Two jurisdictions, one company, and the same underlying question: is pipeline spending actually reducing risk — or just growing faster than the oversight built to check it?
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
Washington Gas is facing scrutiny from utility regulators in two jurisdictions this week, with the District of Columbia’s attorney general fighting a rate case in front of the DC Public Service Commission the same week Maryland’s own commission was due to rule on a separate $82.5 million rate increase request from the same company.
The DC Fight
DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s office is asking the DC Public Service Commission to reject what it calls a “wasteful pipe replacement plan,” arguing Washington Gas wants to raise DC utility rates again to pay for what OAG describes as an outdated and ineffective gas system. The office secured a hearing on July 27–28 to reconsider the plan and says it will be there fighting to stop it.
The plan in question, District SAFE, was previously known as PROJECTpipes. According to OAG, the first two phases of the project spent nearly $400 million but replaced only a small share of the system’s old, leak-prone pipes. Grade 1 gas leaks — the most hazardous category, requiring immediate repair — increased 40% between 2014 and 2022 as the project moved forward, per OAG’s numbers.
The Maryland Parallel
The case affects nearly 520,000 Washington Gas customers across six Maryland counties.
Marylanders are watching a strikingly similar dispute play out in their own backyard. In Case No. 9849, Washington Gas filed in December 2025 for an $82.5 million increase in annual base-rate revenues — a net incremental increase of about $67.1 million once previously authorized infrastructure-surcharge revenue is factored in. The Maryland Public Service Commission’s own accounting puts the impact at roughly a 5.3% increase to the average residential bill, though distribution-rate increases alone would run 19.2% for customers who heat with gas and 26% for those who don’t.
The case affects close to 520,000 Washington Gas customers across Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, Prince George’s and St. Mary’s counties. The Commission held three public hearings on the request — two virtual, one in person at Montgomery College in Rockville — and evidentiary hearings wrapped in May. A decision was due by July 27, the same day OAG was in front of DC’s commission making its case against the same company.
A Deeper Fight Over Pipeline Spending Itself
The rate case sits on top of a separate, arguably more consequential fight over how Maryland reviews Washington Gas’ infrastructure spending in the first place.
Under Maryland’s STRIDE program, gas utilities can recover pipeline-replacement costs through accelerated surcharges before those projects go through a full prudency review. The Maryland General Assembly passed the Next Generation Energy Act in 2025 specifically to tighten that process, requiring utilities to show their replacement projects are cost-effective, benefit customers, and have considered alternatives to full-scale pipe replacement before qualifying for expedited recovery.
More than a year after that law took effect, Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel says the Public Service Commission still hasn’t finished writing the regulations needed to enforce it — and has continued letting Washington Gas move forward with its project list in the meantime. People’s Counsel David Lapp called it a “business-as-usual approach” and has taken the unusual step of appealing the Commission’s February 26 order approving Washington Gas’ 2026 STRIDE projects to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The Commission denied OPC’s request for rehearing on June 9, prompting the court appeal.
Washington Gas has argued in filings that its five-year infrastructure plan was already approved before the 2025 law passed and that the Commission lacks authority to unwind previously approved work — while separately maintaining its 2026 project list already complies with the new requirements anyway.
For scale, OPC points to what STRIDE-style accelerated recovery has done to rates elsewhere in the state: Columbia Gas of Maryland’s distribution rates have risen from about 30 cents to $1.24 per therm, and Baltimore Gas and Electric’s gas rates have roughly tripled since the program was enacted in 2013.
Why It Matters
Two different regulatory bodies, in two different jurisdictions, are independently raising the same underlying question about the same company.
Two different regulatory bodies, in two different jurisdictions, are independently raising the same underlying question about the same company: is Washington Gas’ pipe-replacement spending actually reducing risk and improving safety, or is it a cost-recovery mechanism that keeps expanding faster than the oversight built to check it? DC’s attorney general is making that case in a live hearing this week. Maryland’s People’s Counsel is making a version of it in Baltimore City Circuit Court. Both are ultimately arguing that ratepayers are being asked to fund infrastructure work without a clear showing that it delivers the safety benefits used to justify it.
Sourcing note: DC AG statements drawn from Brian Schwalb’s public posts on X. Maryland case details drawn from Maryland PSC public filings and reporting in Maryland Matters, the Daily Record, Pipeline & Gas Journal, and PIRG. Direct comment was not yet sought from Washington Gas or the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel for this version — worth doing before publication.
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.