HB 974, the “Freedom From Monopolies Act,” would substantially rewrite Maryland’s retail electricity and gas supply laws. The bill repeals several provisions governing energy salespersons and energy vendors, removes or narrows a number of consumer-choice and reporting requirements, and revises the rules for licensing, consumer protection, and enforcement for electricity suppliers and gas suppliers. It also changes the Public Service Commission’s assessment cap, renames the Education and Protection Fund as the Retail Choice Customer Education and Protection Fund, and redirects the fund’s purpose toward customer education and protection in retail energy choice.
On the electricity side, the bill preserves the basic licensing framework for electricity suppliers but removes references to energy salespersons and energy vendors from many provisions. It also reduces the maximum civil penalty for certain violations, changes the Commission’s authority to revoke or suspend licenses and impose remedies, and revises the rules governing residential electricity supply, including pricing, renewal, telemarketing, customer account-number replacement, and “do not transfer” protections. The bill also alters standard offer service provisions, including reporting and the Commission’s authority to define default service, while leaving the broader customer-choice structure in place.
For gas supply, the bill similarly removes energy salesperson and energy vendor references and updates the Commission’s licensing and consumer-protection authority over gas suppliers. It keeps the Commission’s role in regulating gas retail supply, complaint handling, and consumer protections, but aligns the gas provisions more closely with the revised electricity framework. The bill also repeals certain renewable-energy-related reporting and green-energy provisions tied to retail supply regulation and removes a number of existing statutory sections entirely.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship and framing appears strongly deregulatory and pro-competition, emphasizing retail choice and opposition to monopoly control in energy supply. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate record in the materials to show support or opposition beyond the bill’s text and title. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to simplify or roll back parts of the current retail energy regulatory regime while retaining core consumer-protection oversight by the Public Service Commission.
Likely points of contention include the repeal of protections and reporting requirements for energy salespersons and vendors, the reduction in civil penalties, the narrowing of some consumer-choice safeguards, and the elimination of certain green-energy and renewable-energy-credit provisions. Consumer advocates, the Office of People’s Counsel, and regulators may focus on whether the bill weakens customer protections, while supporters are likely to argue that it reduces unnecessary regulation and expands retail energy competition. The bill would take effect October 1, 2026, and would apply prospectively only, leaving existing supply agreements untouched.
HB 974 would amend Maryland’s Public Utilities Article by repealing several retail-energy provisions, revising licensing and enforcement rules for electricity and gas suppliers, and narrowing the statutory role of energy salespersons and energy vendors. It would lower the Commission’s assessment cap for certain expenses, rename and repurpose the Retail Choice Customer Education and Protection Fund, and redirect civil-penalty revenue into that fund. The bill also abolishes a Commission division created by prior law and requires reassignment of affected employees without loss of pay or benefits.
The bill’s tone and title indicate a pro-market, anti-monopoly approach to retail energy supply, with an emphasis on deregulation and consumer choice. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s sponsorship and text. Based on the language alone, supporters would likely view it as a reform to simplify energy retail regulation, while opponents would likely see it as reducing consumer safeguards and oversight.
The main areas of contention are likely to be the repeal of energy salesperson and energy vendor provisions, the reduction in civil penalties, and the removal or narrowing of customer-protection, reporting, and green-energy requirements. Consumer protection officials, the Office of People’s Counsel, and potentially the Public Service Commission may object to the loss of enforcement tools and disclosures, while retail suppliers and bill sponsors may support the reduced regulatory burden. The bill also changes how the Commission funds and administers education and protection efforts, which may draw scrutiny over whether the revised fund purpose is sufficiently broad.