The House Environmental Matters Committee approved a bill yesterday that would let Maryland customers choose their electricity supplier, and guarantee homeowners and renters temporary rate cuts of 3 percent to 7 percent.

The measure, adopted by a 14-5 vote, differs in some respects from the electricity deregulation bill pending in the Senate, but not enough to satisfy environmental and consumer groups who have urged Gov. Parris N. Glendening to press for more changes.

Besides the residential rate cut, guaranteed for three years, the House bill creates a $24 million fund to help poor people pay their electricity bills, financed 80 percent by fees levied on industrial and commercial customers. Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. praised the committee bill, saying it is "clearly focused on protecting the residential consumer and low-income citizens and at the same time allows Maryland to move forward in the field of economic development."

If adopted, the House bill would begin a three-year phase-in of electricity choice for residential customers starting July 1, 2000.

Industrial and commercial customers -- who hope to save 10 percent to 15 percent on energy costs through competition among suppliers -- would all be able to shop for cheaper power starting Jan. 1, 2001.

The bill requires energy suppliers to disclose, four times a year, pollution levels and fuel types of plants from which they buy power, and it allows businesses to generate their own power using cleaner, energy-efficient technology.

But critics were not persuaded.

"This bill follows the Senate's lead in giving everything to industry and the utilities, and nothing to consumers and the environment," said Dan Pontious, executive director of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group.

Environmental and consumer groups called on lawmakers to strengthen protections in the deregulation legislation or defeat it.

Spokesmen for utilities and industry warned that any moves to impose more environmental requirements could kill the chances for deregulation this year, with dire consequences for Maryland's economy.

"What the environmentalists are proposing would raise rates so much we'd rather not have deregulation," said Michael C. Powell, a lawyer representing 24 of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.'s largest industrial customers, who have been pressing for legislation that would enable them to shop for cheaper power.

Glendening has said he also has concerns about the environmental impact of deregulating electricity.

Environmentalists say they fear that if the state's regulated electrical monopoly is opened to competition, the cheapest power will come from older, coal-fired plants, some of which are exempt from clean-air standards.

Utility and industry spokesmen contend that the costs of meeting any new environmental requirements could offset any potential savings from deregulation. They say consumers should be given the choice to buy "green" power if they choose, and they support emission-disclosure requirements.

Utility spokesmen argue that deregulation will not worsen pollution, because of federally required efforts to clean up emissions from power plants.

Last fall, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered 22 states east of the Mississippi River to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from their power plants by 85 percent by 2003.

Nitrogen oxides are a major ingredient in the formation of ozone, the pollutant that frequently reaches unhealthy levels in the Baltimore and Washington areas during summer.

BGE spokesmen noted that the company will spend at least $160 million more on the nitrogen oxide controls required by the EPA and by Maryland and other East Coast states.

But business and labor groups -- including one to which BGE belongs -- are trying to block the EPA's nitrogen oxide rules. The Utility Air Regulatory Group has joined with at least two states and several other groups in filing lawsuits challenging the federal requirements.

Sun staff writer Gady A. Epstein contributed to this article.

Pub Date: 3/24/99