Public Advocate Statement from April 22, 2026 PSC Meeting

Posted on April 23, 2026

Statement regarding PECO’s decision to withdraw their current rate case in Pennsylvannia.

This winter was absolutely brutal for utility customers, and those are customers who are already under significant financial strain, dealing not only with utility costs but other costs, inflation, and the broader economic state of our country. We had many customers this winter who came to us with utility costs that were higher than their mortgage or their rent, and that is absolutely unsustainable.

And we know that the standard offer service rate is going to increase by another 18 to 20% this summer, and that’s at roughly the same time that interim rates will go into effect on Delmarva’s new rate case. And so, interim rates on that $67 million rate case—which, for people who don’t understand what rate case parlance means, which is almost all of us—$67 million rate case means 67 million more dollars from ratepayers to Delmarva each year in annual revenue.

I wanted to remind the commission, and I’m sure you all remember, that it was only back in November when Delmarva’s leadership—Tyler Anthony, Jaclyn Cantler, and Marcus Beall—all came before the commission and presented their state of the company, and that state of the company report emphasized affordability for their customers repeatedly.

It indicated that customer value and affordability was one of the components of their North Stars to deliver affordable solutions. They presented a customer affordability strategy, the purpose of which was to alleviate customers’ energy costs, and all of this.

I was reminded of all of this with the news in the last week that PECO, Pennsylvania’s one of their largest utilities, announced that it will withdraw its latest rate case, which sought a $429 million increase for electric service and another $81 million increase for natural gas. This move is an incredible blessing for ratepayers in Pennsylvania, who will now be avoiding that $500 million in additional costs each year.

And, as we all know, Delmarva filed for a $67 million rate increase in December, just a month after they came and presented their state of the company and emphasized affordability. And in that rate case, they seek a 10.5% return on their equity, which I find utterly staggering in this moment of energy cost affordability crises.

Delmarva customers should not bear the burden of these repeated cost increases, which are piled on top of prior rate increases. This is the third in just five years, and, if granted, this would squeeze customers at the same time they’re already being squeezed by natural gas rates, increasing capacity costs, increasing and other costs that can’t be controlled in these same ways.

Delawareans should not have to choose between paying for food or rent or other necessities.

And so, if Delmarva wanted to make good on its promise of customer affordability as their North Star, the solution seems pretty simple: it could withdraw its rate case increase request. This is what PECO has done, evidently recognizing that this is not a moment where customers should bear these increasing costs, and Delaware families are facing just the same challenges that those customers in Pennsylvania are.

We are in 100% agreement with Delmarva that now is the time to focus on affordability, to recognize the concerns that people are facing, and to try to fix what we can.

And so, I would urge Delmarva to take a look at what has happened in Pennsylvania and consider what they do with their rate case request.