In a recent op-ed in The Baltimore Sun, former chairman of the Maryland Public Service Commission H. Russell Frisby sympathizes with Maryland ratepayers for the skyrocketing costs of their electricity bills but then recommends as a solution one thoroughly disproven in Maryland and in states across the country: utility-owned generation, or “reregulation.” He argues that utilities should be allowed to generate electricity and that their captive ratepayers — i.e., Maryland families and businesses — should bear the costs and risks.

Frisby correctly diagnoses much of the problem responsible for rising electricity prices. Yes, with the proliferation of AI, data centers, electric cars and other emerging technologies, demand for electricity is increasing at an alarmingly high rate.

He is also right in noting that Maryland policymakers have pushed a number of otherwise productive fossil fuel generators into early retirement in an effort to attain the lofty emission standards that they themselves put in place, but without replacing the plants with 24/7 reliable power generation. For a state that imports over 40% of its electricity needs, this inevitable convergence of forces has left ratepayers in a difficult, albeit entirely foreseeable, predicament.

It should be noted that Frisby is not only a former chairman of the Maryland Public Services Commission but also has served on the board of directors of Pepco Holdings, an energy delivery company that owns the utilities Pepco and Delmarva Power, which serve parts of Maryland and are regulated by the same commission he once chaired.

His background on the board of directors — a board responsible for maximizing the profits of Pepco shareholders — is relevant in that it in part explains how he arrived at a somewhat biased solution to rising energy bills. By allowing utilities to generate electricity once again and return Maryland’s energy market back to the monopolistic system the state abandoned roughly 25 years ago, utilities stand to profit even more than they do now, off Maryland ratepayers and businesses as they struggle to pay their rising bills.

In 1999, Maryland, like many other states, restructured its energy market. It ended a vertically aligned system in which the state granted the utilities a monopoly to generate electricity free from competition while under the regulatory supervision of the Maryland Public Service Commission. To replace it, Maryland chose a competitive marketplace in which retailers could purchase energy from the wholesale market and sell it to businesses and consumers at lower prices. For the first time, ratepayers were given a choice in where they purchased their electricity and an option to switch suppliers if their bills were too high or service subpar.

The restructured market has worked in Maryland, just as it has in the other states that fled the utility monopoly system. Numerous independent studies continue to demonstrate that ratepayers and businesses in restructured states like Maryland benefit from the reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity market provided by robust competition and consumer choice. Restructured states saw slower retail price growth, less greenhouse gas emission and fewer minutes of electricity outages than the utility monopoly states. In fact, coal plant retirements happened almost 20% more in deregulated states in addition to having more reliable and affordable energy service.

Yet, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, Frisby argues that the competitive market should be forsaken, and utilities should be allowed back into the generation game. There is no compelling reason to return to the monopolistic system other than for utility shareholders to profit off of Maryland consumers.

First, allowing utilities to own generation destroys the competitive market. The array of companies that currently power Maryland could not compete with utilities that can pass along their costs and risks to their captive ratepayers. By contrast, the companies currently generating electricity in Maryland bear all the risk of new facilities and plants; if a new generation project fails, its shareholders bear the resulting costs, not Maryland families and businesses. Monopolies never have lower prices, and electric generation monopolies will be no different.

Second, if utilities were to reenter the generation market to try to help meet Maryland’s growing energy demand, they would not be able to get new generation online any faster or more cost-effectively than the companies currently powering Maryland. Utility generation projects would go through the exact same federal and state regulatory process that current proposals must complete. While Frisby is correct in lamenting the irrationally long regulatory approval time for new projects, utility proposals would be mired in the same logjam.

Finally, there is nothing in Maryland law that prevents the utility-affiliated companies from building new generation facilities. Their entry into the market would be welcomed, as more competition benefits consumers and holds prices in check. However, Maryland law should never allow the utility to pass along its costs and risks to its ratepaying customers, so any utility-affiliated plants would have to remain deregulated. Reregulation would destroy the market, end competition and soak utility customers with more costs and higher bills that they cannot avoid. Energy poverty in Maryland is a real concern and is growing every day. Nobody should have to decide whether to heat their house or feed their family.

It is unfortunate that Maryland ratepayers are paying higher bills than customers in neighboring states. But the policy choices made by our public officials are largely responsible for the spiking costs, and compounding the problem by doubling down on bad policy ideas would make matters far worse for every Marylander. The governor and legislative leaders should ignore the special interest groups and financial wants of the utility companies seeking greater returns for their shareholders and members whose policies raise electric rates. Allow Maryland’s competitive market to work as it has always worked in the past.

Mary Beth Tung is the former director of the Maryland Energy Administration.