Economic Development - Federal Employee-to-Entrepreneur Program - Establishment
HB0960, titled the “Ratepayer Freedom Act,” would restrict what investor-owned electric, gas, and combination gas-and-electric utilities may charge customers through rates. The bill prohibits recovery of costs tied to lobbying and political activities, including efforts to influence legislation, ordinances, referenda, public officials, campaigns, and public opinion on governmental matters. It also bars recovery of certain expenses such as trade association dues and contributions, advertising and marketing intended to sell services or influence goodwill, travel and entertainment for directors and officers, aircraft costs, gifts, and most investor-relations expenses.
The bill creates limited exceptions. A utility could recover some advertising or marketing costs only if it proves in a rate case that the spending directly benefited ratepayers and was in the public interest. It could also recover investor-relations costs only when those costs are necessary and appropriate to meet customer performance obligations. The measure would take effect October 1, 2025, and would add new provisions to the Public Utilities Article governing utility ratemaking and reporting.
HB0960 would amend Maryland’s Public Utilities Article by adding new sections 4-504 and 6-211, narrowing the types of utility expenses that can be included in regulated rates and expanding annual reporting obligations to the Public Service Commission. It would require detailed itemization of lobbying, political, advertising, employee, vendor, and affiliate costs, including unredacted billing information and supporting documentation. The bill would primarily affect investor-owned electric, gas, and combination utilities, as well as their parent companies, affiliates, vendors, and ratepayers who ultimately bear utility costs.
The available record shows no committee testimony or recorded votes, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. Based on the bill’s framing, the measure appears designed to appeal to consumer advocates and ratepayer-focused reform efforts by limiting utility cost recovery for political and promotional spending. The absence of recorded opposition or floor action makes it difficult to gauge broader legislative sentiment, but the withdrawal suggests the proposal did not advance to a vote.
The main point of contention is likely whether utilities should be allowed to recover lobbying, political, marketing, and investor-relations expenses from customers through rates. Supporters would view the bill as protecting ratepayers from subsidizing corporate political activity and non-essential overhead, while utilities and their trade associations would likely argue that some of these costs are legitimate business expenses necessary for operations, compliance, customer communication, and system planning. The bill’s detailed disclosure requirements, including unredacted vendor billing and affiliate allocations, could also raise concerns about administrative burden and confidentiality.