It’s the law

First, he ignored his sworn mandate as governor to uphold Maryland jurisprudence so he could retain his environmental credentials.

Then he disregarded clear and convincing federal and state mandates regarding energy pricing as he continued portraying utilities as evil while holding out the false hope he and his appointees can lower energy prices.

Both episodes, on the same day, are vintage O’Malley. Blame someone else for problems — preferably a Republican or a big, bad corporation. Choose a course of action that generates a political payoff, even if you ride roughshod over existing law. Then tug on the heartstrings of your political base.

Example No. 1: The brouhaha over a 1,350-home waterfront development on Kent Island in Queen Anne’s County.

Developers of the project, on farmland near the Bay Bridge, had for eight years met all regulatory and legal conditions. The project passed every environmental test, including the 23-year-old Critical Areas law controlling building along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. It was in an area designated for growth.

Still, developers needed a wetlands permit from the Board of Public Works. Such permits are routinely granted.

Even O’Malley’s secretary of the environment and his secretary of planning spoke in favor of granting the permit. There was no legal reason to do otherwise, they said.

They also expressed concern with a project of this size being built so close to the Bay. To them, it wasn’t a smart idea.

But, they added, they were bound to follow the law, and thus they supported granting a wetlands permit.

None of that impressed O’Malley or Comptroller Peter Franchot, who had made the project a cause celebre at the Board of Public Works.

O’Malley cast the deciding vote against the residential development, thus continuing his popularity with environmentalists. The governor had no legal reason to reject the permit, no substantive objection to the application other than the fact he doesn’t want the project built there.

His solution? Let the builder find another 500-acre tract on the Eastern Shore far from the Chesapeake Bay.

With logic like that, O’Malley could chase major developers out of the state. How can businesses operate in a place where laws are not followed and the governor makes up the rules according to his political whim?

State Treasurer Nancy Kopp put the project in correct perspective. She said she was troubled by this development on the Bay and that laws should be tightened in the future. But she saw no legal basis for denying the wetlands permit.

She understands that as a state official, she has a sworn obligation to follow the laws as they are written — even if she doesn’t like the outcome.

O’Malley, on the other hand, opted to pretend he can create his own politically correct version of equity and justice, despite what is written in state statutes. That sets a dangerous precedent.

Example No. 2: The renewed firestorm over a huge rate increase by the state’s biggest electric utility, BG&E.

O’Malley got elected governor by inveighing on this issue: ‘‘Martin O’Malley — taking on BG&E to stop the rate hikes,” his TV ads proclaimed. He promised to ‘‘fire” the Public Service Commission for approving higher electric prices.

Yet now the O’Malley-appointed PSC has approved the very rate increase O’Malley said he would prevent. How did the governor respond to this news? He took aim at the Ehrlich-era PSC as the culprit and portrayed BG&E as the Evil Empire.

Yet last week’s PSC opinion made it clear that try as commissioners might to live up to O’Malley’s promise, there is no legal way to reduce or defer the BG&E rate hike.

A 1999 law — passed by a Democratic legislature — called for a freeze in electric rates, followed by a jump to market rates later. A Democratic governor insisted on a long rate freeze for BG&E. Then a 2005 law, passed by another Democratic legislature, ordered a shift to market rates by Jan. 1, 2008.

The PSC’s hands were tied. Indeed, the hands of the Ehrlich-era’s PSC were tied. Sure, there were mistakes made — Ehrlich’s choice of a PSC chairman, for instance, proved a disaster, as was the 1999 legislature’s decision, at Gov. Parris Glendening’s insistence, to freeze electric rates for so long.

But that’s no reason for O’Malley to seek to revise history so he can blame others for the massive rate hike.

This may produce short-term political advantages but it presents citizens with a distorted view of reality: BGE followed the 1999 law. It froze rates as ordered. Since then, electric prices have soared. Now the law mandates a return to market prices. What is BG&E supposed to do?

O’Malley could play a constructive role by telling Marylanders a hard-to-accept truth: ‘‘You got a great discount on electric prices for years but it couldn’t last forever.”

Playing the blame game poisons the well of public debate. Enforcing the laws inconsistently destroys public confidence in government. The politician in O’Malley always seems to have the upper hand. When will the statesman start to emerge?

Barry Rascovar is a communications consultant. His Wednesday morning commentaries can be heard on WYPR, 88.1 FM.