The proceeding remains pending. The commission approved a modified District SAFE plan on March 4, 2026, authorizing $150 million over three years, but later granted reconsideration requests from the Office of the People’s Counsel, the District government and the Sierra Club. No final post-hearing decision retaining, changing or rejecting the plan has been identified as of August 1.

What is at stake

Washington Gas originally asked the commission to approve $215 million over three years for accelerated replacement of aging and leak-prone gas infrastructure. The company proposed recovering eligible costs through surcharges on customers’ gas bills.

Schwalb’s July 24 request says the commission should reject the plan because regulators need stronger cost controls, better prioritization of the highest-risk pipe and a clearer analysis of the District’s climate and electrification policies. Those are positions advanced by the attorney general and other parties, not final findings by the commission.

What the commission approved in March

On March 4, the commission approved a modified version of District SAFE for July 2026 through June 2029. The commission’s program page says the modified authorization is capped at $150 million over three years, about 30% below Washington Gas’s original request.

The modified plan includes annual spending caps, a risk-scoring process intended to prioritize the most dangerous and leak-prone pipes, and requirements that Washington Gas consider alternatives to replacement before seeking approval for particular projects. The commission also included cost-recovery conditions intended to limit ratepayer exposure.

The plan’s rollout, originally scheduled to begin July 1, was temporarily paused while the commission considered the requests for reconsideration and prepared for the new evidentiary hearing. The pause did not itself impose a new customer charge or authorize additional construction.

Why the case was reconsidered

In Order No. 22855, the commission granted the reconsideration requests and identified material factual disputes that could affect the outcome. The order specifically cited the basis for increased pipeline-replacement costs, whether District SAFE achieves the highest risk reduction for each dollar spent, and how greenhouse-gas reductions should be calculated.

The order also describes disputes over the plan’s use of the JANA risk model, non-pipeline alternatives, cost controls and surcharge recovery. The July 27-28 hearing gave the parties an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses on the issues that remained in dispute.

The District’s objections

In its post-hearing brief, the District government asked the commission to reject District SAFE. The filing argues that the plan is too expensive, does not sufficiently focus work on the highest-risk pipe and does not adequately account for electrification, climate policy or the risk that some gas infrastructure could become underused.

The District’s filing also presents analyses asserting that replacement could take many decades at the proposed pace and cost billions of dollars if extended across the system. Those estimates and conclusions are part of the District’s arguments and supporting evidence; they are not final commission determinations.

Washington Gas’s stated rationale is that replacing aging, leak-prone infrastructure can improve gas-system safety and reliability. The PSC’s modified plan attempts to retain that safety objective while adding risk prioritization, cost controls and consideration of alternatives.

What residents could see

The immediate issue for gas customers is not a new District SAFE surcharge already appearing on bills. Any future bill effect would depend on the commission’s final action and on which costs, if any, it permits Washington Gas to recover from customers.

If replacement work ultimately proceeds, affected neighborhoods could experience construction, noise, temporary service interruptions and traffic impacts. The PSC says Washington Gas must provide notice to residents in areas affected by pipeline work.

The case also raises longer-term questions about the District’s gas system: how much customers should pay for infrastructure safety, whether replacement is the most cost-effective response to particular risks, how methane and other greenhouse-gas effects should be measured, and how new investment fits with the District’s electrification and climate goals.

What happens next

The commission must consider the hearing record and subsequent filings before deciding whether to retain, modify or reject District SAFE. Order No. 22855 sets August 11, 2026, as the deadline for post-hearing briefs and says the evidentiary record will close then.

Until the commission issues its next decision, the $150 million authorization from March should not be treated as a final post-reconsideration resolution, and Washington Gas’s original $215 million request should not be described as approved.

Sources

• D.C. PSC Washington Gas Pipeline Replacement Program
• D.C. PSC Order No. 22855
• District of Columbia Government post-hearing brief
• Axios Washington D.C. hearing report

In Order No. 92541, issued July 27, 2026, the commission authorized Washington Gas Light to collect $38.134 million more in annual revenue through Maryland distribution rates. The approved rates apply to service rendered on or after July 27.

The commission estimated that an average residential heating customer will pay about $4.01 more per month. That is an estimate for a typical customer, not a guaranteed increase for every household.

What the commission approved

Washington Gas filed the Maryland rate case on Dec. 29, 2025, seeking an $82.5 million increase in annual base-rate revenue. The utility’s proposed rate design would have increased an average residential customer’s total bill by about 5.3%, according to the commission’s prehearing record.

The order says Washington Gas later identified corrections that would have put its requested revenue increase at approximately $88.1 million. The commission approved $38.134 million instead, finding that the larger increase was not supported by the record.

The approved amount concerns regulated delivery service. It does not mean every part of a customer’s gas bill will rise by the same amount. Washington Gas bills also include gas-supply charges, usage-based charges and other adjustments that can change separately.

Who is affected

The decision applies to approximately 518,000 Washington Gas residential, commercial and industrial customers in Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, Prince George’s and St. Mary’s counties.

It is not a rate increase for every Maryland gas customer. The order covers Washington Gas’s Maryland service territory; other utilities serving different parts of the state have separate rates and proceedings.

Customers who use more gas, including during colder weather, may see a different dollar impact than the commission’s average residential heating customer. The final bill will also depend on gas-supply prices and other charges shown on the account.

Infrastructure and tax provisions were limited

The commission rejected $3.2 million tied to certain STRIDE infrastructure costs that Washington Gas sought to move into base rates. STRIDE is Maryland’s Strategic Infrastructure Development and Enhancement program for utility infrastructure replacement.

The commission said Washington Gas had not adequately documented its consideration of cost-effective non-pipeline alternatives, as required by prior commission directives and Maryland law. The order allowed the company to maintain the disallowed capital in the STRIDE surcharge and did not prevent Washington Gas from seeking recovery of those costs in the future.

The commission also shortened the repayment period for non-protected excess deferred income taxes, known as EDIT, from 25 years to five years. That change returns the tax benefit to ratepayers more quickly than the longer schedule.

Commissioners denied Washington Gas’s request to recover costs associated with its Network Geothermal Pilot at this time. The order said the proposal was not ripe for recovery and required substantial revisions before further consideration.

What happens next

The commission initiated a Phase II proceeding to address additional rate-design issues involving commercial and industrial customer classes and to consider whether certain costs must be removed from rates under the Utility RELIEF Act, enacted by the Maryland General Assembly.

Phase II is not a completed decision. The commission said additional information and stakeholder input are needed before it resolves those issues, which could lead to later changes involving rate design or cost recovery.

For residential Washington Gas customers, the immediate change is the higher delivery charge effective July 27. The commission’s $4.01 estimate provides a general guide, while actual bills will vary with household use, weather, gas-supply prices and other bill adjustments.

Sources

• Maryland PSC Order No. 92541
• Maryland Office of People's Counsel Washington Gas consumer information