Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

In re Maryland Office of People’s Counsel

Geography
Year
2022
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2022
Status
Judgment of the circuit court reversed and circuit court ordered to vacate the Commission’s orders and remand to the Commission for further proceedings.
Docket number
2033
Court/admin entity
United StatesMaryland Appeals Court (Md. App. Ct.)United StatesState Courts
Case category
State Law Claims (US)Utility Regulation (US)
Principal law
United StatesMaryland Public Utility Article
At issue
Challenge to the Maryland Public Service Commission's dismissal of a greenwashing complaint against a gas utility.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
12/20/2023
Judgment of the circuit court reversed and circuit court ordered to vacate the Commission’s orders and remand to the Commission for further proceedings.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the Maryland Public Service Commission erred when it dismissed a complaint alleging that marketing statements made by Washington Gas Light Company (a natural gas utility) on its customer bills were deceptive and misleading in violation of the Public Utilities Article and Maryland regulations. The complaint alleged that the bills included at least three allegedly misleading statements, including a statement that natural gas is “clean energy,” which the complaint alleged falsely implied that natural gas did not have significant greenhouse gas emissions and was also misleading regarding other emissions attributes. The appellate court held the Commission could only dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Commission, however, had dismissed the complaint on the ground that a complaint against one utility was “an inappropriate forum to address the broader issues raised by natural gas and its role in greenhouse gas emissions.” Because this was not a proper ground for dismissal and dismissal resulted in prejudice to the complainant, the court ordered that the Commission’s orders be vacated. The appellate court also held that dismissal of claims against an affiliate of the utility was premature. One judge dissented, finding that the claims were “largely moot” because the statements had been removed from customer bills and the Commission should not be compelled to adopt “broad policy pronouncements regarding natural gas and climate change premised solely on a request that fines be levied against a single utility.”
Decision

Summary

Challenge to the Maryland Public Service Commission's dismissal of a greenwashing complaint against a gas utility.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance