Prince George's County - Termination of Gas or Electric Service to Multifamily Dwelling Units - Notification PG 406-25
HB0353 would amend Maryland’s Public Utilities law to add a Prince George’s County-specific notification requirement before a public service company disconnects gas or electric service for nonpayment to a multifamily dwelling unit. In addition to the existing rule requiring notice to a property owner or property manager when the customer has authorized third-party notice, the bill would require notice to each county elected official representing the district where the multifamily unit is located, but only when the unit is served through a master meter or submeter and the customer and any tenant have consented.
The bill also clarifies that property owners or property managers may require, as a lease term, that tenants ensure the utility account holder provides consent for third-party notice. It preserves the ability of customers to request other forms of third-party notification and authorizes the Public Service Commission to adopt implementing regulations. The bill would take effect October 1, 2026, and would apply only to multifamily dwelling units in Prince George’s County.
HB0353 would modify Section 7-307.3 of the Public Utilities Article by adding a local notice requirement for utility shutoffs in Prince George’s County and by expanding the framework for third-party notification in multifamily housing. The bill affects public service companies, multifamily property owners and managers, tenants, and county elected officials, while leaving the underlying authority to terminate service for nonpayment intact. It would create a county-specific procedural obligation for utilities and could prompt PSC rulemaking or utility policy changes to handle the new notice process.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at improving advance notice and local awareness of utility shutoffs in multifamily housing, suggesting a consumer-protection and tenant-stability rationale. Because there is no recorded opposition or support in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate history, but the sponsor’s withdrawal indicates the bill did not advance to enactment.
The main points of potential contention are the added administrative burden on public service companies and the requirement to notify county elected officials of impending shutoffs, which is broader than the existing third-party notice to property owners or managers. Property owners and managers may also be concerned about the lease-based consent requirement and the practical handling of master-meter and submeter accounts in multifamily buildings. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing surprise utility disconnections and improving communication for affected tenants, while opponents could focus on operational complexity, privacy/consent issues, and the local carve-out limited to Prince George’s County.