Dear Members of the Maryland Public Service Commission,

We, the customers of Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), respectfully submit this petition to demand the reversal of the EmPOWER Maryland surcharge increase that went into effect on January 1, 2025. This increase—$1.13 per month for electricity and $2.53 per month for gas —has already impacted households across Maryland, adding unnecessary financial strain to families who are already managing rising utility costs and economic challenges.

BGE’s Financial Capacity and Long-Term Debt

BGE is seeking authorization to issue up to $2.2 billion in long-term debt, to cover expenses related to general corporate purposes, including the funding of its utility operations. As stated in the application to the Maryland Public Service Commission, these funds are intended to refinance debt, acquire property, and extend facilities. Given BGE's ability to issue substantial debt, we question the necessity of placing additional financial pressure on residential customers through increased surcharges.

The $4.6 billion in unsecured debt that BGE already has, combined with the ability to issue another $2.2 billion in long-term debt, demonstrates that BGE has significant financial resources to cover its operational costs without passing additional burdens to its customers. The company has access to vast sums of capital through its debt issuance and should leverage these resources to finance improvements, not use them as an excuse to increase customer costs.

The Impact of the Surcharge on Customers

The surcharge increase comes at a time when many residential customers are already struggling with inflation and increased living costs. While the EmPOWER Maryland programs provide some benefits, the surcharge disproportionately impacts low- and moderate-income families who may not have the financial flexibility to absorb such increases, especially when the utility company itself is well-positioned to handle these costs through alternative financial means.

Moreover, the programs funded by this surcharge, such as PeakRewards℠, Connected RewardsSM, and various energy efficiency initiatives, are designed to reduce overall energy consumption. Yet, customers are asked to pay higher monthly bills upfront before they even begin to see savings. This seems counterproductive, as it creates financial strain for customers while they await the long-term benefits of energy efficiency programs.

BGE’s Financial Mechanisms and Shareholder Responsibilities

BGE is a publicly regulated utility, and as such, it has responsibilities to its customers, not just its shareholders. While long-term debt issuance will help BGE finance its operations, it is unreasonable to transfer the risk of these financial decisions onto the customers that BGE is supposed to serve.

Instead of increasing the surcharge on customers, we urge the Commission to prioritize the use of BGE’s available capital—including its debt issuance and internal resources—to fund energy efficiency programs and the necessary upgrades to infrastructure. This would allow BGE to fulfill its obligations to Maryland residents without placing an undue financial burden on them.

Call to Action

In light of the significant financial resources at BGE’s disposal and the unnecessary hardship that this surcharge increase would impose on Maryland residents, we respectfully request the following actions:

Reverse the 2025 EmPOWER Maryland surcharge increase and return rates to 2024 levels.
Conduct a full review of BGE’s financial resources to explore alternative funding methods that do not place undue financial burdens on customers.
Ensure that any surcharge increases are directly tied to improvements in service quality and measurable, immediate benefits for customers, rather than used to cover operational costs that could otherwise be managed through BGE’s debt and capital resources.

Conclusion

We understand that energy efficiency programs are important for the future of Maryland’s energy landscape. However, it is essential that these programs not fall on the shoulders of residential customers, especially when BGE has the means to finance its obligations through other sources. While we support energy efficiency and sustainability, it is unfair to force customers to pay higher bills when BGE has other financial means to cover these costs. We urge the Maryland Public Service Commission to take action in favor of Maryland residents by reversing this surcharge increase. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.