A power bill is usually treated as a household expense. For some families, it is also part of the health-care system.
Electricity may keep oxygen equipment running, preserve medication, power mobility devices, maintain a safe temperature for an older adult or allow a caregiver to remain at home rather than seek institutional care. When the power fails, the consequence may be more than inconvenience. When the bill rises, the choice may be between electricity, food, rent and medical expenses.
That is why Potomac Edison’s proposed Maryland rate increase deserves to be examined not only as a utility case, but as a question of health and family stability.
The company has requested an additional $52.8 million in annual revenue. If approved as filed, the proposal would increase the average residential customer’s monthly bill by approximately 5.3 percent. Potomac Edison says the money would support infrastructure replacement, grid automation, monitoring, circuit ties, line upgrades, underground-cable replacement and tree removal. The company’s filing describes the proposal as a reliability investment.
Potomac Edison also emphasizes that its residential rates would remain below those of other Maryland investor-owned utilities. That comparison may be relevant to regulators. It does not answer the question facing a household whose budget is already exhausted. A bill can be lower than a neighboring utility’s bill and still be unaffordable for the person receiving it.
Reliability is a health issue
WBC recently examined what happened when a power outage closed UPMC’s outpatient center in Frostburg, Maryland. Patients were redirected to Cumberland for urgent care, laboratory services moved elsewhere and the facility’s phones were not operating. The available reporting did not indicate that hospital inpatients or emergency-department operations were endangered. Patients nevertheless faced the practical consequences of a smaller and less reachable health-care system.
That episode illustrates an important distinction: a clinic may have backup power and a health system may have a continuity plan, yet patients can still lose access if phones, scheduling systems, laboratory services, transportation or alternate facilities are unavailable.
For a patient with a car and flexible work hours, traveling to another town may be manageable. For an older adult who depends on a relative, a parent who must arrange child care or a worker who cannot afford to miss a shift, the same disruption can become a missed appointment or delayed treatment.
Electric reliability therefore has two dimensions:
- whether the utility keeps power flowing; and
- whether the health-care system remains reachable when it does not.
The first is mainly an engineering question. The second is a family question.
Medical equipment changes the stakes
Maryland already recognizes that some households face unusual risks when electricity is interrupted. The state’s Office of People’s Counsel advises residents with serious illnesses or electrically powered medical equipment to submit a Medical Certification Form to their utility.
That certification can provide additional protections against termination for nonpayment, including a 30-day pause after a shutoff notice while the household arranges a payment plan. But the certification does not guarantee that power will be restored faster during an outage. The Office of People’s Counsel explains the program’s limits.
A medical certification can help prevent a household from losing service because of an unpaid bill. It cannot make a downed line work. It cannot guarantee that a medical device will function during a prolonged outage. It cannot ensure that a patient has transportation to a clinic whose electricity has failed.
Families using medical equipment need both affordability protections and an emergency plan. They may need to know how long batteries will last, where backup power is available, which number to call when the utility’s normal system is disrupted and whether a local health-care provider can continue serving them.
Those requirements are rarely visible in a utility’s average-bill calculation.
Assistance exists, but it is not unlimited
Maryland’s Office of Home Energy Programs offers assistance to renters, homeowners, public-housing residents and other eligible households. For fiscal year 2027, the state lists monthly income limits ranging from $2,660 for a one-person household to $6,447 for a five-person household. Eligible households may also receive arrearage assistance of up to $2,000 toward a past-due electric bill, subject to program rules. The state provides information about eligibility and assistance.
That support matters. It also reveals the limits of treating energy affordability as an individual application problem.
A family must know that help exists, complete the application, provide documentation and receive assistance before service is disconnected or a medical crisis develops. The household must also remain able to manage the bill after the grant is used.
Assistance can prevent a crisis. It does not necessarily make the underlying cost manageable.
The problem is particularly acute for households whose electricity use is medically determined. A family cannot always respond to a higher bill by turning down the thermostat, unplugging equipment or reducing usage during peak hours. The person who needs oxygen, medication refrigeration or a powered device may have less ability to behave like the “average customer” used in utility filings.
Investment may be justified—but customers need proof
Potomac Edison’s proposal may include projects that improve service. Aging equipment does need replacement, and better monitoring and automation may reduce the frequency or duration of outages.
But a general reliability argument should not end the inquiry.
The Maryland Public Service Commission has previously reduced major utility requests. In August, the commission authorized Pepco to receive approximately $50.9 million—less than half of the company’s requested increase—and limited the estimated impact on the average residential customer to about $3.94 per month in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. The commission’s decision provides a recent example of a request being evaluated rather than simply approved.
That decision does not determine the Potomac Edison case. The utilities serve different territories and proposed different projects. It does show that regulators can distinguish between a company’s requested spending and the amount supported by the record.
For Potomac Edison customers, the useful questions are specific:
- Which proposed projects address documented outage problems?
- How much will each project cost?
- What reliability improvement is expected?
- How will the company measure whether that improvement occurs?
- Which customers will pay, and which customers will benefit?
- What happens if a project is delayed, redesigned or not completed?
- How will the company account for medically vulnerable customers and communities with limited health-care alternatives?
A utility should not have to prove that every outage can be prevented. It should have to show that customers are paying for projects with identifiable benefits rather than a general promise of modernization.
The hidden cost of disconnection
The health consequences of unaffordable energy are not limited to dramatic shutoffs.
A household may ration heating or cooling. A parent may avoid using an appliance. An older adult may remain in an unsafe room because the family is trying to reduce consumption. A caregiver may delay charging a device or postpone a trip to a medical appointment because the household budget has already been consumed by the utility bill.
These choices are difficult to measure. They may not appear in outage statistics or medical records. But they are part of how families absorb rising costs.
The same is true of clinic disruptions. A patient who misses an appointment because the replacement site is too far away may not be counted as a failure of grid reliability. The missed appointment may later appear as a delayed diagnosis, an emergency-room visit or a family member’s lost wages.
Institutions tend to measure their own performance separately. The utility counts outages. The clinic counts appointments. The assistance program counts grants. Families experience the combined result.
What to watch next
Potomac Edison’s rate case is scheduled to move through a pre-hearing conference on October 9, with a final order expected in April 2027, according to WBC’s earlier reporting.
The next important stage is not simply whether regulators approve an increase. It is whether the record connects spending to measurable reliability and customer effects. Customers should watch whether the commission requires project-level reporting, clearer bill impacts for different types of households and safeguards for people who cannot easily reduce electricity use.
They should also watch the practical performance of Maryland’s energy-assistance and medical-certification programs. A protection that exists on paper but is difficult to access before a shutoff is not a complete protection. A continuity plan that preserves a building but leaves patients unable to reach care is not complete resilience.
The central issue is not whether electricity should cost nothing. Reliable service requires investment, and investment must be paid for.
The issue is whether Maryland will treat power as merely another household purchase—or recognize that, for many residents, electricity is what allows health care to continue at home.
When regulators review the proposed increase, they should ask not only what the grid will cost to improve.
They should ask what happens to the people who cannot safely live without it.
