All over Maryland, energy utilities are prematurely terminating consumers’ long-term fixed-price gas supply contracts. But it’s hard to get an answer why from public officials, which I attribute to a Kafkaesque conspiracy against the public.
Consider my experience with the early termination of my 12-month fixed-priced gas contract. On Dec. 4, 2024, I signed a contract with a Maryland-licensed gas supplier. My service began on Jan. 1, 2025. Weeks later, the supplier informed me that my service would be terminated effective Feb. 1—eleven months early—due to the Public Service Commission (PSC) regulation §4-308. When I asked for details, the company would only tell me I had done nothing wrong and should contact the PSC to learn how §4-308 caused the early termination.
I was skeptical of the company’s explanation because gas prices had risen, so the company had a financial reason to terminate my good deal. But I eventually decided that even if that was the case, the company wasn’t the underlying cause.
My next step was to try to talk to a person at the PSC to understand how its regulation caused the cancelation. Alas, I found that impossible to do. A voice recording told me to file a written complaint, which I did on Jan. 24 in the hope my service wouldn’t be terminated on Feb. 1. In response, a representative from my energy supplier called me and informed me that service cutoffs in Maryland were widespread, but she couldn’t answer why. To find out, I should ask the PSC, which I did in writing on Jan. 30. As weeks went by without an answer from the PSC, I began to think that maybe my energy supplier was correct in blaming the PSC.
I next contacted my state senator in the hope she could explain the PSC’s role in terminating my gas contract. Her staffer briefly told me that the problem lay with Senate Bill 1, which the Legislature passed in 2024 and labeled a consumer protection bill but which mistakenly included a loophole that allowed my gas company to do what it did. For the details, she promised me a written letter, a variation of which was being sent to many legislators’ constituents. But the letter contained no such details. Instead, it blamed the termination on unspecified “bad actors entering the market to take advantage of vulnerable residents.” It then encouraged me to file a “supplier complaint” with the PSC, despite the PSC’s failure to answer my complaint being the cause of my contacting my senator in the first place.
Finally, I called BGE, my utility company, which answered my question. Maryland’s Legislature effectively granted Maryland energy suppliers an option to stop supplying energy service even if they had long-term contracts with customers. All they had to do was temporarily give up their license to serve Maryland customers. My energy supplier was one of many ones that had decided to exercise that option
So here’s what I think explains the motivation of the various players to point fingers while engaging in a Kafkaesque game of obfuscation. The PSC feared that it wouldn’t be politically prudent to blame its boss, the Legislature, for creating this loophole. My gas supplier, in turn, may have wanted to blame the PSC but not get into the details for fear of public official retribution and customer reputational damage when it wanted to reenter Maryland’s energy market. And given that rising energy prices have become a highly salient political issue, the Legislature would not only seek to avoid blame for its pseudo consumer protection legislation but also not want to be too specific in blaming others because those blamed might have the means and motive to fight back by educating the public. Hence, the Legislature’s vague “bad actors” language and referral to a PSC complaint process that was obviously broken and possibly intentionally so.
As to how the loophole infected Senate Bill 1, I have a theory. Maryland legislators may blame the loophole on an unintentional “error.” But the Legislature makes so many such “errors” that I think a more plausible explanation is that some well-connected industry lobbyist got legislators to insert the loophole into the legislation.
The benefit of the conventional elite blame game is that the result tends to educate the public via conflicting arguments. What makes this blame game feel like a conspiracy against the public is the elites’ shared interest in hiding the truth via ambiguous blaming.
Recent Comments