Executive Update

June 2006

County Executive James T. Smith Jr.
400 Washington Avenue
Old Courthouse Mezzanine
Towson, Maryland 21204
410-887-2450
E-mail Address: jimsmith@co.ba.md.us

Dear Friends of Baltimore County,

Recently, I had the opportunity to review the case regarding the Public Service Commission and BGE that was before Judge Albert Matricciani of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. In that case motions were filed by both BGE and the PSC. BGE’s motion requested that the case be turned over to the PSC so that the Commission could “provide an expeditious adjudicatory hearing.” On that day the PSC followed suit advising the court that it was “willing to hold an evidentiary hearing.”

These motions requesting the circuit court to allow further evidentiary hearings make it clear that the Public Service Commission seriously mishandled its responsibilities in regards to BGE’s requested rate increase and in a ruling on May 30, 2006 Judge Matriccianni agreed ordering the PSC to hold a new hearing on the proposed electricity rate increase.

Problems With The Process

Both of these requests by the PSC and BGE to allow the Public Service Commission to conduct further hearings concedes the complaints made with respect to the inadequacy of the prior Public Service Commission proceedings. The complaints regarding the Public Service Commission’s BGE proceedings include: conducting one hearing in a room which resulted in interested parties being turned away, refusal to reconvene a further hearing, meeting in secret with only four Commissioners present, refusing to allow admission of relevant evidence, and refusing to allow for the cross examination of witnesses.

The requests of BGE and the PSC acknowledge the PSC’s disregard of existing laws. The Supreme Court has held that an administrative body is obliged to follow its procedural rules and any failure to do so is considered a violation of procedural due process. Such a violation has clearly been perpetrated by the PSC in this matter.

It is obvious from the legal motions filed by the PSC and BGE that they appreciate the seriousness of the PSC’s failures and want the opportunity to satisfy the requirements of the law. It is truly regrettable that before the Public Service Commission would agree to do the people’s work and conduct a further hearing, it took: first, a lawsuit by Baltimore City and a Circuit Court stay, and second, BGE’s filing of its own motion to agreeing to have an evidentiary hearing.

Need For Change

With the PSC and BGE’s recent concessions and requests for further hearings, and Judge Matriccianni’s ruling, a fresh approach to such further hearings is absolutely necessary. It strains credulity to believe that the same commission members who made up their minds through such a flawed process, and are now requesting the opportunity to reconvene could give the further proceedings the fair and impartial hearing and deliberation that is so urgently needed.

Thus, I joined with Howard County Executive Jim Robey and Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens in urging the Governor and Presiding Officers to call a Special Session as expeditiously as possible and at the very least, to change the make-up of the Public Service Commission. Any further hearing with respect to the BGE rate increase should be considered by people who have not already expressed their opinions in a tainted process and who could exercise their independent judgment respecting this matter of such significance to the people of Maryland.

With the recent decision by Judge Matricciani that the PSC must have another hearing to determine if the 72 percent increase by BGE is justified, it is more important than ever that a new PSC hear this case so that families in Maryland receive the fair and impartial hearing to which they are entitled.

James T. Smith, Jr.
Baltimore County Executive

Revised June 1, 2006