Dive Brief:
- Maryland regulators approved Exelon Corp.'s bid to acquire Pepco Holdings almost six months ago, but the deal is still under fire by the state's consumer advocate and a growing coalition is backing that opposition, the Baltimore Sun reports.
- The Maryland Office of People's Counsel asked the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County to direct the state state regulators to reconsider the deal, and now Attorney General Brian Frosh is supporting that petition. Frosh's filing questions whether consumers will have the same access to renewable energy and grid modernization efforts if one utility serves 80% of the state.
- Exelon's last week was better down in the nation's capital, however, as Utility Dive revealed a letter from seven of the 13 D.C. Councilmembers asking the city's utility regulators to approve a settlement deal on the merger.
Dive Insight:
Exelon is still trying to convince regulators in the District of Columbia that it's acquisition of Pepco is a good idea — the city rejected the deal in August, but is now reconsidering, after the company enhanced commitments to ratepayers and renewable energy.
Now, the Chicago-based company faces the proposition of convincing Maryland stakeholders all over again, a battle it thought was won.
Maryland AG Frosh submitted a "friend of the court" memorandum asking a judge in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County to require the Maryland Public Service Commission to reconsider its approval. Also involved are the Sierra Club and Chesapeake Climate Action Network, both of which opposed the deal from the outset.
Exelon already owns Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, so approval of the deal would mean it controlled three of Maryland's four major electric utilities, including 80% of the state's power customers. Frosh's statement also pointed out that Exelon owns one of the country's largest fleets of power plants.
"Marylanders need and deserve innovation, efficiency and lower prices, but if Exelon acquires Pepco and Delmarva, we would be stuck in place," Frosh said.
In order to force regulators to reconsider, petitioners would need to prove the PSC did not satisfy an obligation to ensure there was "no harm" to Maryland consumers from the deal. According to the AG's filing, the regulators failed to satisfy that obligation, "because a three-member Commission majority, over two dissenting votes, refused to consider how the transaction would impede the ongoing transformation of Maryland's electric industry."
