Maryland Regulators Weigh Investor-Owned Utilities’ Flexible Load Proposals

Why It Matters

The approvals could unlock significant demand‑side resources, reducing reliance on costly transmission upgrades and enhancing grid resilience. Successful implementation will set a benchmark for other states pursuing non‑wire solutions.

Key Takeaways

• Utilities aim to aggregate up to 440 MW flexible load.
• BGE proposes 188 MW, Pepco 185 MW, Delmarva 34 MW.
• Drive Act mandates V2G and VPP plans by 2025.
• Commission rejected pilot proposals, asked for refiling by Jan.
• Success hinges on measurable, locationally relevant peak‑load reductions.

Pulse Analysis

Across the United States, utilities are turning to demand‑side management as a cost‑effective alternative to traditional grid expansion. Flexible‑load resources—ranging from smart thermostats to vehicle‑to‑grid (V2G) capable electric cars—provide real‑time capacity that can be dispatched during peak periods, shaving load and deferring expensive transmission projects. This shift aligns with broader federal clean‑energy goals and reflects a growing market for "non‑wire" solutions that monetize distributed energy assets.

In Maryland, the 2024 Distributed Renewable Integration and Vehicle Electrification (DRIVE) Act set an ambitious timetable for utilities to integrate these resources. The four investor‑owned utilities—BGE, Pepco, Delmarva Power & Light, and Potomac Edison—submitted detailed proposals outlining up to 440 MW of flexible load, with individual targets of 188 MW, 185 MW, 34 MW and up to 33 MW. While the Public Service Commission approved modified time‑of‑use tariffs, it rejected the pilot designs, citing insufficient clarity on how the resources would be measured, dispatched, and tied to specific grid locations. The utilities have been instructed to refine their plans by January, emphasizing the regulator’s focus on quantifiable, locationally relevant peak‑load reductions.

If Maryland’s utilities can meet the commission’s criteria, the state could become a showcase for integrating customer‑owned assets at scale, delivering both reliability and cost savings. Successful pilots would likely attract further investment in smart‑grid technologies and could influence neighboring jurisdictions to adopt similar demand‑side frameworks. Moreover, the ability to monetize flexible load could open new revenue streams for utilities and provide tangible incentives for consumers to participate in energy‑saving programs, accelerating the transition toward a more resilient, decentralized grid.