Electric Companies and Gas Companies - Customer Bill Surcharge - Repeal
HB 521 repeals a specific customer bill surcharge on electric and gas bills that was previously used to support energy efficiency and conservation programs tied to Maryland’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. The bill removes the Public Service Commission’s authority to adopt rate-making policies that recover certain program costs through a surcharge line item on customer bills, including provisions related to current cost recovery, paying down older unpaid and unamortized costs, compensation for those costs, and performance incentives or penalties. It also deletes a related disclosure requirement that would have required utilities to explain the surcharge and the time period over which excess charges would be collected.
The bill also amends the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund statute to remove language that specifically allowed the Fund to provide residential rate relief by offsetting surcharges imposed under the Public Utilities Article. As drafted, the measure is an emergency bill, meaning it would take effect immediately upon enactment. In practical terms, it would shift how certain energy-efficiency and conservation costs are recovered and would reduce or eliminate a line-item charge on electric and gas customer bills that had been used to finance those programs.
HB 521 would change Maryland utility law by repealing key parts of Public Utilities Article § 7-222(d) and deleting § 7-222(e), thereby ending the surcharge-based cost recovery structure for certain utility energy-efficiency and conservation programs. It would also narrow the uses of the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund by removing the explicit authority to offset those surcharges for residential customers. The affected parties include electric and gas utilities, the Public Service Commission, residential and other utility customers, and programs tied to state energy savings and emissions-reduction targets.
Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-relief and utility-bill reduction proposal, with supporters likely viewing the surcharge as an unnecessary or burdensome charge on ratepayers. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available materials. The emergency designation suggests the sponsors viewed the issue as urgent and important enough to warrant immediate action.
The main point of contention is likely whether repealing the surcharge would undermine funding for energy-efficiency and conservation programs that support greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Supporters of repeal would likely argue that customers should not continue paying a dedicated surcharge, especially for older costs and program expenses, while opponents would likely argue that the surcharge is necessary to finance state energy policy, utility demand-reduction programs, and emissions targets. Another likely dispute is the removal of customer disclosure requirements, which some may see as reducing transparency about what customers are paying for and why.