IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

:
STEPHEN H. TOPPING :
349 Warren Avenue :
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:
DOUGLAS CLEMENS :
345 Warren Avenue : Case No.
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:
CURTIS DECKER :
8 West Read Street :
Baltimore, MD 21201 :
:
MICHAEL DONNENBERG :
16 West Read Street :
Baltimore, MD 21201 :
:
PAULA FERNANDES :
16 West Read Street :
Baltimore, MD 21201 :
:
DONNA KATRINIC :
632 South Curley Street :
Baltimore, MD 21224 :
:
ANTONIE KLINE :
345 Warren Avenue :
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:
SUZAN RODE :
220 Warren Avenue :
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:
NANCY ROHRER :
533 South Curley Street :
Baltimore, MD 21224 :
:
CHRISTINA SABIN-SCHARFF :
337 Warren Avenue :
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:
SANDRA SEWARD :
204 and 206 Warren Avenue :
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:

1
DONNA SYLVESTER :
413 Warren Avenue :
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:
CLAUDIA TOWLES :
1720 Lancaster Street :
Baltimore, MD 21231 :
:
and :
:
RAQUEL ZUNIGA :
856 Carroll Street :
Baltimore, MD 21230 :
:
:
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves :
and a class of those similarly situated, :
:
V. :
:
BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. :
2 Center Plaza :
110 West Fayette Street :
Baltimore, Maryland 21201 :
:
Defendant :
:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Stephen H. Topping, Douglas Clemens, Curtis Decker, Michael Donnenberg,

Paula Fernandes, Donna Katrinic, Antonie Kline, Suzan Rode, Nancy Rohrer, Christina Sabin-

Scharff, Sandra Seward, Donna Sylvester, Claudia Towles, and Raquel Zuniga, on behalf of themselves

and a class of all those similarly situated, by and through their undersigned counsel, Thiru Vignarajah,

hereby file this Complaint against Defendant Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (“BGE”) and in

support thereof state and allege as follows.

2
 INTRODUCTION

1. In the past two days, BGE has taken the unprecedented and draconian step of cutting

off gas service to at least six residences in Baltimore City because their owners refused to consent to

the utility company tearing up their sidewalk, drilling a 3” borehole through the historic marble,

granite, and brick facades of their homes, and installing a dangerous exterior gas pressure regulator

that is neither required by state or federal law, nor recommended by the Public Service Commission

(PSC) or by federal safety guidelines promulgated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration (PHMSA).

2. BGE’s actions manifestly violate the Gas Service Tariff and Maryland regulations, both

of which strictly limit when and how a utility company can terminate service to a customer.

3. Section 20.31.02.02(C) of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) states that a

utility may terminate service to a customer for “failure of the customer to permit the utility or its

agents to have reasonable access to its equipment located on or in the customer’s premises.” But

nowhere is the utility given the authority to terminate service if a customer declines the installation

of new equipment, as opposed to accessing equipment already located on the premises.

4. Likewise, the Gas Service Tariff, the contract governing the obligations of BGE and

the customer, closely tracks Maryland regulations: “The Company may refuse or discontinue service

and remove its property” for a customer’s “failure to permit Company or its agents reasonable access

to its equipment located on or in the customer’s premises.” Section 2.4(f). Again, nowhere in the

Tariff is BGE granted authority to discontinue service if a customer declines new equipment that is

not required by any law or regulation.

5. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, BGE has nowhere and never before taken the

exceptional step of refusing or cutting off service because of a customer declining an equipment

3
installation that is favored by BGE but not required by law. It is a novel and wildly unreasonable

expansion of its strictly circumscribed power to terminate service as a public utility.

6. Indeed, BGE’s actions seem designed to test for the first time the legal limits of its

authority to use the threat of service termination as a means of compelling customers to accept new

infrastructure installations that are not required by law or safety regulations, but are highly profitable

for the company and count toward infrastructure costs that are among the only expenses BGE is

permitted to pass through to customers for reimbursement through a surcharge or rate increase.

7. BGE’s decision to force this legal test comes just as the media and public have begun

to uncover the true motives of the company’s lucrative move that it unconvincingly disguised as a

safety upgrade. See, e.g., BGE gas regulators: Company says devices are safer outside. Regulations aren’t so clear

(BALT. BANNER, June 12, 2023); Residents push back against BGE’s new exterior gas systems (WBAL, May

23, 2023); Unnecessary gas investments set to raise rates; Maryland regulator must intervene (BALT. SUN, February

10, 2023) (commentary by David Lapp, Maryland People’s Counsel).

8. The growing outcry culminated last week in eight community associations and dozens

of residents announcing their intent to challenge the authority of BGE to force upon every customer

in Baltimore City exterior regulators that are only mandated under Maryland law for multi-family

dwellings (which are defined as buildings containing six or more dwelling units). See Public Utilities

Article § 7-313(a)(3) (hereinafter “Flower Branch Act” or “PUA”).

9. The coalition pointed to written notices the utility giant recently sent to residents

requiring them to grant permission to BGE to perform major construction work and installation by

June 16, 2023. If not, “BGE will begin to disconnect unresponsive customers beginning on June 19,

2023.” See, e.g., Exhibit C-4 (BGE Letter to Sandy Seward).

10. Two days ago, on June 21, 2023, a few residents on Warren Avenue in Federal Hill

received an email titled “Your Gas Service is Scheduled for Interruption.” The email to Plaintiff

4
Christina Sabin-Scharff, for example, was time stamped for 9:39 AM, late morning on a workday.

Under Maryland regulations, the “utility shall send a notice of termination to the customer at least 14

days before the date on or after which termination will occur.” See COMAR § 20.31.02.05(C)

(emphasis added). In flagrant violation of the required notice period, Ms. Sabin-Scharff’s gas service

was terminated less than three hours later. See Exhibit A-21 (Affidavit of Christina Sabin-Scharff).

Her home was one of four properties where gas service was terminated on less than a day’s notice.

11. To make matters worse, yesterday, on June 22, 2023, BGE called upon the Baltimore

Police Department and representatives of the Mayor of Baltimore to aid, abet, assist, and enable their

actions. With support and instruction from City Hall representatives, police were ordered to

wrongfully arrest three women, including two named Plaintiffs (Sandra Seward and Claudia Towles),

as they lawfully objected to the unlawful actions of BGE on Warren Avenue. Within minutes of the

arrests, BGE rolled in bulldozers to tear into the streets in front of multiple residences and terminated

service with less than a day’s notice to those homeowners as well. See Exhibit A-33 (Affidavit of

Claudia Towles). See also Three residents arrested after attempting to block installation of BGE gas regulators in

Federal Hill (BALT. BANNER, June 22, 2023).

12. The named Plaintiffs include residents of three of those properties on Warren Avenue

who demand that their service be immediately restored. Including those four individuals, there are a

total of fourteen Plaintiffs from four neighborhoods across Baltimore (Canton, Federal Hill, Fells

Point, and Pigtown), each of whom has been warned — some in writing, some in person — that

they must accept BGE’s demand or face termination of gas service. Those Plaintiffs, alongside all

residents in Baltimore City, are now on notice that this is no idle threat by a utility company that

exploits its regional monopoly and deep tentacles into government. Plaintiffs seek immediate

injunctive relief prohibiting BGE from cutting off gas service when a customer declines an exterior

5
regulator installation and from proceeding with installations that threaten irreparable harm or

extorting consent from customers who are unaware that BGE’s demand is deceptive and unlawful.

13. Plaintiffs file this complaint and the accompanying emergency motion on behalf of

themselves and a class of similarly situated homeowners and residents. This includes hundreds of

individuals who, in less than a week since a potential legal action was announced, have come forward

and indicated an interest in joining this action. Exhibit B contains a preliminary list of over 120 city

residents who have executed retainer agreements and signed letters to BGE affirming their objection

to the installation of pressure regulators outside their home. See Exhibit B-2 – B-4.

14. BGE has decided to compel this legal fight on its terms, shutting off gas service on

less than a day’s notice to residents who have no other recourse than to seek immediate judicial relief

or suffer irreparable harm of one kind (irredeemable harm to their homes) — or another (prolonged

deprivation of a utility needed for basic needs including cooking and hot water). For the reasons set

forth in this Complaint, Plaintiffs ask this Court to make clear through declaratory and injunctive

relief that BGE has breached its contract with its customers and violated Maryland law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Md. Ann. Code,

Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 1-501.

14. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Md. Ann. Code,

Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-103.

15. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City is the proper venue for this action pursuant to

Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-201 and § 6-202 and Md. Ann. Code, State Gov’t § 20-

1202(c)(1) because BGE is headquartered in Baltimore City, Defendant regularly carries on business

in Baltimore City, and the cause of action originated in Baltimore City.

6
 PARTIES

A. PLAINTIFFS

16. Plaintiff Stephen H. Topping, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and

occupant of the property at 349 Warren Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21230. BGE has advised him in

person and in writing that if he does not allow the company to install an external regulator, they will

cut off gas service to his property. His home has been nationally designated as an important element

in the architectural ensemble of the Federal Hill Historic District. Thus, the breaching of the marble

facade and foundation for the placement of an industrial gas regulator would materially degrade the

appearance of the property and irreparably damage the structural integrity of the home. Should BGE

terminate his gas service, he would be immediately deprived of cooking and hot water.

17. Plaintiffs Doug Clemens and Antonie Kline, residents of Baltimore City, are co-

owners and occupants of the property at 345 Warren Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21230. BGE advised

them in writing that if they did not allow the company to install an external regulator, it would cut

off gas service to their property. The two reside in a historic home over 117 years old. An external

regulator installed in front of the property would degrade the aesthetic of the property and reduce its

value. On June 21, 2023, at around 3 p.m., BGE terminated their gas service while both were at work.

Since the service disconnection, they has been immediately deprived of access to hot water as well as

the ability to cook.

18. Plaintiff Curtis Decker, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and occupant of

the property at 8 West Read Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. BGE has advised him in person that if he

does not allow the company to install an external regulator, they will cut off gas service to his

property. His home was constructed in 1860 and has a limestone and brick façade. The breaching of

the facade and foundation for the placement of an industrial gas regulator would materially degrade

the appearance of the property and irreparably damage the structural integrity of the home. Should

7
BGE terminate his gas service, he and his tenants in the same building would be deprived of their

ability to cook, bathe, or heat their home.

19. Plaintiffs Michael Donnenberg and Paula Fernandes, residents of Baltimore City,

are co-owners and occupants of the property at 16 W. Read Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. BGE has

advised them that the company intends to install an external regulator at their house. Their home was

built in 1857, and BGE’s installation would do irreparable damage to the historic stonework of their

home, as well as the native-plant pollinator garden in their front yard. Should BGE terminate their

gas service, the two would be immediately deprived of their ability to cook or to heat their home.

20. Plaintiff Donna Katrinic, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and occupant of

the property at 632 South Curley Street, Baltimore, MD 21224. BGE advised her in writing that if

she did not allow the company to install an external regulator, they would cut off gas service to her

property. The front of her home is completely composed of historic marble, and BGE’s construction

and excavation process would be very likely to cause cracks and structural damage. Should BGE

terminate her gas service, she would be immediately deprived of her ability to cook in her kitchen, to

heat her home, or to make use of hot water.

21. Plaintiff Suzan Rode, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and occupant of the

property at 220 Warren Ave, Baltimore, MD, 21230. BGE has advised her in writing that if she does

not allow the company to install an external regulator, they will cut off gas service to her property.

Her home is 160 years old, and BGE’s installation would do irreparable damage to her historic home.

She is also a single mother of a child with special needs, and should BGE terminate her gas service,

she would be immediately deprived of her ability to cook. This would seriously hinder her ability to

care for her child.

22. Plaintiff Nancy Rohrer, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and occupant of

the property at 533 South Curley Street in Baltimore, Maryland. BGE has advised her in person and

8
in writing that if she does not allow the company to install an external regulator, they will cut off gas

service to her property. Her property was built in 1910, and BGE’s installation would do irreparable

damage to her historic home. Should BGE terminate her gas service, she would be immediately

deprived of her ability to cook in her kitchen, to heat her home, or to make use of hot water.

23. Plaintiff Christina Sabin-Scharff, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and

occupant of the property at 337 Warren Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21230. In early June, BGE advised

her in writing that if she did not allow the company to install an external regulator, they would cut

off gas service to her property. On June 21, 2023, BGE terminated her gas service with less than

three hours of notice. Her home is built from stone and brick facades that are over 100 years old,

and major excavation would pose a risk to the structural integrity of her home. Her hot water, stove,

oven, grill, and furnace all depend on BGE gas service. Since her service was disconnected, she has

been deprived of her ability to cook in her kitchen, to heat her home, or to make use of hot water.

24. Plaintiff Sandra Seward, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and occupant of

the properties at 204 Warren Avenue and 206 Warren Avenue in Federal Hill in Baltimore, Maryland

21230. BGE has advised her over the phone, via email, in writing, and in person that if she does not

allow the company to install an external regulator, they will cut off gas service to her property. BGE

also forwarded this threat to the tenant of her property at 206 Warren Avenue through email. Her

properties were built in the 1840s, and BGE’s installation would do irreparable damage to her historic

home. Should BGE terminate her gas service, she would be immediately deprived of her ability to

cook in her kitchen, to heat her home, or to make use of hot water.

25. Plaintiff Donna Sylvester, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and occupant of

the property at 413 Warren Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. BGE has informed her in writing

that if she does not allow the company to install an external regulator, they will cut off gas service to

her property. Her property was built in 1888, and BGE’s installation would do irreparable damage to

9
her historic home. The area around her home already struggles with structural integrity and she fears

that a major construction project such as the one BGE is undertaking will be likely to result in

irreparable damage.

26. Plaintiff Claudia Towles, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner of the property

at 1720 Lancaster Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231. She has seen an email from BGE listing her

home as next on the list for regulator replacement. Her property is in a historic district, and BGE’s

installation would do irreparable damage to her home. If installed, the regulator would be placed in

a narrow alleyway where it would be unlikely to avoid damage from a vehicle.

27. Plaintiff Raquel Zuniga, a resident of Baltimore City, is the owner and occupant of

the property at 856 Carroll Street, Baltimore, MD 21230. BGE has advised her over the phone and

in writing that if she does not allow the company to install an external regulator, they will cut off gas

service to her property. Her property was built over 100 years ago, and BGE’s installation would do

irreparable damage to her historic home. Should BGE terminate her gas service, she would be

immediately deprived of her ability to cook in her kitchen or to make use of hot water.

PLAINTIFF CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

28. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as the representative of all members of

a plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 2-231(c)(3). The class of persons represented by Plaintiffs is

composed of all those persons who are current BGE customers with working gas service, whose

properties are subject to BGE’s forced policy of installing exterior gas pressure regulators, whose

properties are not required to have exterior regulators under state or federal law, who object to the

installation of and construction work on their home necessary for the installation of an external

regulator, and who would suffer irreparable harm if BGE terminated gas service to their property.

29. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that such persons number in the

hundreds and constitute a class so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. Within

10
48 hours of announcing a potential lawsuit, over two hundred residents indicated their interest in

joining a lawsuit. In just a week, over 120 city residents have executed a retainer agreement and

indicated their objection to the installation of an exterior regulator. See Exhibit B-2 – B-4.

30. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs are adequate

representatives of the class because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the class and

because they are represented by counsel both skilled and experienced in complex litigation.

31. The questions of law and fact common to the plaintiff class are:

- Whether, under Section 20.31.02.02(C) of the Code of Maryland Regulations, BGE can

lawfully terminate gas service to a customer on the grounds that they decline an external gas pressure

regulator whose installation requires damaging the customer’s property and whose installation is not

required by state or federal law.

- Whether, under the Gas Service Tariff, BGE can lawfully terminate gas service to a customer

on the grounds that they decline an external gas pressure regulator whose installation requires

damaging the customer’s property and whose installation is not required by state or federal law.

32. These questions of law and fact are common to the plaintiff class and predominate

over questions affecting only individual members. A class action is superior to other available methods

for a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy because such action is uniquely suited to

determining the rights of and damages to hundreds of similarly situated individuals while minimizing

the amount of legal resources that must be deployed to resolve the controversy.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

33. As part of a savvy business strategy to reinforce its politically embattled natural gas

infrastructure with investments that can be directly recouped from customers, BGE has unilaterally

decided it will force upon every homeowner in Baltimore City an exterior gas pressure regulator. Under

11
the false pretext of safety, BGE has adopted a position that no jurisdiction in America has taken —

that an exterior gas pressure regulator is mandated for every residence.

34. Exterior pressure regulators, as an alternative to interior pressure regulators, are not

required under state or federal law, except for multifamily dwellings under the Flower Branch Act.

See PUA § 7-313(a)(3). They are not mandated or recommended by the PSC, nor are they even favored

by federal safety guidelines. PHMSA, the federal agency that “develops and enforces regulations for

the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation’s 2.6-million-mile pipeline

transportation system,”1 has made clear that exterior regulators are suitable for homes in certain

contexts, while interior regulators are safer and superior in others. See 49 C.F.R. § 192.353.

35. Nevertheless, the utility giant today claims that exterior regulators are the best option,

no matter the circumstances, for every residence in Baltimore City. This is exactly the opposite of

what BGE said just three years ago as it successfully lobbied the Maryland General Assembly to limit

the breadth of the mandate for installing external pressure regulators:

BGE understands and shares the objective of House Bill 408 to prioritize the safety of
our customers and infrastructure. . . . However, the bill as introduced, produces several
challenges and concerns that should be addressed. . . .

Additionally, BGE has a unique situation in that its service territory has several densely
populated areas such as Baltimore City that do not often provide for appropriate open
outside space to allow for outside meter or regulator installations. The utility also has to
take into consideration existing local and federal laws that prevent locating equipment
on public rights of way, in historic locations or in conflict with the Americans Disabilities
Act [sic] standards.

Exhibit C-7 (Position Statement on HB 408).

36. BGE took this position as Maryland considered what reforms were appropriate after

the 2016 deadly explosion at the Flower Branch apartment complex in Silver Spring killed seven

1
See U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
General FAQs, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/faqs/general-faqs.

12
people and injured dozens more. Remarkably, in its request for amendments to what would become

the Flower Branch Act, BGE specifically asked the legislature to “remove the requirement that a gas

service regulator be relocated anytime a meter is replaced.” Exhibit C-8.

37. To be clear, BGE succeeded in convincing the General Assembly that exterior

regulators were not always safer and not appropriate in all circumstances, citing as its central

illustration the situation in Baltimore City. Ultimately, outdoor pressure regulators were required only

for multifamily residential structures containing six or more units. Even in cases where it is mandatory,

the Flower Branch Act requires “that a gas service regulator be installed away from roads, driveways,

parking areas, or other locations exposed to vehicular traffic or other external forces that may damage

the gas service regulator.” PUA § 7-313(c).

38. The risk of outdoor placement flagged by the Flower Branch Act was nothing new.

In the 2020 debate over HB 408, BGE’s allies, like the Maryland chapter of the Association for

Commercial Real Estate, made the safety case against exterior gas regulators, citing data from the

PHMSA: “Gas service regulators placed outside are at risk for damage from vehicular traffic. PHMSA

data shows that between 2005 and 2018[,] 18% of gas line releases that resulted in a fatality or

hospitalization were caused by vehicular damage to meter and regulators located outside of a building.”

See Exhibit C-11 (arguing, like BGE, that external regulators should not be widely mandated).

39. BGE’s stance back then and the middle-ground position reflected in the Flower

Branch Act echoed the safety guidelines previously established by PHMSA and reaffirmed in its report

after the Flower Branch explosion:

The Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. 192.353 require that each meter
and service regulator, whether inside or outside a building, must be installed in a readily
accessible location and be protected from corrosion and other damage, including
vehicular damage.

13
See Pipeline Safety: Inside Meters and Regulators (Notice by PHMSA, Sept. 29, 2020).2 See also Exhibit

A-37 (Affidavit of Jessie C. Cunningham).3

40. In sum, state law does not universally require external regulators and does not require

external regulators in any of Plaintiffs’ homes, none of which are multi-family dwellings. Federal

regulations issued by the governing agency explicitly raise safety concerns about external regulators

with respect to corrosion and vehicular damage. And BGE itself lobbied to avoid a more far-reaching

mandate just three years ago, invoking the circumstances of Baltimore City to explain why exterior

regulators would not make sense in all cases.

41. Thus, what BGE seeks is not the safer course, but the more profitable one.

In Maryland, BGE is entitled to recover investments in infrastructure from customers through rate

hikes and surcharges, even as it has to absorb maintenance and repair costs itself. Maryland People’s

Counsel put it bluntly in a commentary earlier this year: “The gas companies are pursuing their

economic interests, aggressively, for the benefit of their investors. They are spending large amounts

on their systems, because they make money by recovering their capital investments — along with a

return for investors that more than triples the total costs for customers — through utility bills.”

Unnecessary gas investments set to raise rates; Maryland regulator must intervene (BALT. SUN, February 10, 2023).

42. BGE’s perverse financial incentives are derived from the Strategic Infrastructure

Development and Enhancement Plan (STRIDE), a state law enacted in 2013, that encourages utility

2
Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/29/2020-21507/pipeline-
safety-inside-meters-and-regulators#citation-1-p61102.
3
BGE has claimed its newfound conviction in favor of external regulators is rooted in an older June
2019 report prepared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which advocated for
uniform placement of pressure regulators outdoors. But this report did not sway BGE when it lobbied
the General Assembly in 2020 for a more relaxed mandate. More importantly, NTSB does not issue
standards or regulations; it merely makes recommendations to PHMSA, which has ultimate authority
on these matters and ultimately declined to follow NTSB’s less nuanced proposal.

14
companies to invest in replacing older infrastructure by allowing them to recover from customers their

investment costs contemporaneously with when they make those investments.

43. STRIDE’s incentive structure explains why BGE has committed itself to replacing

aging pipes instead of fixing them: “Fixing pipes can be a lower-cost alternative to replacement. But

fixing pipes is not profitable for the utilities because fixes are operational costs, not capital investments

on which utilities earn a profit. Because STRIDE only allows accelerated cost recovery for capital

projects that earn a return, it has further disincentivized utilities from repairing pipes rather than

replacing them.” See Office of People’s Counsel, STRIDE: FAQs.4

44. BGE itself has acknowledged this in one of its documents explaining how customers

ultimately bear the costs of Operation Pipeline, the company’s long-term strategy to reinforce gas

infrastructure in Baltimore City with new high-pressure pipes, which are what necessitate the pressure

regulators in the first place. Its admission comes in the context of why BGE would not cover the

expense of costs like repairing drywall that are associated with some houses but not others:

[The pipe upgrade] is being paid for through an approved rate-based increase. Each
customer is paying a portion of the rate base increase for this upgrade. However, each
customer’s residence does not require drywall or paneling repairs. Therefore, it would not be
a prudent use of rate payer money for BGE to cover the cost of individual drywall or paneling
repairs which affects the overall gas customer base.

Exhibit C-15.

45. BGE’s massive customer-financed investment in entirely new pipeline infrastructure

also creates a heavier anchor that will need to be dislodged should political forces ever converge to

move Baltimore City away from natural gas. This is no small concern for BGE. Forward-looking cities

from Berkeley, California to Brookline, Massachusetts, alongside major regional hubs like Washington,

D.C., and San Francisco, California, have all passed bans on natural gas in new construction. Vermont

4
Available at https://opc.maryland.gov/Consumer-Learning/Natural-Gas/STRIDE.

15
and Massachusetts have already adopted similar laws, and just last year Montgomery County became

the first county on the East Coast to prohibit natural gas in new buildings by 2026.

46. Consequently, BGE must urgently handcuff customers to its golden goose, as it

confronts a growing tide of political momentum that would wash away the gas infrastructure the utility

giant is scrambling to reinforce. The sooner and more BGE spends to double down on its gas pipeline

infrastructure, all at the sole expense of its customers, the harder it becomes politically and practically

for those customers to free themselves from the grip of a utility company that is devoted to preserving

a profit-bearing business model that reinforces our dependence on fossil fuels, contributes to climate

change, and hurts human health. As People’s Counsel David Lapp recently told the media, “What they

are doing is spending as much as they can, as fast as they can.” BGE gas regulators: Company says devices

are safer outside. Regulations aren’t so clear (BALT. BANNER, June 12, 2023).

47. BGE’s final economic reason for adopting high pressure gas lines, creating the

corresponding need for exterior pressure regulators, is that this “upgrade” reduces the amount of

water that sneaks into pipes and thereby lowers overall maintenance costs for the utility company. See

Exhibit A-37 (Affidavit of Jessie C. Cunningham). That is doubly valuable for BGE financially because

those maintenance expenses cannot be recouped from customers, whereas the estimated $105 million

that will be spent to replace indoor gas regulators with external ones can all be added to the bill for

Maryland customers. See BGE gas regulators: Company says devices are safer outside. Regulations aren’t so clear”

(BALT. BANNER, June 12, 2023).

48. BGE therefore has a clear-eyed appreciation of the profitability and business value of

exterior regulators, whether or not they are supported by federal safety guidelines or required by state

or federal law. With these considerations in mind, BGE has literally and metaphorically bulldozed

their way across Baltimore City, foisting upon every homeowner and every community an unwarranted

construction project that saddles the property with new equipment that, at best, is an eyesore that

16
degrades home values and historic significance and, at worst, creates a dangerous powder keg in an

urban environment where vandalism and vehicular damage are commonplace.

49. Just to install these exterior pressure regulators, construction workers have to

jackhammer the street and sidewalk immediately outside the residence to gain access to the street pipe.

See Exhibit D at 1-2. BGE subcontractors, who are performing most of the work, must also drill

through the façade of the home, no matter whether it is made of marble, granite, or original brick.

See Exhibit D at 3-10.

50. The installations that BGE has completed to date have already wrought irreparable

destruction across Baltimore City, and there are countless stories of damage to house foundations,

cracks in irreplaceable historic facades and architectural assets, disruption of the natural habitat,

interference with plumbing and other vital public works, as well as physical injuries and safety risks to

seniors, children, pedestrians, and large and small vehicles. See, e.g., Exhibit B-5. These same

consequences and risks of injuries and damage, including irreparable harm, are recreated each time

BGE perpetrates another installation of an exterior regulator that residents do not want or need.

See Exhibit A (compiling the sworn affidavits of the named Plaintiffs). And, in the alternative, if a

customer declines the unnecessary installation, BGE has repeatedly threatened — and now made real

the threat — that they will terminate gas service to the property. For Plaintiffs who depend on gas

service for one or more essential services, including but not limited to heat and hot water, they will be

unable to, inter alia, cook or clean, provide for their children or older family members, take showers

or wash and dry clothes. No one should be placed in this position or presented with this Hobson’s

choice. Because BGE has now repeatedly taken the exceptional and unprecedented step of cutting off

service in the context of this ongoing dispute, these harms and risks are no longer vague or abstract

— they are concrete, immediate, and inhumane.

* * * * *

17
 COUNT I

Declaratory Judgment

51. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint are

incorporated by reference herein.

52. There exists an actual controversy of a justiciable issue between Plaintiffs and BGE

within the jurisdiction of this Court concerning the interpretation of the Code of Maryland

Regulations and BGE Gas Service Tariff, a statewide contract executed under Maryland law.

53. In accordance with Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3-409, the controversy concerning

BGE’s right to threaten gas service termination over customers’ refusal to permit damaging

construction work on their properties to install new equipment that is not required by law or regulation

can and would be terminated by a judicial declaration that either BGE’s Gas Service Tariff and/or

Section 20.31.02.02(C) of the Code of Maryland Regulations does not permit BGE to threaten or

pursue service termination in the event of residents’ refusal to permit actions by BGE that exceed the

scope of customers’ service agreement and the authority of a utility company under state regulations.

COUNT II

Injunction

54. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint are

incorporated by reference herein.

55. Plaintiffs will suffer greatly if an injunction is not granted, as they will be forced to

choose between allowing BGE to do irreparable damage to their homes or having their access shut

off to essential gas services. On the other hand, BGE will not suffer at all if this injunction is granted

since it preserves the status quo, as none of what BGE is doing is required by state or federal law, and

BGE can continue to provide gas services using its current infrastructure.

18
 56. BGE’s predictable argument that an injunction is contrary to the public interest is

facially invalid. BGE is installing external regulators without the guards and protections mandated by

the legislature, placing the public at much greater risk than would simply taking no action at all.

Moreover, the public interest is reflected in the legislation adopted by the General Assembly that

mandates exterior regulators only for multi-family dwellings, specifically structures that contain six or

more dwelling units, and has no mandate whatsoever for Plaintiffs’ properties.

57. Without an injunction, much of the damage sought to be prevented by this lawsuit —

the damage done to residential homes and the shutting off of a vital public utility — will already have

been done. Without an injunction, the lives and homes of Baltimore residents are put needlessly in

jeopardy, all because of BGE’s profit-driven business decisions masquerading as safety arguments and

deploying a deliberate strategy that allows them to pass costs on to customers statewide.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court order the following relief:

(1) Determine and adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to

access and control over Plaintiffs’ property; and

(2) Issue a declaratory judgment that BGE’s threats to terminate gas service are

unlawful under Maryland regulations; and

(3) Issue a declaratory judgment that BGE’s threats to terminate gas service violate

the express terms of the Gas Service Tariff; and

(4) Issue a declaratory judgment that BGE is forbidden from making these threats

now or in the future for the purpose of obtaining consent to install an external

gas pressure regulator; and

(5) Issue an injunction restraining Defendant from interfering with the gas service

of any Plaintiff or member of the Plaintiff Class; and

19
 (6) Issue an injunction restraining Defendant from threatening, in writing or

through its representatives and subcontractors, to cut off gas services for

declining the installation of an external gas regulator; and

(7) Issue an injunction restraining Defendant from installing any new external gas

pressure regulators except in cases where they are required by law, or if granted

consent by the property owner (without the threat of service termination); and

(8) Issue an injunction ordering Defendant to restore gas service to all homes

where Defendant has carried out its threat, including but not limited to the

homes located on Warren Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, whose service was

terminated this week; and

(9) Award Plaintiffs any additional relief this Court deems just and proper in

furtherance of justice.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of any and all claims so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________
THIRUVENDRAN VIGNARAJAH

Client Protection Fund No. 0812180249

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 23, 2023

20
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY certify that on this 23rd day of June 2023, a copy of the foregoing Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and Demand for Jury Trial was filed with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and a copy sent by USPS and email to:

David Ralph, General Counsel, Baltimore Gas & Electric

David.Ralph@bge.com

_________________________________
THIRUVENDRAN VIGNARAJAH

21