Maryland’s Democratic majority is taking a victory lap on utility savings. The math behind that number relies on data generated by the contractors now accused of stealing from ratepayers.
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
Every month, quietly tucked into your utility bill, there’s a charge you probably didn’t vote for and may not have noticed. It funds EmPOWER Maryland — the state’s flagship energy efficiency program, sold to Marylanders as a way to lower bills, reduce energy demand, and cut emissions. For years, Democratic leaders in Annapolis have called it a model program. They’ve fought to protect it. Just weeks ago, they crossed the finish line on the Utility RELIEF Act, took a bow, and told Marylanders to expect $150 in annual savings.
Here’s what they didn’t mention: the math behind that number was built on data generated by contractors now accused of systematically stealing from ratepayers for years.
Marylanders didn’t gain $150 in savings. They may have just gotten some of their stolen money back.
The $150 Figure Is Not What You Think
The $150 savings estimate Democrats have been advertising isn’t money you save by using less electricity. It’s a reduction in the EmPOWER surcharge on your bill — achieved by cutting the state’s annual energy efficiency target from 2.5 percent down to 1.75 percent. The logic is straightforward: require utilities to do less, charge ratepayers less.
To calculate how much ratepayers would save under the lower target, legislative analysts and the Public Service Commission had to project the future cost of the program. Those projections are modeled on historical performance data — specifically, how much it cost contractors to achieve energy savings in the past.
That historical data is now under active investigation for fraud.
A whistleblower lawsuit, filed in 2019 and only partially unsealed this month, alleges that Lockheed Martin and its contractors overstated energy savings, billed for work that was never done, and diverted millions in ratepayer funds between 2015 and 2019 while managing EmPOWER programs for Pepco and Delmarva Power. If contractors were systematically inflating their reported savings and billing for phantom work, the historical cost-per-kilowatt-hour figures used to model the program’s future costs are not a baseline. They’re a fiction.
Which means the $150 figure Democrats are crediting themselves for may not represent a real reduction in program costs. It may largely represent the removal of fraud that should have been caught years ago. Marylanders didn’t gain $150 in savings. They may have just gotten some of their stolen money back — and only partially.
The Contractor Nobody Is Talking About
Lockheed Martin sold its Distributed Energy Solutions division — the specific unit that managed EmPOWER programs for Pepco and Delmarva during the period of alleged fraud — to a company called TRC Companies in October 2019. That sale happened the same year the whistleblower lawsuit was filed.
TRC has not publicly responded to requests for comment from multiple outlets covering this story.
That silence may be about to become more expensive. On April 21, 2026, the Maryland Public Service Commission issued Order No. 92310, which explicitly directs staff to investigate whether the alleged fraudulent practices continued under TRC’s ownership after the acquisition — and whether TRC, as the legal successor to the division named in the lawsuit, bears liability for ratepayer funds that were diverted under Lockheed’s management. The order further warns that any party non-responsive to information requests during the probe could face referral to the commission for additional action, up to and including contract termination.
TRC is currently a primary program manager for Pepco and Delmarva Power’s EmPOWER operations. The company managing the program today inherited it directly from the contractors accused of defrauding it. The PSC is now asking whether anything changed when the new owner took over — or whether the billing practices did too.
The Other Defendants
Lockheed Martin settled the whistleblower case in December 2024, with terms sealed by a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge. No admission of liability. No public accounting of what was paid or whether any funds were returned to ratepayers.
But Lockheed wasn’t the only party named in the original 2019 complaint. According to reporting on the partially unsealed filing, the complaint also named Pepco, Delmarva Power, their parent company Exelon Corp., and service providers Greenavise Inc. and A Million LED Solutions. None of those parties appear to have been part of the 2024 Lockheed settlement.
That means potential legal exposure for multiple parties remains unresolved — while some of those same entities continue to operate within the EmPOWER program today.
What the PSC Knew and When
Dan Hurley, director of the PSC’s energy analysis division, stated on record in April 2026 that he does not recall any fraud allegations involving Pepco or Delmarva Power, and confirmed that no PSC investigations into those utilities had taken place prior to the lawsuit’s unsealing.
But the PSC was not entirely in the dark about contractor fraud during the legislative session. In fall 2025 hearings, BGE representatives told PSC staff they were dealing with active fraud cases involving contractors double-billing — submitting duplicate charges for the same equipment. A PSC staff report noted that one utility had reported fraudulent filings in the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program.
The commission knew the contractor ecosystem had a fraud problem. They characterized it as a compliance issue. They defended the program through the entire legislative session. They signed off on the framework that produced the $150 savings figure. And they did all of that while the Lockheed lawsuit sat sealed in Montgomery County Circuit Court — a lawsuit alleging not a compliance issue, but a systematic, multi-year scheme to divert millions.
House Minority Leader Jason Buckel put the accountability question plainly: those in charge should have known for years.
What Marylanders Should Be Asking
Marylanders should be asking who exactly that $150 is compensating — the ratepayer, or the ledger that got caught.
The PSC’s technical staff must file a status report by late June 2026. Before that report lands, there are questions Marylanders are owed answers to now:
- The Lockheed settlement terms are sealed. Who paid, how much, and did any of that money go back to the ratepayers whose surcharge dollars were allegedly stolen?
- Is TRC currently operating under any of the same contract structures, reporting frameworks, or billing methodologies that existed under Lockheed’s management? Or did the acquisition come with meaningful oversight reforms?
- The complaint also named Pepco, Delmarva Power, Exelon, Greenavise Inc., and A Million LED Solutions. What is the current legal status of those parties relative to the allegations?
- The $150 savings figure was modeled on historical program cost data. Will the PSC revisit those projections in light of the fraud allegations, or will Marylanders be told the math still holds?
Democrats have spent months arguing that costs passed to consumers through policy decisions represent illegitimate takings that should be refunded. They’ve applied that standard to tariffs, to utility executive salaries, to every instance where they believe corporate or government decisions transferred money out of consumers’ pockets without consent. It’s a standard worth holding uniformly.
By that standard, Marylanders who spent years paying a mandatory surcharge that allegedly funded fraudulent billing — overstated savings, phantom work orders, millions diverted through false reporting — have a stronger claim to their money back than most. A political party that has made consumer refunds a centerpiece of its economic messaging should have no trouble explaining why this situation is different. If they can’t, Marylanders should be asking who exactly that $150 is compensating — the ratepayer, or the ledger that got caught.
Maryland’s Democratic majority passed the Utility RELIEF Act and called it accountability. The program they protected, the savings they advertised, and the contractor framework they left in place are all now under active investigation. That’s not accountability. That’s a press release sitting on top of an active crime scene.
The PSC’s 60-day clock is running. Marylanders should be watching.
Sources: Maryland Public Service Commission Order No. 92310, April 21, 2026; Baltimore Sun, April 15 and April 20, 2026; Fox45/WBFF, April 22–23, 2026; Yahoo News/Baltimore Sun, April 20, 2026; Maryland General Assembly, Utility RELIEF Act; mgaleg.maryland.gov. Whistleblower complaint partially unsealed, Montgomery County Circuit Court, December 2024.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.