Natural Gas – Connection and Line Extension – Discounts and Payment Plans
HB0958 would limit the Maryland Public Service Commission’s authority over how public service companies structure charges for natural gas line connections and extensions. Specifically, it prohibits the Commission from adopting or enforcing any regulation or order that would bar a utility from offering a discount or a payment plan to a customer for the connection or extension of a natural gas line to the customer’s property.
The bill does not require utilities to offer discounts or payment plans, but it preserves their ability to do so if they choose. It is framed as a narrow change to state utility regulation, focused on natural gas distribution and customer connection costs, and would take effect October 1, 2026 if enacted.
If enacted, HB0958 would add a new section to the Public Utilities Article and constrain the Public Service Commission’s regulatory authority in this area. The practical effect would be to prevent state regulators from blocking utility-run discount programs or installment-style payment plans for natural gas line connections and extensions. This could affect public service companies, prospective gas customers, and the Commission’s oversight of utility customer-assistance or infrastructure cost-recovery arrangements.
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be generally supportive of utility flexibility and customer affordability options. The sponsors and co-sponsors suggest interest in making natural gas service connections more accessible by allowing discounts or payment plans. No committee testimony, vote record, or recorded debate was provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s sponsorship and referral for hearing.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between utility flexibility and regulatory oversight. Supporters would likely argue that customers benefit from lower upfront costs and more manageable payment options for connecting to natural gas service, while critics may worry that limiting the Public Service Commission could reduce consumer protections or complicate utility rate and cost regulation. Because no transcripts or votes are available, specific arguments from opponents or supporters are not documented in the provided materials.