The Maryland AI refund fight still waits for the filing that ties data-center load to a household bill. [1]

The paper's June 19 brief on the Maryland AI refund docket said the local story needed a ratepayer document, not a national take. FERC's June 20 source stack explains why the question matters. The commission's large-load action puts AI-scale demand inside a grid-integration process. [1]

The FERC fact sheet describes grid efficiency, reliability, interconnection, and tariff reform as the commission's public frame. [2] Those are real issues, but they are not yet a Maryland refund-effective date or cost-causation record. [1][2]

The divergence is household-sized. X can say AI data centers are on your bill. MSM can say FERC has opened a process. The source-specific question is whether Maryland, PJM, FERC, a utility, or a consumer advocate files a document naming who pays and when a refund claim attaches. [1][2]

No verified X status URL appears in the memo. The article stays with FERC's records and the missing local filing. [1][2]

Until that next filing appears, the bill-shock argument is plausible but not proven in this docket packet.

-- THEO KAPLAN, San Francisco