August 13; closings arguments were due
August 30; and rebuttals due by September 30. The PSC was scheduled to issue
a decision in October.
07/99: Baltimore Gas & Electric filed a proposed restructuring plan with
the PSC. The plan included a 6.5% rate decrease over six years for residential
customers, $528 million for stranded costs, a six year rate freeze and phase
out of transition costs, and customer choice for all residential and business
customers by July 1, 2000. Public hearings were set for July and August for
comments to the plan.
06/99: The restructuring legislation prompted Maryland utilities to revise
their restructuring proposals. BG&E submitted its new plan to the PSC:
all customers would have retail access beginning July 2000; residential rates
would be decreased 6.5 percent beginning July 2000; $528 million in transition
costs would be recovered over 6 years from customers; rates would be unbundled
and generation assets transferred to an affiliate company; and BG&E would
provide the initial funding of a low-income assistance fund and act as default
supplier for customers deciding not to switch suppliers.
04/99: With House Bill 703 (HB 703) and Senate Bill (SB 300), “Maryland
Customer Choice and Competition Act,” restructuring legislation was enacted.
The legislation included at least a 3 percent rate reduction for residential
consumers, funding for low-income programs, stranded cost recovery to be determined
by the Public Service Commission, disclosure of fuel sources by electric suppliers,
recovery of stranded costs through a non bypassable wires charge, and a 3-year
phase-in for competition beginning in July 2000 and becoming complete by July
2002. As of July 1, 2000, all customers of electric companies (had) the opportunity
to choose electric suppliers. By default, however, a customer remains with
the electricity supplied by the distributing electric company under Standard
Offer Service. The PSC (had) extended the opportunity to provide SOS.” “Part
of this Act required that all customers receive a rate reduction, followed
by a rate freeze. The rate reduction of 6.5% for BGE customers was based on
the last BGE rate case which was in 1993. The Commission’s Technical
Staff estimated that in 2005 alone, this rate reduction saved customers $474
million or an average of $30 per month per customer.”
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/1999rs/billfile/HB0703.htm
http://mlis.state.md.us/1999rs/billfile/SB0300.htm
Source: State of Maryland Public Service Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/
02/99: PEPCO signed an agreement with the Maryland PSC for a plan to bring
retail choice to its Maryland consumers as early as next year. The plan required
Maryland legislation and concurrence with the District of Columbia PSC for
the sale of PEPCO's power plants.
01/99: House Bill 3 (HB 3) and Senate Bill 65 (SB 65) allowed BG&E to
form a holding company. The law was intended to make it easier for BG&E
to enter into new business ventures in a competitive market. Maryland was the
only state that prevented public utilities from forming holding companies by
enacting HB 3 and SB 65.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/1999rs/billfile/HB0003.htm
http://mlis.state.md.us/1999rs/billfile/sb0065.htm
10/98: Five utilities in Maryland announced that they asked a state court
to stop the PSC deregulation effort until several issues were resolved, including
the issue of stranded costs recovery.
04/98: A PSC order established roundtable discussions on restructuring issues:
universal service, supplier authorization, demand-side management programs,
customer protection, competitive billing, and consumer education. The discussion
groups were to submit reports in May 1999 and July 1999.
Source: Maryland Public Service Commission
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/electric/roundtable/rtfinal.pdf
12/97: The Legislative Task Force held hearings and issued conclusions and
recommendations.
Source: Maryland General Assembly
http://mlis.state.md.us/PDF-Documents/1997rs/bills/sb/sb0851t.PDF
12/97: The PSC issued an Order 8738 establishing a framework for the restructuring
of the electric power industry. The plan's schedule: a third of the State's
consumers would have retail access by July 2000; another third by July 2001;
and the entire state by July 2002. Round table discussions to address implementation
of specific issues were to commence in April 1998. For the order to be effective,
legislation needed to be passed.
Maryland Public Service Commission
http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/Casenum/NewIndex3_VOpenFile.cfm?ServerFilePath=C:\CaseNum\9000-9099\9064\107.pdf
12/97: A PSC order stated that utilities would be allowed recovery of stranded
costs. Utilities would have to file plans for stranded cost recovery by March
1998. Competitive transition charges (CTC) and securitization were also being
considered.
04/97: Senate Bill 851 (SB 851) created a task force on electric industry
restructuring that was scheduled to issue a report by December 1997.
Source: Maryland General Assembly.
http://mlis.state.md.us/1997rs/billfile/SB0851.htm
