Affordability is at the top of the list of voter concerns, with home energy costs being particularly important. The energy crisis is an affordability crisis and demands solutions that bring together public and private interests. We thank the Baltimore Sun and its editorial on July 8 for bringing these critical issues to the fore. In the spirit of debate that is both robust and substantive, Maryland LCV offers suggestions below of actions our leaders can and should take right now to unlock opportunities that could help lower skyrocketing home energy bills and help build energy reliability in Maryland. 

First, the editorial makes no mention of data centers. Any conversation about the energy crisis in Maryland needs to address the fact that data centers are placing and will continue to place a large burden on existing infrastructure. Data centers accounted for 40% of the capacity costs of the most recent capacity auction at our regional grid operator, PJM. This has a direct impact on the supply side of your utility bill. As our partners in Bright Future Maryland note, data centers and large energy users should be required to fully pay for the grid upgrades, transmission, and infrastructure costs they create. And most urgently, we need to ensure that data centers bring their own clean energy and battery storage. Maryland has made progress on all of the above: the PSC is drafting the large load tariff now, we established a large load registry, and created incentives for data centers to bring their own clean energy. We just read that the Oregon Public Utilities Commission approved new rates for their largest electric utility (PGE), including increasing rates on data centers and other large energy users by 29.7%. And, DECREASING rates on residential customers by 1.3%. There are actions that Maryland can take to ensure the cost of supplying energy to data centers is not put on the backs of ratepayers.

Second, the editorial asserts that Maryland’s reliance on out-of-state energy is a “profound burden” and therefore justifies utility rate hikes through transmission investments. This is paired with an argument to delay the closures of fossil fuel plants and build new gas plants. What that pairing neglects to recognize is that ratepayers currently are saddled with exorbitant costs to keep coal plants online after poor planning from our regional grid operator, PJM. PJM’s decisions resulted in a no-bid contract for a transmission line that is now at least twice the cost of the original estimate, coming in at a whopping $1.5 billion dollars. And building new gas? That will take years, and it’s not cheaper than building more wind, solar, and storage, especially when you take into account the health burden from burning fossil fuels for energy. 

Third, the editorial rightly categorizes utilities as for-profit companies, but it does not mention that they are regulated monopolies that are one of the least risky investments available. A recently released Energy and Policy Institute (EPI) report collected financial data for 110 investor-owned electric utilities providing service in the United States for 2021-2024, and for 79 utilities that reported 2025 results to the SEC in time for inclusion in this analysis. EPI reports that on average, between 2021 and 2024 alone, those utilities reported approximately $186 billion in profit. Over the same four-year span, utilities retained an average of 12.8 percent of their revenue as profit. This means that the utilities examined in this report kept as profit about 13 cents of every dollar customers paid. Meaning if your utility bill is $200 a month, you are paying more than $300 a year to utility profits. We understand that utilities are for-profit entities, but during this crisis we believe utility profits and incentives tied to excessive spending and rising customer bills should be reduced. Additionally, ratepayers need to be protected from excessive and unnecessary costs of new gas infrastructure.

Finally, there are solar and wind projects, as well as new solar and battery storage technology  across the state that can contribute quickly to the energy shortfall, but are in various stages of delay due to politicized opposition. Upon completion, these projects can be up and running faster and cheaper than their fossil-fuel-based counterparts. There are numerous examples already of projects that are clean, scalable, and cost-effective. Just this week, the state’s Green Bank, the Maryland Clean Energy Center, announced a groundbreaking for a community solar project in Chestertown on the Eastern Shore and later this month, the Public Service Commission is hosting a public hearing on a number of battery storage proposals that could put more than 1 GW of storage on the grid in Maryland. And last week, when the Utility RELIEF Act went into effect, so did balcony solar in Maryland. Enterprising Maryland businesses like Flores Photovolatics already have links to buy kits and provide installation services. These are all examples of economic investments that increase clean energy, build resiliency on the grid, and guard against volatile fossil fuel prices to protect ratepayers. 

In rushing to defend utilities, this editorial takes a big swing and misses at the larger pieces of the crises at play and systemic failures that have skyrocketed our energy bills. There are solutions that will help alleviate the affordability crisis while also helping alleviate the energy crisis in Maryland. Rather, than assign blame, now is the time to work together. 

Kim Coble
Executive Director
Maryland League of Conservation Voters