Maryland PSC hears public comment on Maryland American Water rate filing; resident clarifies impact
December 16, 2025 | Public Service Commission, Organizations, Executive, Maryland
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Maryland Public Service Commission held a public hearing in Severn for Case 9808, Maryland American Water Company’s application to revise rates, charges and tariff provisions for water service.
Chairman Obi Linson opened the hearing, identified the parties present — including the commission’s technical staff and representatives of the Office of People's Counsel — and noted the company filed the case on Aug. 1 and that a prehearing conference was held Sept. 8. "Because this is a contested proceeding, I'm not able to answer questions here today," Linson said, explaining that company representatives and the Office of People's Counsel could address detailed questions separately.
A resident identified as "Mister Wagner," the only person to speak during the public comment period, said he had "more questions than I have comments" after reviewing the rate bulletin and obtaining a copy. Wagner said the bulletin initially appeared to show an increase of "$859.59 per customer" and asked where in Severn the affected customers are located and how many would be affected. Linson and others said the company’s team was present and suggested Wagner consult with them off the record.
After an off-the-record conversation with company representatives, Wagner returned to the record and said the $859.59 figure was not the typical per-customer monthly increase. "It's actually divided upon amongst the 103 entities that divide it down to the customers," Wagner said, adding that the average customer would see about an $11 per month increase under the company’s allocation.
No other members of the public registered to speak. Linson thanked attendees "on behalf of the commission" and adjourned the public comment portion of the hearing.
The record for Case 9808 will include the company’s filing and written comments; Commission staff and the Office of People's Counsel may file or submit evidence and recommendations consistent with contested-proceeding rules. The hearing in Severn provided an opportunity for at least one resident to ask questions and seek clarification directly from company representatives, but the Commission did not provide on-the-record technical responses from the bench at the public session.
Chairman Obi Linson opened the hearing, identified the parties present — including the commission’s technical staff and representatives of the Office of People's Counsel — and noted the company filed the case on Aug. 1 and that a prehearing conference was held Sept. 8. "Because this is a contested proceeding, I'm not able to answer questions here today," Linson said, explaining that company representatives and the Office of People's Counsel could address detailed questions separately.
A resident identified as "Mister Wagner," the only person to speak during the public comment period, said he had "more questions than I have comments" after reviewing the rate bulletin and obtaining a copy. Wagner said the bulletin initially appeared to show an increase of "$859.59 per customer" and asked where in Severn the affected customers are located and how many would be affected. Linson and others said the company’s team was present and suggested Wagner consult with them off the record.
After an off-the-record conversation with company representatives, Wagner returned to the record and said the $859.59 figure was not the typical per-customer monthly increase. "It's actually divided upon amongst the 103 entities that divide it down to the customers," Wagner said, adding that the average customer would see about an $11 per month increase under the company’s allocation.
No other members of the public registered to speak. Linson thanked attendees "on behalf of the commission" and adjourned the public comment portion of the hearing.
The record for Case 9808 will include the company’s filing and written comments; Commission staff and the Office of People's Counsel may file or submit evidence and recommendations consistent with contested-proceeding rules. The hearing in Severn provided an opportunity for at least one resident to ask questions and seek clarification directly from company representatives, but the Commission did not provide on-the-record technical responses from the bench at the public session.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
