Thirty years ago, Marylanders were promised that barring utilities from power generation and introducing government-mandated faux competition would lower electricity prices.
That promise remains unfulfilled.
Families and small businesses across Maryland are concerned about rising electricity costs—and rightly so. According to revised figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Maryland electricity rates have surged 17 percent over the past year. Despite astounding increases in power bills, some policymakers and pundits support maintaining the current rules that bottleneck supply and forbid utilities from generating power. A recent Maryland Reporter commentary stated that Marylanders need “energy relief, not more utility monopoly power” and cautioned against allowing utilities to resume electricity production.
The truth is that Maryland utilities do not have “too much power over the market,” as the commentary’s author alleges. The real problem is that competition in power supply is forbidden, and everyone pays the price.
Maryland is part of the PJM Interconnection, a regional wholesale electricity market where utilities are largely required to purchase power from independent generators rather than produce it themselves. Those costs are then passed directly to consumers. That means when wholesale prices spike, Marylanders pay, even though the local utility does not control generation and does not profit from those supply costs.
The companies that do benefit from higher wholesale prices are the independent power producers, or IPPs, that sell electricity into PJM’s markets. This is not real competition, and it is certainly not “deregulation”—the usual word used to describe the PJM status quo. Utilities in Maryland are already heavily regulated by the Public Service Commission. They are accountable to state regulators, subject to public oversight, and required to justify their investments. Yet they are largely restricted from building the generation that could help meet rising demand and stabilize prices.
At the same time, IPPs dominate the supply side of the electricity market. When supply is tight, PJM’s auction prices rise. Those costs then flow through to Maryland households and businesses. This approach exposes, rather than protects, consumers to high prices and continued volatility. For example, “In Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, customers … said their monthly bills have surged dramatically in recent months, in some cases doubling to as much as $800 or $900.”
To educate Americans on these issues and advocate for market reforms, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance created Consumers for Affordable Electricity (CAE), an consumer watchdog group focused on the market dynamics driving higher electricity costs.
As CAE has pointed out, PJM’s own independent market data shows wholesale electricity costs in the region surged by 56 percent in 2025, driven by rising demand and supply that is not keeping pace. As expanding electrification, advanced manufacturing, and economic growth inevitably increase electricity use, the system has struggled to bring new generations online fast enough. It’s little wonder that PJM has “openly questioned its own design and mission” as it “struggles to address an electricity supply crunch and a political crisis around energy affordability.”
Opponents of reform argue that allowing utilities to build generation would give them “too much power over the market,” but the reality is that current restrictions give IPPs—not utilities—too much power.
In fact, allowing utilities to compete in generation would increase competition, not reduce it. It would add another class of builders to the market. It would give Maryland more options to meet demand and reduce reliance on a system in which consumers are exposed to volatile wholesale auctions controlled by generators not directly accountable through market forces to Maryland ratepayers.
Other regions of the country already use a more balanced approach. In many traditionally regulated states, utilities can build and own power plants while independent producers also compete through contracts and solicitations. These systems are not perfect, but they often provide more stable pricing because supply planning is tied directly to customer needs through competition and market forces. Maryland ought to learn from that experience.
The issue is not whether independent power producers should exist. They should—if the market sees a need for them. But Maryland should not continue preventing regulated utilities from competing alongside them to build the power the state needs.
It is also important not to blame demand itself. Data centers, advanced manufacturing, and electrification are signs of economic growth. Restricting demand will not lower bills. It will push jobs, investment, and innovation elsewhere.
Maryland needs more generation, faster infrastructure development, and a market structure unhindered by bureaucratic bottlenecks. That means allowing utilities to build and own generation alongside independent producers, so all qualified participants can compete to provide affordable and reliable electricity.
Marylanders should reject a broken status quo and embrace real competition, greater supply, and lower costs over time.
Ross Marchand is the executive director of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Recent Comments