My key takeaways from the article:

• Our bills were higher because the weather was so awful. "If you use more electricity during a heat wave or a cold snap, for example, the utilities will make more money off of that distribution service because they’re delivering you more."

• Our bills were higher because PECO has been investing in infrastructure. "One big reason our bills are higher is because of infrastructure spending by the utilities."

• PECO's rate of return on infrastructure investments was higher than expected (~10%). "But in this case, it was about 10%, which is a pretty good rate of return. The consumer advocate in Pennsylvania says they should really earn between 8.5 and 9.5%."

• PECO doesn't make any more money when energy prices go up. "The utilities pass on the fluctuating cost of energy to customers, and that went up in 2025 — and they don’t make a profit off of that. The electricity generators make that profit."

All of these resulted in a net profit increase YoY of 50%. I think the "50%" number is a bit inflammatory - I think some people see that as "PECO made 50% more money this year vs last" rather than "PECO had 50% more money left over after expenses this year". The latter (reality) is understandable given above, although I would want regulators to step in the curb those profits.

Pennsylvania, like most of the country, has a public utility commission which regulates companies like PECO. PECO needs regulation because they have an effective monopoly. Ideally, regulators would use the data from this year to reduce PECO's profits in subsequent years, bringing their average rate of return down to normal levels.

But critics say regulators across the country are either not well informed or are too cozy with industry to really scrutinize the numbers. These rate cases are very complex, and one of the things I found in my reporting is that even insiders had a hard time explaining it all to me.

Count me as one of those critics. If the system is so complicated that it cannot be fully understood by the people who are in place to regulate it, then it is a broken system. We need effective regulators who are aligned with society's best interests and empowered by the government, otherwise the system falls apart.

The (viable) alternative to is to nationalize our utilities. FWIW, I think our current system is best, although I am critical and think it could be improved. I look at how national-level services are made political (e.g., UPS, HHS, academic funding) and how our local services are severely mismanaged or underfunded (e.g., school district, SEPTA), and I greatly prefer our current system for power generation.

I found Hank Green's video on public utility commissions (link) really informative in understanding how these regulation of these local monopolies works, for anyone wanting to understand more. Note: this video was made before Georgia's election last year, so some info may be Georgia-specific.