Michael Guest

This winter, Maryland families were hit hard by soaring energy bills. So when Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) and its parent company Exelon announced a $2.5 million customer relief fund, it was framed as a welcome act of compassion. But look closer: The relief is modest, narrowly targeted and overshadowed by the millions these companies spend protecting profits and shaping the policies that govern them. BGE’s announcement landed amid record household stress and yet another wave of rate increases.

Last year, Exelon utilities pledged about $19 million across BGE, Pepco and Delmarva to support low- and moderate‑income customers. For BGE families, the maximum grant was $750 — helpful, but hardly enough to offset today’s staggering energy costs. And because BGE’s newest relief fund applies only to gas customers, thousands struggling with rising electric bills are left with nothing.

Exelon has since touted an additional $10 million in customer relief nationwide, including in Maryland. But as many families have asked: Why should anyone applaud a multibillion‑dollar monopoly for returning table scraps?

Because the real numbers tell a different story.

In a single reporting period, Exelon Maryland utilities spent over $1 million lobbying Maryland policymakers — BGE spent $440,000 alone. Pepco spent even more. These companies deploy fleets of lobbyists to influence legislation covering everything from energy policy to oversight of the rates they charge. Meanwhile, Exelon has launched a multimillion‑dollar ad campaign urging Maryland to “change the rules” and let utilities return to owning power plants — a move aimed at boosting corporate profits, not lowering customer bills.

And that’s only the visible spending. Utilities and their trade associations pour millions into brand‑building campaigns, political events and behind‑the‑scenes advocacy that rarely receives public scrutiny. A national report by the Energy and Policy Institute found that utilities often attempt to recover political, advertising and image‑boosting costs through customer rates — expenses that provide no direct benefit to the people paying the bills. If that’s happening here, Marylanders may literally be funding the campaigns designed to block reforms that could lower their bills.

So while Exelon highlights occasional relief funds, Marylanders continue paying for influence operations that keep rates high, weaken oversight and maintain a system designed to maximize returns to investors rather than minimize costs for families. That imbalance should concern every household, regardless of income or ZIP code.

Short‑term checks cannot fix long‑term affordability challenges. Maryland needs a regulatory system that aligns utility spending with the public interest — one that values transparency, consumer protection and meaningful accountability over corporate public relations. That means: Stronger oversight of utility spending and capital investments; clear limits on charging customers for political, advertising or branding costs; rate structures that reward efficient, cost‑effective service instead of unchecked spending; and regular audits to ensure utility investments actually deliver public benefit.

Relief should be structural, not symbolic.

Marylanders make a simple bargain with monopoly utilities: The company maintains the poles, wires and pipes that power our lives, and in return receives a guaranteed rate of return paid by every customer. It is entirely reasonable to expect that decisions made under this arrangement serve families first — not just Wall Street investors.

Maryland deserves an energy system where affordability, accountability and the public interest come before corporate PR. Until our regulatory framework demands that alignment, Marylanders will be overpaying for power so that corporate shareholder profit targets are achieved.

Michael Richard is a former member of the Maryland Public Service Commission and aide to former Gov. Larry Hogan. He is a senior fellow and policy adviser at Colorado State University’s Energy Institute policy center and a member of the Regulatory Assistance Project’s Advisory Board.