The Chesapeake Bay’s health has taken a downturn, according to a new report card, with the estuary relegated from a “C+” to a “C” as climate extremes and runaway pollution limit restoration efforts.

The annual scorecard, produced by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES), evaluates the state of the bay and its watershed using ecological, social and economic indicators. The 2025 report lays out a mixed picture: Some long-term trends showed improvement but the effects of record heat, erratic rainfall and persistent nutrient pollution from fertilizer runoff undercut recent gains.

Overall, the bay’s health score dropped from 55 percent in 2024 to 50 percent this year. Eleven of 15 monitored regions registered declines. The report described the deterioration as “unfortunate but not surprising,” attributing much of the regression to the hottest year on record in 2024, combined with inconsistent precipitation patterns alternating between drought and intense storms.

“While parts of the watershed experienced drought, brief but intense downpours also caused runoff into Bay waters,” the report stated. “These downpours can cause water to flow over the ground rather than soak into it, increasing the fertilizer, dirt, and debris carried into waterways.”

Indicators measuring dissolved oxygen—a critical factor for marine life—remained strong at 90 percent, but water clarity nosedived to a score of just 18 percent. Chlorophyll-a levels, which are used to track algal blooms fueled by excess nutrients, also scored poorly at 22 percent. 

The score for aquatic grasses, a key ingredient for fish and crabs, fell to 38 percent, signaling stress on habitat. Total nitrogen and phosphorus levels were scored at 56 percent and 80 percent respectively, showing some improvement but reflecting persistent challenges in nutrient management.

Despite this year’s setback, the report stated that the bay’s overall condition is still better than historical lows in the 1980s. Management and restoration efforts by states and localities have made a difference, UMCES noted, including upgrades to wastewater treatment plants.  

Watershed Fares Better Than Bay

The broader Chesapeake Bay watershed—encompassing six states and Washington, D.C.—earned a “C+” grade.

Some regions scored better than others. The Upper James River watershed in Virginia received the highest score at 61 percent, while the Choptank watershed on Maryland’s Eastern Shore ranked lowest at 42 percent. The Delmarva Peninsula, a hotspot of agricultural runoff, continues to see significant challenges in managing nutrient flows into the bay’s tributaries despite targeted efforts.

This year’s report card featured new indicators, such as Temperature Stress and Conductivity, reflecting a growing scientific consensus that climate-related stressors are closely tied with water quality. It identifies increasing salt levels in freshwater systems—known as freshwater salinization—as a key factor that could have far-reaching consequences for both aquatic life and drinking water.

While the UMCES report card is widely considered a good aggregate of bay health, some experts raised concerns that its methodology may obscure critical nuances.

Betsy Nicholas, president of the Potomac Riverkeeper Network, a watchdog group for pollution and clean water enforcement, argued that the scorecard’s reliance on averaging can oversimplify complex regional variations. 

“When you’re doing a report card that looks at the big picture, we’re often not understanding the local impacts, which are going to be much more significant for the communities living there,” she said. “When you zoom out to big picture scale, it loses that granularity that’s really helpful in understanding the real scientific and ecological reasons for the issues and problems.” 

The need for granular understanding is even greater in the case of the Potomac region, she said, which had one of the lowest rankings in this year’s report card.

She added that threats to communities adjacent to heavily impaired regions, such as the Choptank and Lower Eastern Shore, may not be reflected in a regional “C” grade. On top of that, she said, the report doesn’t evaluate toxic pollution, a problem concentrated in certain areas. 

Heath Kelsey, who leads the scorecard project at UMCES, acknowledged the limitations in generalizing a vast, complex ecosystem like the bay into a single grade, but defended the approach as a necessary communication tool.

“We recognize that there’s always more granularity than we can capture in a composite score,” Kelsey said. “But we’re also trying to produce a report that’s accessible and digestible to the public, policymakers and advocates. The alternative is paralysis by complexity. Of course, you can still look at each indicator and category on its own to better understand the specific sector you are interested in.”

He added that ongoing efforts are underway to improve data granularity and participatory monitoring, including collaborations with local communities and nonprofits to refine sub-watershed metrics. 

For Kristin Reilly, director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, the scorecard serves as both a progress tracker and a warning flag. She pointed to the ongoing need for states within the watershed to fulfill their cleanup obligations under the Chesapeake Bay Program’s pollution reduction goals.

“Having the latest data and assessing the trends is a critical tool for clean water advocates,” Reilly said. “Report cards like these are helpful to see where we are seeing positive returns and where we need to refocus our efforts. Each community surrounding the Chesapeake Bay is unique, and there are no one-size-fits-all answers for pollution challenges.”

She emphasized that while progress has occurred in areas like wastewater treatment plant upgrades, agriculture—the single largest source of nutrient pollution—remains inadequately addressed across key upstream states. 

“We need to address all sources of pollution, but it’s important to thoughtfully consider tactics and work with communities as partners in restoring local water quality,” she said.

The Climate Concern

Scientists broadly agree that the Chesapeake Bay’s restoration effort is entering a new, more volatile phase driven by climate instability.

Extreme rainfall events push enormous sediment and nutrient loads into the bay in short, intense bursts, overwhelming existing filtration systems. Warmer waters stress native fish and shellfish populations, while sea-level rise threatens to inundate wetlands that serve as natural buffers. Meanwhile, salinity from saltwater intrusion and road salt runoff is taking a toll on freshwater ecosystems throughout the watershed.

UMCES scientists noted that nutrient reductions are increasingly being challenged by these climate-related factors. The 2025 report card states: “Water clarity has been declining over time, despite improvements in nutrient pollution. One potential cause is extreme weather, and understanding how storms affect the region will help managers make informed decisions.”

But despite the regression in this year’s scores, experts said the bay’s restoration remains on a positive trajectory, demonstrating long-term resilience.

Kelsey pointed to regional partnerships, updated monitoring tools and new stakeholder engagement models as signs that the restoration community is learning to adjust. “We’re continuously working to improve the categories and the indicators we use within those categories to reflect values and goals of restoration, management and community needs,” he said.

Nicholas agreed that broader inclusion of frontline communities in future scorecard designs would strengthen public trust and policy responsiveness. “The communities that are most impacted need a louder voice at the table,” she said. “That’s where better data and better governance intersect.” 

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News on June 14, 2015.

The post Chesapeake Bay health slips in 2025 report card as persistent challenges threaten long-term gains appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

Maryland legislators and environmental advocates expressed dismay after Gov. Wes Moore vetoed a series of widely supported climate and environmental study bills last week, actions they believe not only mark a sharp departure from his climate promises, but also reflect a breakdown in communication between the governor and members of his own party in the legislature.

On May 16, Moore vetoed more bills than he had in the past two years combined, including multiple proposals that had passed with strong backing from legislative leadership and key climate coalitions. 

The vetoes—affecting studies on climate costs, energy reliability, data center impacts and racial reparations—have left activists and lawmakers questioning whether Moore remains a reliable ally in the fight for climate and racial justice and whether his political calculus may have shifted, placing short-term cost savings above long-term structural reform.

Among the vetoed bills was the Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act of 2025, which would have tasked the comptroller and state agencies with assessing the total cost of greenhouse gas emissions and reporting findings by December 2026. Stripped down from its original version, which proposed financial penalties for fossil fuel companies, the bill was seen as an important step toward documenting climate damages and laying the groundwork for future polluter-pay policies.

The estimated cost of the study was about $500,000, drawn from the state’s Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF)—a dedicated fund supported by penalties utilities paid for failing to meet renewable energy targets. It has ballooned to over $300 million in recent years.

Moore also rejected the Data Center Impact Analysis and Report bill, which called for a collaborative study on the environmental and economic footprint of data center expansion across Maryland. The report, required to be completed by September 2026, was meant to guide future zoning and energy decisions as these power-intensive facilities expand statewide.

In a letter to the Senate and House leadership, Moore stated budget shortage, agency workload and redundancy as key reasons for the vetoes. “Many of these reports are never read and simply collect dust on shelves,” Moore wrote, calling the expected $1.28 million cost “an unsustainable commitment given the state’s current financial constraints.”

Also vetoed was the Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act, which would have created a Strategic Energy Planning Office within the Public Service Commission to assess long-term electricity reliability, model resource scenarios and recommend planning strategies. It was designed to help Maryland manage increasing energy demands as the state transitions toward clean power. The office would have released a major report every three years, coordinating with state agencies and collecting public input. The veto stalls forward-thinking energy planning, critics said.

In a separate letter to Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Adrienne Jones, Moore justified his veto of the Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act by citing fiscal constraints and overlaps. He pointed to the estimated annual cost of $4.4 million to $5.3 million, warning it would duplicate efforts and pass costs on to consumers. “This cost would ultimately be passed along to Maryland ratepayers at a time when we are actively working to limit their burden, not add to it,” he wrote.

The Moore administration did not provide additional comments on the vetoes.

The vetoes sparked immediate backlash. Del. Jheanelle Wilkins (D-Montgomery) defended the RENEW Act as “monumental” in its potential to drive meaningful climate justice, adding that the study’s cost was minor given the stakes. Reflecting on the broader political message the vetoes send, Wilkins, who chairs the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, said, “If there was any place for us to get this done … this would be it. So it does send a message that really reverberates across the country.” 

“I’m surprised and disappointed by the governor’s decision to veto important legislation,” said Sen. Katie Fry Hester (D-Howard, Montgomery), the lead sponsor of the strategic energy office bill. “I look forward to working with leadership in the legislature on next steps.” 

Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, sharply criticized Moore’s decision to veto the RENEW Act and the data center study, calling the process “horrible” and the reasoning “politically mistaken.” 

“I met with the governor in person in mid March. It was a one-on-one meeting with one of his aides specifically to talk about the RENEW Act,” Tidwell said. He received no objections at the time and was blindsided by the veto. The administration “never even called us,” he said, rejecting Moore’s fiscal justification, calling the $500,000 cost estimate “a rounding error” that would ultimately be funded by the SEIF—not taxpayer money. He emphasized that the study would have helped Maryland quantify climate damages and make polluters, not residents, pay. 

“If the governor vetoes a bill to basically begin to study what the polluters owe us, then the only conclusion you can make is he wants taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for a mess that the oil companies knowingly created,” Tidwell said. 

On the data center veto, he said Moore is “woefully behind the public,” ignoring the strain these energy-hungry facilities place on the grid. Ultimately, Tidwell concluded, “the governor sent a terrible message … that apparently he doesn’t believe we should even study how to generate revenue from the polluters,” and said Moore has undermined national efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.

“This veto is extremely frustrating and simply does not support the state’s climate goals,” said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. She said the RENEW Act study was a recommendation of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change and was supported by 69 percent of the members of the General Assembly. 

“[The] Maryland Department of the Environment identified creating a long-term funding source to support the state’s climate program as the most effective action Maryland can take to reduce emissions. This veto is not fiscal responsibility, it’s a definitive step in the opposite direction of our climate goals,” Coble said.

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, a climate advocate and member of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, called Moore’s vetoes a major letdown for environmental advocates. “It’s really heartbreaking to see a multiple number of climate groups have to come out against a Democratic governor who made so many wonderful climate promises,” she said. Mizrahi noted there was no public warning during the session that these vetoes were coming, and argued that the RENEW Act, in particular, was a missed opportunity to pursue accountability for fossil fuel companies. 

“Holding fossil fuel companies accountable will take time and legal action,” she noted, and added that Maryland needs to act now because climate harms are accelerating and lives are at stake. She warned that denying communities even the data to affirm their lived experiences undermines trust and preparedness.

Moore also vetoed a high-profile bill calling for the creation of the Maryland Reparations Commission to examine the legacy of slavery and systemic racial discrimination, including but not limited to housing discrimination, redlining and restrictive covenants, and recommend reparative policies by 2027. Though it did not mandate payments, the bill sought to explore a wide range of potential remedies and had strong backing from the Legislative Black Caucus, the largest Black caucus in the nation. The measure was projected to cost roughly $54,000 in its first year.

In his letter explaining that veto, Moore argued that Maryland had already conducted extensive studies on the legacy of slavery, including the Maryland Lynching Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 

“Now is not the time for another study,” he wrote. “Now is the time for continued action that delivers results for the people we serve.” He said the administration would focus instead on expanding homeownership, narrowing the racial wealth gap and uplifting Black entrepreneurship through direct policies.

Wilkins was deeply disappointed by Moore’s veto of the reparations bill, a top priority for her caucus, and rejected the fiscal rationale Moore offered for blocking it. “We carefully ensured that … it was very fiscally prudent. It was just a $50,000 study to pull together the commission,” she said. “There’s never been a time in Maryland history … that we’ve examined the issue of reparations.” 

In its statement, the Legislative Black Caucus more bluntly expressed its disappointment: “[T]he state’s first Black governor chose to block this historic legislation that would have moved the state toward directly repairing the harm of enslavement.”

Efforts are underway to reverse Moore’s vetoes on the RENEW Act and the reparations study bill. “I think there’s a strong possibility,” Wilkins said. “There’s a lot of passion on both bills and a lot of interest … and they did both pass with veto-proof majorities.”

The legislature holds the authority to override a veto with a three-fifths vote in each chamber. If the General Assembly is not in session, it can be convened into a special session by the governor or upon a petition by a majority of the elected members of both the Senate and the House of Delegates.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News on May 24.

The post Moore Vetoes Key Maryland Climate Studies, Reversing Course on Environmental Justice Commitments appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

But the political and economic terrain shifted fast. And implications have been dire. 

This year, Maryland delayed its zero-emission vehicle mandates, softened building decarbonization rules, cracked open the door to new fossil gas plants and redirected clean energy funds to cover budget holes. All this came in the wake of the Trump administration’s aggressive moves to gut federal climate programs and freeze key grants.

A year after Inside Climate News last spoke with her, Conklin—who reports directly to Gov. Wes Moore and oversees interagency climate coordination—defended the administration’s approach, acknowledged tough tradeoffs and insisted the state has not backtracked on its long-term climate goals. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

AMAN AZHAR: How has your role changed since we spoke in March of last year?

MEGHAN CONKLIN: This has been a challenging year with the Trump administration’s continued attacks on energy, the environment and climate mandates. It was also a challenging legislative session in Maryland. But I feel we made progress towards our climate goals. I feel lucky to serve with a great team around me, including our secretaries of natural resources and the environment, and the Maryland Energy Administration.

AZHAR: Do you think your office now carries more authority over interagency climate decisions, or are you still building that internal leverage?

CONKLIN: I wouldn’t say authority. It’s a partnership. My approach is to work in tandem with other members of the cabinet and their agencies. I’m a member of the governor’s executive team, which helps me speak directly to the governor and some of his senior team. A key mechanism for our interagency coordination is the climate sub-cabinet, which I co-chair along with the Maryland Secretary of the Environment. I’ve been able to form strong relationships across agencies, helping them move forward. 

AZHAR: Last year you said your main goal was to ensure Maryland meets its bold climate goals. A year later, do you still believe Maryland is on track?

CONKLIN: That’s still our main mission. But we face unprecedented federal challenges. President Trump’s budget proposes historic environmental cuts, and we’ve had a challenging legislative session. Still, Gov. Moore signed one of Maryland’s most comprehensive climate executive orders, establishing a climate sub-cabinet and requiring agencies to produce climate implementation plans. Those were completed on time, and we’ve made real progress, including $100 million in state funding—half for solar projects on state property, half for local clean energy initiatives.

AZHAR: This year’s General Assembly session saw clean car mandates delayed, the Better Buildings Act stalled and up to 10 new gas plants authorized. Advocates say Maryland is retreating on its climate commitments. Do you agree?

CONKLIN: Legislation rarely emerges exactly as proposed. There were some provisions in the energy package legislation on natural gas, driven by Maryland’s presiding officers, not our administration. Still, there were some important gains, including removing trash incineration from our renewable energy portfolio and reducing red tape around solar deployment. Overall, I believe some valuable progress was made despite compromises.

AZHAR: How does opening the door to new gas plants align with Maryland’s climate goals?

CONKLIN: The governor is committed to 100 percent clean electricity. Those gas provisions were not in his bill, which was the ENERGIZE Maryland Act. The administration is focused on clean energy, not just wind and solar, but all the other types of carbon-free electricity, like nuclear. 

AZHAR: Environmental advocates said they felt blindsided by the gas and nuclear provisions, and that Maryland is opening doors to fossil fuels under the guise of reliability. Did you share these concerns?

CONKLIN: Advocates, including Maryland’s League of Conservation Voters, shifted their stance from opposition to neutrality because of the climate-positive elements we added to the energy package. Legislative process often involves difficult compromises, especially under challenging conditions like we have under the Trump administration. Even if it wasn’t ideal, we saw overall gains.

AZHAR: One of your key roles is to help secure and track federal climate funding. Did state leadership anticipate funding upheavals and did your office prepare budget models?

CONKLIN: Gov. Moore anticipated a potential political shift months ahead. I lead our federal investment team, tracking federal funding closely. We’ve aggressively pursued IRA and Infrastructure Law funding and successfully defended some grants in court. For example, the $62 million that Maryland received under the Solar for All grant is now unfrozen as a result of litigation. We also secured $130 million under the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, and those are continuing as well. But challenges remain and litigation is ongoing.

AZHAR: Which specific climate programs are directly impacted by federal disruptions?

CONKLIN: Many, but notably our National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure funds have been frozen. We’re also very concerned about offshore wind projects. Maryland recently joined Massachusetts in suing over Trump’s permitting restrictions on offshore wind.

AZHAR: The state diverted money from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund into the general budget. Did you support that move?

CONKLIN: Gov. Moore faced an unprecedented budget crisis, forcing tough trade-offs. Still, $100 million of that went to climate programs. I don’t anticipate this becoming a regular occurrence. 

AZHAR: Moore initially called climate action an “all-of-government priority.” But some advocates now say that economic pragmatism has taken over climate action. Has there been a recalibration?

CONKLIN: We’re committed to climate action. Protecting the climate and economy aren’t mutually exclusive. The energy legislation streamlined solar deployment in Maryland, which will help climate and economy, reflecting the governor’s continued commitment.

AZHAR: Were environmental justice reviews conducted for the delayed mandates, weakened standards or new gas projects?

CONKLIN: Environmental justice remains a priority. Post-session, we’re reviewing potential executive actions on climate and environmental justice issues. So stay tuned. It’s at the forefront of my mind.

AZHAR: Given the delays, diversions and shifting ground, does Maryland still have a credible claim to national climate leadership?

CONKLIN: We’re still among the leaders. I’ll soon meet with other states through the U.S. Climate Alliance. Despite that it was one of the most challenging sessions I’ve experienced, we continue making progress toward our goals.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News on May 9.

The post Maryland’s Sustainability Chief Reflects on a ‘Difficult’ Year of Legislative Setbacks appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

As Maryland’s General Assembly session enters its final stretch, top Democratic lawmakers are pushing legislation that would open the door to new fossil fuel buildout across the state, weaken environmental protections and make it nearly impossible to achieve the state’s statutory climate obligations. 

Assembly leaders, among them Speaker Adrianne Jones (D-Baltimore County) and the Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City), are still pursuing the bills that did not make it through Monday’s crossover date. For bills to have the best chance of making it to the governor’s desk, they have to have passed at least one chamber by the 69th day of the session, which is known as crossover. 

Legislative watchers say negotiations are continuing behind closed doors in a bid to agree on a package on energy-related issues, which may include provisions for new gas-fired and nuclear power plants, battery storage and the potential removal of subsidies for trash incineration.

Environmental advocates are pushing back against legislation they see as a serious retreat from the state’s commitment to wean itself off fossil fuels, cut emissions and protect public health through a swift transition to renewable energy.

Under the landmark 2022 Climate Solutions Now Act, Maryland has committed to achieving a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2031 and net zero by 2045.

Three specific bills currently in the state house have prompted many to question whether Maryland is reversing course on climate action.

At the heart of the conflict is the Next Generation Energy Act (Senate Bill 937), a bill that creates a fast-tracked procurement process for “dispatchable energy generation”—shorthand for systems that can be adjusted to meet demand, such as gas and nuclear plants. 

The legislation, backed by Jones and Ferguson, is framed as a response to projected grid reliability concerns, but advocates believe the bill provides a path for new gas-fired power plants to be built across the state, locking in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades. The bill places no binding restrictions on the types of fossil fuels used and allows permitting exemptions for gas plants that would be built on sites previously used for electricity generation, significantly weakening regulatory oversight and limiting public input.

Another provision in the bill allows large industrial customers—those with over 100 megawatts of energy demand, such as data centers—to contract directly with new or expanded gas plants, bypassing public ratepayer protections and traditional grid interconnection requirements. 

Mike Tidwell, executive director at Chesapeake Climate Action Network, criticized the Next Generation Energy Act, describing it as “utterly contrary to two decades of clean energy progress in Maryland.” 

“It is tragic that the Maryland General Assembly, with a historically pro-climate Democratic trifecta and supermajorities in both chambers, is talking about lighting frack gas on fire to keep the lights on in the year 2025,” Tidwell said.

The bill, which would allow a maximum capacity of three gigawatts of gas-fired electricity, is a result of grid mismanagement and politicians’ desire to appear responsive to rising energy costs, Tidwell said, rather than addressing the root problems of grid planning and renewable energy development.

Advocates have raised concerns about public input on the construction of new gas power plants and the streamlined approval process for new facilities. 

Arguments in support of the bill include the necessity of ensuring energy security. A requirement that new gas plants be “capable of conversion” to hydrogen or biofuels could address climate concerns. But with no timeline or enforcement mechanism mandating this transition, advocates fear the bill amounts to a fossil fuel loophole.

Critics say the provision that allows Public Service Commission pre-approval of long-term energy plans—without requiring new permits, environmental reviews or community input at the plan approval stage—reduces oversight by state environmental agencies and weakens traditional public hearing processes that allow communities to voice concerns over air pollution, health risks, and climate impacts. 

“It is an egregious proposal to eliminate any public input or input from counties, municipalities, citizen groups, community groups, environmental justice groups,” said Kim Coble, executive director the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. 

Coble said it seems that the General Assembly is reacting to uncertainty at the federal level and is trying to create some sort of balance by realigning the state’s priorities. “These proposals are getting drafted and done behind closed doors and then being presented to us. And it’s really unfortunate that it makes it very difficult to come up with any kind of a win-win situation,” she said. 

By allowing large industrial customers to enter into direct agreements with new gas facilities without requiring broader regulatory approvals or public ratepayer protection, Coble said, the legislation effectively removes an essential layer of public accountability. Affected communities may not have sufficient notice or legal pathways to challenge new fossil fuel infrastructure in their neighborhoods.

Environmental advocates see SB 937 as a direct contradiction to the state’s climate commitments under the 2022 Climate Solutions Now Act, which aims to phase out fossil fuels, reduce emissions and transition to clean energy in the next two decades. 

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 1020 has drawn opposition from environmental groups for slowing Maryland’s transition to cleaner vehicles. The bill, introduced by Senator Stephen Hershey (R-Kent, Queen Anne’s, Cecil, Caroline counties), prevents the state from implementing California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulations on cars before model year 2031 and blocks penalties on automakers who fail to meet electric vehicle delivery quotas for applicable model years.

Traditionally, Maryland has aligned its vehicle emissions standards with California’s, following a model that aims to reduce transportation-sector emissions, the state’s largest source of greenhouse gases. The ACC II regulations, which California adopted in 2022, seek to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicles by imposing stricter limits on car emissions and setting higher EV adoption mandates.

Maryland’s commitment to adopting ACC II regulations was set in motion last year, positioning the state as a leader in clean transportation policy. However, SB 1020 could derail that progress by delaying the implementation of stricter standards. 

Under ACC II, Maryland was expected to begin phasing in higher electric vehicle sales targets by 2026. Instead, SB 1020 would allow automakers to continue selling gas-powered cars with fewer restrictions through model year 2031, weakening Maryland’s ability to meet its legally binding climate commitments. 

“We are very concerned that delaying the enforcement of the Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced Clean Trucks standards will hinder progress on cutting air pollution and meeting our climate goals,” said Lindsey Mendelson, a transportation representative for the Maryland Sierra Club. 

“We think that it is imperative that Maryland stay committed to the clean vehicle programs. With attacks and rollbacks on climate policy at the federal level, it is even more important that Maryland take strong action on programs that cut air pollution, improve public health and save consumers money,” she said in an emailed comment.  

Ryan Gallentine, managing director of Advanced Energy United, the group representing the clean energy industry, said delaying enforcement will only make future compliance more difficult, creating a cycle where manufacturers will claim they can’t meet increasingly steep requirements. The moves appear to prioritize corporate interests over climate action, Gallentine said.  

According to the 2023 report by the American Lung Association, transitioning to zero-emission vehicle standards “would result in up to 2,100 fewer deaths and $23 billion in public health benefits across Maryland by 2050.” 

The bill is being discussed for inclusion in the leadership legislative package. 

Another piece of legislation about Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS)—House Bill 49—raises further questions over whether Maryland is weakening environmental enforcement. Its Senate version got stuck in committee. While not entirely dead, policy watchers say it will have a tough road to passage.

Last year, a last-minute budget amendment blocked the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) from setting energy use intensity (EUI) targets, delaying key energy efficiency rules for large buildings. EUI standards set limits on how much energy a building can use per square foot per year, helping reduce energy waste.

At MDE’s request, HB 49 was introduced as a fix, but instead of restoring strong enforcement, it introduces new flexibility measures that could dilute compliance requirements. 

Environmental groups argue this opens the door to further delays and exemptions, making it harder for Maryland to achieve its emissions targets. Without strict EUI targets, they say, building owners may have little incentive to invest in energy upgrades. Tenants, particularly low-income renters who already face energy burdens, will continue to pay the cost.

Josh Tulkin, director of the Maryland Sierra Club, believes the blanket exemptions in the legislation, particularly for hospitals and condos, would undermine its effectiveness, and added that alternative compliance penalties should be substantial enough to motivate building owners to make energy efficiency improvements

“You need the penalty to actually motivate people to do a real analysis, and to find all of the options in front of them, and not just jump to paying a penalty,” he said. “If the penalty is too small, people will pay the penalty before even figuring out if they can afford to work.”

Tulkin pointed out key vulnerabilities in BEPS legislation including an equipment replacement loophole, which could allow businesses to exploit the law by installing equipment just before regulations take effect and then claiming to be exempt until that equipment reaches its natural end of life. The law’s effectiveness depends on universal participation, he said, and allowing widespread exemptions to hospitals, for instance, would undermine the entire framework of reducing building energy consumption.

In addition to reinstating penalties for noncompliance, the bill adds an annual reporting fee for large buildings. The fines for energy inefficiency violations are directed into the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund. 

Industry groups, including hospitals, have expressed concerns that compliance fees could impose financial burdens on hospitals and assisted living facilities. 

Taken together, the three bills suggest Maryland’s climate policy is shifting toward the center while Democrats still control the statehouse. The backsliding has surprised some advocates, who have described Maryland as a progressive leader in clean energy policy, especially as states are expected to take on a greater role in environmental governance following the federal rollback of climate protections under the Trump administration.

Without replying to whether the Moore administration agreed with advocates’ concerns over backsliding on climate pledges, Carter Elliott IV, a spokesperson for Gov. Wes Moore, said in emailed comments that Moore laid out a robust environmental agenda as part of his 2025 legislative priorities. 

“The first piece of legislation is the Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act, which introduces comprehensive changes to support regenerative agriculture, and streamlines oyster aquaculture—providing new economic pathways for farmers, and uplifting critical Maryland industries. The second legislation is the ENERGIZE Maryland Act, which accelerates in-state clean energy development, solving cost and reliability issues, and driving economic growth, while making Maryland a leader in sustainability,” he wrote.

But environmental advocates fear that the policies advancing in Annapolis reflect state leaders’ desire to grant strategic concessions to the fossil fuel industry. Expanding gas infrastructure, weakening building energy enforcement and delaying stricter car emissions standards point to a more industry-friendly approach that contradicts the state’s aggressive climate pledges.   

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News on March 20.

The post Maryland Lawmakers Show Support for Bills Favoring Fossil Fuels, Jeopardizing Climate Commitments appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

Appointed by Gov. Wes Moore and placed within the Maryland Department of Emergency Management, Hinson is responsible for crafting and coordinating a comprehensive resilience strategy for the state in an increasingly challenging era. His mandate is to unify scattered resiliency efforts across the state and ensure Maryland can adapt to, mitigate and recover from hazards and emergencies—ranging from natural disasters to cyber threats. 

Last year, while outlining his vision in a conversation with Inside Climate News, Hinson emphasized that the state needed to define what counts as resilience and the importance of inventorying fragmented efforts across agencies. His primary goal was to develop a statewide resilience strategy, bringing together diverse sectors such as food systems, environmental systems and housing under a unified framework. 

Eventually, he noted, his office would have to come up with a work plan and turn objectives into tangible outcomes. Staffing up quickly was crucial for making it all possible, he said, and to lay a solid foundation for statewide adaptation to climate risks and natural disasters.

To get a sense of where things stand now, Inside Climate News again sat down with Hinson to reflect on his first year in office, his achievements, the hurdles he’s encountered and his vision for safeguarding Maryland against the threats of extreme weather and rising sea levels driven by a warming climate.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

AMAN AZHAR: It’s been a year since we last spoke. What are the major strides your office has made since then?

MICHAEL HINSON: One of the biggest accomplishments was defining resilience for Maryland. Resilience is a broadly interpreted word, and it can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. We worked with stakeholders from local governments, state agencies, academia and nonprofits to create a comprehensive definition. 

This definition now serves as a North Star for guiding our work, helping us determine what is in scope or out of scope, which has been crucial for maintaining focus and direction.

AZHAR: What does resilience mean for Maryland, and how does it differ from the federal definition?

HINSON: It was crucial to define resilience specifically for Maryland because the term can be interpreted in many ways. For an individual Marylander, resilience may be their ability to respond to and recover from an adverse incident … but for us at the state level, there needs to be a little more nuance. Our definition provides guardrails so that we don’t try to boil the ocean, for lack of a better term.

The federal definition of resilience is very broad and has a lot to do with [environmental] shocks and stressors and how people respond and recover from those. Our definition is similar in spirit but is more detailed, outlining specific focus areas like environmental and natural systems, housing and other key sectors that impact Maryland’s resilience. This allows us to tailor our approach to the state’s unique needs while staying aligned with federal guidelines.

AZHAR: Did you manage to fully staff the Office of Resilience, and did it help get you off the ground?

HINSON: When we last spoke, I was still in the process of building the team. Now, we are fully staffed, and I’ve been fortunate to have amazing staff who were brought in, and they’ve been fantastic. 

We brought on a food systems resiliency coordinator who revitalized the Maryland Food System Resilience Council, helping them evolve into the next level by refocusing their mission post-COVID-19. We also added a resilience planner with emergency management and continuity of operations experience, as well as a deputy chief resilience officer from the American Flood Coalition, bringing a broader view on how other places are dealing with the issues we face. This team has been instrumental in moving our initiatives forward.

AZHAR: During our last conversation, you mentioned developing a statewide resilience strategy. What is the current status of that effort?

HINSON: This is our headline document, and we’re right in the thick of it. We’re literally smacked up in the middle of the biggest lift of the process, which is the data gathering and stakeholder involvement. We expect to complete this phase by mid-spring, followed by writing and composition during the summer and early fall. 

We’re on track for the early side of the timeline and are hopeful to share the final version by the end of 2025 or early 2026. This strategy will unify Maryland’s scattered resilience initiatives into a cohesive plan, ensuring all agencies are rowing in the same direction.

AZHAR: Can you outline the key sectors and priorities included in this strategy?

HINSON: There are some main sectors: Housing, community and local government capacity—especially frontline communities, environment and natural systems—and cyber resilience. Maryland has been a leader in coastal resilience, and we’re expanding that to include watershed resilience. We’re also focusing on place-based resilience, targeting hotspot areas, like Crisfield and Annapolis, that face chronic flooding and sea-level rise. We really want to have a lens on place-based resilience and how we can move the needle the most in those areas.

AZHAR: How is your office navigating changes in federal funding and political uncertainties?

HINSON: It’s a dynamic situation, and there’s no clear direction on where things are going federally. The state of Maryland is preparing as best as it can by coordinating with the governor’s office and other state agencies. 

For our work, specifically, because we are not deep into any project implementation phase yet, it is not directly impacting our office. However, federal funding will be crucial for larger-scale investments as we transition to implementation.

AZHAR: You previously emphasized the importance of inventorying resilience projects across the state. What progress has been made on that front?

HINSON: We’re inventorying projects, programs, tools and funding streams across the state. The executive order from September 2024 established an Agency Resilience Liaison Program, giving us a designated contact point in every state department. This allows us to collect and organize relevant data systematically. We’re very hopeful that we have our hands on a lot of that information, which will give us probably the best picture of what we actually have going on across the whole of government.

AZHAR: Environmental justice is a key priority for Gov. Moore. How does it factor into resilience planning?

HINSON: Environmental justice is embedded in the legislation that created our office. It guides our investment priorities and is an essential part of our work. It’s not just a legislative requirement; it’s also a priority. We are going to have to work with our federal partners to see the changes that they have and how we can best work with them while still accomplishing our legislative mandate.

AZHAR: What role do grassroots organizations play in your resilience strategy?

HINSON: Grassroots organizations are essential, and without them, I don’t see a path to success. We’ve involved community and grassroots organizations through sector workgroups and the Whole Community Initiative. Their participation ensures that resilience measures are grounded in local realities and effectively address community needs.

AZHAR: What keeps you up at night?

HINSON: I don’t know any emergency manager who would say that they sleep well. … Ultimately, we are paid to be worried about these things. Cybersecurity is a major concern due to the interconnectedness of critical systems. I don’t know that everyone fully realizes how vulnerable we are if these systems fail. 

Extreme weather events, especially storms, flash flooding and heatwaves, are also significant worries. The challenge of educating newcomers to Maryland about these risks is another concern. Knowing what you need to be prepared for is half of the work.

AZHAR: What should Marylanders expect from your office in the future?

HINSON: We’re developing more tools and resources, including ResilientMaryland.com, a toolkit designed primarily for local governments but accessible to everyone. We’re hoping to eventually have further technical assistance, like process guidance for local jurisdictions so they can build their own resilience strategy. 

We’re also working with local governments to establish more resilience authorities, which provide additional financial mechanisms to help fund some of these projects.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News on March 1.

The post Weathering the Storm: Maryland’s Chief Resilience Officer Reflects on Year One as Climate Threats Increase appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

Maryland’s top environmental groups are pushing back against a legislative proposal that endorses gas-fired power plants as a key solution to the state’s predicted energy shortfall. 

Prioritizing gas generation is a significant step backward, they argue, blaming the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, for years of mismanagement that led to this point.

At the same time, a nuclear energy bill Gov. Wes Moore’s administration endorsed has divided advocates. Some organizations see nuclear as a workable, carbon-free alternative, while grassroots groups reject it as an expensive distraction from Maryland’s renewable energy targets.

Adding to their frustration is an order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this week, granting PJM’s request to allow gas-powered plants to move to the front of the interconnection queue. Environmental leaders criticized the decision, saying the move further tilts the scales against renewables and reinforces a system that prioritizes fossil fuels over clean energy solutions.

“This is a blatant setback for Maryland’s clean energy transition,” said Carlos Sanchez of the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club. “FERC is allowing dirty energy to cut the line while thousands of megawatts of wind and solar remain stuck in bureaucratic limbo.”

At a press briefing Wednesday, leaders from the Sierra Club, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Maryland League of Conservation Voters criticized top Maryland lawmakers for including gas-fired power plants as a viable option in a package of energy bills floated last week by Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) and House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D-Baltimore County).

The “2025 Leadership Legislative Package” consists of three separate bills and has the backing of the state’s top lawmakers. It includes the Next Generation Energy Act, championed by Ferguson and Jones, which promotes new in-state power generation—including gas-fired and nuclear energy—to replace retiring coal and oil plants. 

The act mandates the approval of “dispatchable generation” projects, which refers to power sources that can be adjusted when needed to meet electricity demand, ensuring grid stability. It also establishes a procurement process for nuclear power and requires that new gas plants be hydrogen-convertible and fitted with carbon capture technology at a later, unspecified stage. 

The Renewable Energy Certainty Act, led by Sen. Brian Feldman (D-Montgomery) and Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), streamlines permitting for solar and battery storage projects. The Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act, sponsored by Sen. Katie Fry Hester (D-Howard and Montgomery) and Del. Brian Crosby (D-St. Mary’s), reestablishes long-term energy planning within the Public Service Commission to reduce reliance on PJM and ensure Maryland meets its climate targets.

A three-page brief legislators shared with advocates earlier this month warned that Maryland faced a potential electricity shortage as soon as June 2026. The alleged shortfall was driven by surging demand from data centers, broader electrification and the retirement of coal and oil plants. The brief cited PJM as saying limited solar and wind capacity, along with high battery storage costs, are major obstacles to meeting this demand.

“New dispatchable generation, likely natural gas and expanded nuclear, is the only short-term option,” the legislators’ brief stated, proposing that new gas plants could later convert to hydrogen and nuclear development could expand with small modular reactors.

While the lawmakers presented gas-fired power as a pertinent option, environmental advocates rejected the premise outright. 

“Maryland voters will be shocked to learn that some lawmakers in Annapolis are considering policies to build a large gas-fired power plant or two,” said Mike Tidwell, executive director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “We have not seen any independent modeling showing that this would be cheaper than investing in battery storage, energy efficiency and solar.” 

According to Tidwell, three gigawatts of new gas capacity—roughly equal to the retiring coal and oil plants—could cost between $3 billion and $4 billion, translating to approximately $2,500 per Maryland family. “Maryland banned fracking in 2017 due to its health and environmental risks, yet now considers building gas plants that would rely on fracked gas from other states—shifting the burden it once rejected,” he said.

The offices of Ferguson and Jones did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

Environmental leaders laid the blame on PJM for creating the crisis through years of faulty planning and flawed capacity market rules that failed to account for data center growth and the clean energy transition. “Coal plants are closing because they’re uneconomical,” Sanchez said. “Yet PJM has failed to approve the renewables needed to replace them and is now pushing gas as the solution.”

“This is a double squeeze on Maryland,” said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. “Not only are we being pushed toward gas, but the renewable projects we should be advancing are being held back. The freeze on those projects must be lifted immediately.”

They urged Maryland lawmakers to accelerate renewable energy projects instead of locking the state into new fossil fuel investments. “We need to prioritize clean, less expensive alternatives through legislation,” Tidwell said. “PJM helped create this crisis, and now they’re offering flawed solutions that will only drive up costs.” 

According to advocacy groups, more than 7,000 megawatts of solar and battery storage are in PJM’s connection queue. FERC’s approval of PJM’s fast-tracking plan for new gas plants will further delay the renewable projects, they say.

Jeffrey Shields, a PJM spokesperson, previously told Inside Climate News that the grid operator expects to process more than 200,000 megawatts of mostly renewable projects across its 13-state region in the next three years. “We continue to fast-track new resources, but renewable projects are not being built fast enough to keep up with the retirement of existing resources due to alleged siting, supply-chain or other challenges outside PJM’s interconnection process.”

Shields also defended including nuclear energy in the regional energy mix. “It is not acceptable for any stakeholder to allow the grid to fail based on financial or policy interests. We need to use every tool in the toolbox to prevent that outcome,” he said.

Faced with the prospects of an impending energy crunch and soaring electricity prices, some legislators view nuclear energy as a long-term, low-emission investment in grid stability. 

But critics argue that nuclear projects remain exorbitantly expensive and slow to deploy. This reality check has deepened divisions among Maryland’s environmental advocates, fueling a contentious debate over whether nuclear should be included in the state’s clean energy strategy.

At the center of the split is the Empowering New Energy Resources and Green Initiatives Toward a Zero-Emission (ENERGIZE) Maryland Act, a Moore administration-backed bill that redefines the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard as a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard and expands the definition of clean energy to include nuclear power. The bill also establishes a new approval process for nuclear projects, requiring community benefit agreements and minority business participation. Other provisions include support for offshore wind and necessary transmission infrastructure.

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Maryland League of Conservation Voters are both open to keeping nuclear options as part of Maryland’s energy mix.

“Maryland already gets 40 percent of its in-state generation from Calvert Cliffs nuclear facility,” Coble said. “It’s a carbon-free emitting energy source, and that’s exactly the direction we need to be heading.” 

However, she cautioned that new nuclear projects would be expensive and slow to develop. “Any new investment seems counterproductive, especially given the backlog of renewables that could be deployed within five years—long before small modular reactors come online.”

In emailed remarks, Carter Elliott IV, spokesperson for the governor’s office, said that the Moore administration is exploring all available options, including nuclear energy, to help meet Maryland’s environmental and clean energy goals. 

“The governor understands the need for sustainable and cost-effective infrastructure to ensure the reliability of our grid and build the economy of the future in our state, which is why this session he has introduced the ENERGIZE Act, to help create more in-state clean energy generation, invest in Maryland’s workforce and help Maryland ratepayers,” the statement said. 

Grassroots advocates remain skeptical, warning that nuclear investments would divert resources from faster, more affordable clean energy solutions.

“State leaders’ apparent embrace of new nuclear power and fracked gas plants is an alarming sign for Maryland’s clean energy future,” said Jorge Aguilar, a regional director for Food & Water Watch. “Gov. Moore and the legislature should not be investing in polluting industries that will only raise utility rates for all Marylanders long-term.”

Tim Judson of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which advocates for energy systems without carbon or nuclear, argued that nuclear plants take at least 15 years to plan and build and are prohibitively expensive. “Ratepayers in Georgia saw their bills increase nearly 25 percent to pay for nuclear reactors that took 18 years and $37 billion to complete,” he said.

Judson thinks realistic cost estimates and schedules would likely prevent nuclear projects from ever being approved. “Solar and wind projects rarely go over budget and take far less time to build. Our problem in Maryland is that Annapolis sets goals but provides no enforcement. That’s what we need to fix.”

Gwen DuBois, president of Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, echoed Judson’s concerns about costs and time. “It’s best to focus on solar, wind, hydroelectric and battery storage,” she said. “We could accomplish much more in less time with fewer resources.”

The post Maryland Environmental Leaders Slam Legislative Push for Gas-Powered Plants, Split Over Nuclear Energy appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

Maryland lawmakers enter the 2025 legislative session facing a trifecta of challenges—soaring energy prices, a deepening budget crisis and shaky federal climate funding under a Trump presidency. That has observers concerned about whether the state can sustain its ambitious climate commitments amid competing mandates.

A $2.7 billion budget gap by FY 2026 that could swell to $6 billion over the next five years poses a direct challenge to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore’s climate agenda. Many state programs, including building electrification, electric vehicle grants and rebates and renewable energy projects, depend on federal funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), elements of which Trump has vowed to rescind after his inauguration.

Last year, Moore closed the legislative session touting climate progress. But advocates argued that the administration fell short where it mattered most—securing funding to advance the state’s bold emissions targets. Despite successes—like the EmPOWER reform bill that firmed up energy efficiency goals, the WARMTH Act that advanced a geothermal heating pilot program and expanded incentives for rooftop solar and offshore wind—lawmakers failed to pass key revenue measures. 

Those included the Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act, which sought to establish a $900 million Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Fund by making oil and gas companies pay for their pollution. A proposed cap-and-invest program would have netted $300 million for climate initiatives, according to an estimate from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 

The unsuccessful revenue proposals were key parts of the Climate Pollution Reduction Plan (CPRP), which the MDE released in late 2023. It estimated needing $1 billion in annual investments to “bolster Maryland’s chances of achieving its climate goals,” which include reducing 60 percent statewide emissions from 2006 levels by 2031 and achieving net-zero by 2045. 

As the 90-day session kicks off this year, lawmakers must find creative ways to navigate the fiscal gap while allocating resources for the state’s competing obligations in the education and health sectors in addition to climate goals. Without the funds to drive its climate agenda, advocates fear that climate pledges from Maryland’s leaders could become more performative than transformative. Reached last week, representatives for the Moore administration said, as policy, that they do not comment on pending legislation.

“There will be several bills introduced aimed at generating revenue for climate action, but they’ll be fighting for space alongside other significant deficits,” said Del. Dana Stein, a Baltimore County Democrat, underlining the tough choices ahead.  

In an interview with Inside Climate News, Stein said he will reintroduce his bill from last year that proposes a fossil fuel transport fee on coal moving through the state. “Last year, it was about coal and natural gas. This year, it’s just going to focus on coal that’s transported in the state, used in the state or exported. I can’t say it will pass. But there’s a growing interest since at least two other states have implemented something similar,” he said.

Stein’s bill proposes levying $13 per ton for coal coming into the state. If passed, it is expected to raise up to $300 million a year and will be spent on various mitigation efforts such as asthma treatment for communities affected by coal dust. The measure is among the recommended actions in the CPRP.

In December, the Maryland Commission on Climate Change urged lawmakers to reconsider Stein’s bill to fund mitigation and adaptation efforts at a time of financial crunch. Its 2024 report called on the General Assembly to authorize studies on climate change impacts and the pollution fee as proposed in the RENEW Act, and the design of a cap-and-invest program.

Stein cautioned that the Trump administration’s return has stirred concerns about the rollback of key federal subsidies and tax credits, including the widely used electric vehicle tax credit. “Without those incentives, the timeline for adopting renewable energy would be thrown off. Investment will continue, but it could lose momentum without that federal support.”

Del. Marc Korman, a Montgomery County Democrat who chairs the Environment and Transportation Committee, pointed out that Maryland has leaned on funds from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to bankroll certain climate policies. 

RGGI is a multi-state cap-and-trade program that limits carbon emissions from power plants and reinvests revenue into clean energy and efficiency programs in partnering states. 

The CPRP proposes modifications to RGGI to enhance its effectiveness to ensure a more robust and equitable approach to emissions reduction that complements Maryland’s and partner states’ clean energy goals. But it’s unclear if other members will agree to it. 

“We’ve already tapped into RGGI revenue to support the Climate Solutions Now Act, and we might need to take a similar approach this year,” Korman said in an interview with Inside Climate News, alluding to the cap-and-invest proposal in the CPRP. 

“We’re looking at a $1 billion annual gap for clean energy initiatives, and that’s just one piece of the puzzle alongside major priorities like public education and infrastructure.”

Korman said that among the key revenue bills gaining traction were the Reclaim Renewable Energy Act, HB0220, which would end public subsidies for trash incineration, and the Transportation and Climate Alignment Act, aimed at tackling emissions from Maryland’s largest polluting sector. 

The Reclaim Renewable Energy Act failed to pass last year despite bipartisan support. This year, the bill enjoys support of Senate President Bill Ferguson, who’s also the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, raising hopes about its passage after failing to pass for seven years straight.   

Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Montgomery County Democrat, didn’t mince words about the state’s growing need to self-fund its climate efforts. “We will go to the session with an understanding that we are not dealing with a friend of climate justice in Washington as it has been for the last four years,” she told Inside Climate News. 

She said state legislators who support climate policies always knew about the impending need for significant revenue sources for achieving Maryland’s climate goals, and that need is stronger today.

“If federal cuts come through, we’re going to have to double down. Personally, I’ve supported making polluters pay, charging them for the damage they’ve done. So that’s my personal preference for funding climate action in the state,” she said, alluding to the RENEW Act, sponsored by her fellow Montgomery County Democrat Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo. Another Democrat, Sen. Katie Fry Hester, is the bill’s lead Senate sponsor. 

Speaking to a rally in Annapolis on the first day of the session, Fraser-Hidalgo said: “[The RENEW Act] is a bill with a simple premise: If you make a mess, you clean it up … There is irrefutable proof that many of the largest oil companies were aware of the long-term effects of burning fossil fuels as early as 1968 but chose to conceal this scientific evidence.” 

Charkoudian is the lead sponsor of the Abundant Affordable Clean Energy (AACE) Act, which, among other things, proposes a slew of policies to increase in-state electricity generation using a combination of battery storage, solar, wind and hydropower to meet increased load from data centers and in light of interconnection delays. 

PJM Interconnection, the electric grid operator serving portions of the mid-Atlantic, South and Midwest, is under pressure from states, including Maryland, to reform its current rules and fix the snarled interconnection queue in which 3,200 clean energy projects are stuck. 

Del. Brian Crosby, a St. Mary’s County Democrat, emphasized energy independence and grid resilience while talking to Inside Climate News. “We need to get serious about understanding how data centers affect our grid and whether co-location strategies really make sense for Maryland,” Crosby said. “We should also take a hard look at next-generation nuclear reactors as part of our energy mix.”

Crosby said addressing the state’s energy needs was among his legislative priorities. “We’re going to focus on the resource adequacy issue. We want to get ourselves on a path to having adequate resources to provide enough energy for the entire state, so we don’t have to rely on other states for that.”

Crosby is supporting the bill calling for a detailed assessment of how data centers will impact Maryland’s energy requirements, including clean energy targets. Sen. Karen Lewis Young, a Frederick County Democrat, is sponsoring the bill in the Senate and has repeatedly voiced her concerns about data centers’ impact on the environment and the state’s clean energy goals.   

Environmental advocates are applying continuous pressure. Kristen Harbeson, political director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters (LCV), said energy is going to be one of the key issues to watch this legislative session. “This is going to be a big year for energy and it’s going to be challenging. There’s going to be a lot of conversations about energy markets, energy independence and generation, regulations and data centers and the economy.” 

There’s a growing realization that Maryland needs to expand in-state energy production, Harbeson said. Maryland currently imports approximately 25 percent of its electricity from external sources. 

“We expect a [legislative] package from the House and Senate on energy. We also are looking forward to seeing language from the administration, which will have an energy package of its own,” Harbeson said, adding that the administration has a big Chesapeake Bay bill in the works. 

The post Maryland’s Climate Goals Under Strain as Budget Gaps and Looming Federal Cuts Threaten Progress appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News on Dec. 12.

Maryland is making big moves to ensure that electric vehicle drivers across the state can hit the road without worrying about running out of juice. 

This week, the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) issued a call for proposals to build up to 29 new EV charging stations across the state’s highways. The expansion is part of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, or NEVI, a pot of federal money states can use to expand access to charging stations and keep up with the growing demand for EVs.

“This investment is about giving EV drivers confidence,” said Maryland Transportation Secretary Paul J. Wiedefeld. “It means easier access to fast chargers along Maryland’s major routes. With over 120,000 EVs already registered in the state—and that number growing every month—this helps us move toward a more electric, cleaner future.”

The goal is to set up new EV charging stations every 50 miles along 23 major routes across the state, called “EV Alternative Fuel Corridors” under NEVI, with $30 million set aside from the current round of charging expansion funding. NEVI is included in the federal Justice40 Initiative, which requires that at least 40 percent of the benefits of certain federal program investments go to historically disadvantaged communities.  

MDOT launched the initial round of funding last summer, with $12.1 million for building chargers at 22 sites across 15 of the state’s 23 counties. The projects included 126 fast-charging ports at malls, gas stations and travel centers. They’re expected to be up and running by the end of 2025, which, officials hope, will put Maryland well on its way to meeting federal requirements for building the corridor. 

Those requirements include four fast charging ports capable of charging four vehicles simultaneously, 24/7 public access, data reporting and commitment to at least five years of operation and maintenance.

“We’re creating what we call range confidence for EV drivers,” said Deron Lovaas, MDOT’s chief of environment and sustainable transportation, in an interview with Inside Climate News. That’s knowing you can go where you need to without worrying about finding a charger, he said. 

Once Maryland’s highways are covered, the state plans to expand the charging network in neighborhoods and local communities where people live, work and shop.

The push for charging stations is not just about providing convenience to owners of EVs. It’s a key part of Maryland’s plan to hit net-zero carbon emissions by 2045. Transportation is Maryland’s biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution, and there’s a consensus among public officials and advocates that switching to electric vehicles is critical for lowering the state’s contribution to climate harms. 

“The biggest thing we can do to tackle climate pollution is to shift to clean vehicles,” Lovaas said. “And it’s not just about cars—we’re also working on chargers for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, which have an even bigger impact on emissions.”

Maryland already has additional funding to install heavy-duty truck chargers along I-95, partnering with states like Delaware, New Jersey and Connecticut. These chargers, planners believe, will make a huge difference in reducing harmful pollution in communities near major highways, where air quality has been a concern for years. “Transitioning trucks to electric power will reduce dangerous particulate matter, like black carbon,” Lovaas said. “That’s not just good for the climate—it’s good for public health too.”

The effort to build more chargers ties into a larger nationwide push to electrify transportation. Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the federal government has committed $5 billion over five years to build a network of 500,000 EV chargers across the country by 2030. An additional $2.5 billion in grants is also available to help fill in the gaps, especially in rural and underserved communities. The goal is to make EV charging reliable and accessible for everyone, regardless of where they live.

“Maryland has already been allocated $63 million over five years for the NEVI program. We’re confident that funding is secure since it was authorized under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” said Amanda Hinh, deputy chief of MDOT’s environment and sustainable transportation program, when asked whether the incoming Trump administration could claw back federal funds.  

EV adoption in Maryland is skyrocketing—the number of electric vehicles is growing by about 2,500 every month, according to MDOT. Nationwide, EV sales are booming too, with over 1.1 million sold in the U.S. in 2023. EVs are already projected to make up half of all new U.S. car sales by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency, propelled by federal regulations and incentives, state programs and the growing nationwide charging network.

“As EV use expands, we must deliver access to convenient and reliable charging for every Marylander and every community,” said State Highway Administrator Will Pines. 

While the new round of funding is expected to get Maryland closer to meeting its EV infrastructure needs, MDOT is already looking ahead. After the fast-charging network on highways is complete, the focus will shift to filling in “charging deserts”—places where access is still limited. 

NEVI is part of Maryland’s broader Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Planning (ZEVIP) initiative. Set to launch next year, ZEVIP will map out a clear path to developing a cleaner, more sustainable transportation system in Maryland.

“This is just the beginning,” Lovaas said. “In order to bend the emissions curve, the transportation sector needs to accomplish quite a bit—because the biggest source of climate pollution in Maryland is transportation. Which means that the single biggest step we can take to solve our climate problem is shifting to electric vehicles and providing such incentives.”

Some experts and advocates caution that a rapid pace of electrification also necessitates robust clean energy generation, sufficient transmission and phasing out fossil fuel-powered plants. All of that remains uncertain in part due to grid reliability concerns. 

MDOT officials said that electric utilities and the state’s Public Service Commission, which regulates them, will play a key role as a result. 

“The transportation network and the grid are increasingly coming together, and that means the Public Service Commission and our five building utilities play crucial roles in making sure that we are prepared and are able to move forward. And that’s something we’re tracking as well,” Lovaas said.

The post Maryland Uses Millions in Federal Grants to Ramp Up EV Charging Network and Keep Up with Demand appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News.

For more than a decade, Maryland Sen. Karen Lewis Young tried to get the state to pull the plug on public subsidies for trash incineration, a form of energy that’s considered dirtier than coal. None of the bills have crossed the finish line. 

Then came a phone call as she was pulling into her driveway a few weeks ago. On the other end of the line was Bill Ferguson, the Senate president. “He said, ‘This is the year I’m not only going to support the bill, I want to sponsor that bill,’” recalled the Democrat from Frederick County. 

On Oct. 18, Ferguson announced he will sponsor legislation in the upcoming General Assembly session to remove waste incineration from the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), the state’s incentives program for renewable energy projects. 

“I’ve become increasingly concerned about emissions from the BRESCO incinerator as a public health and environmental justice issue for surrounding neighborhoods,” Ferguson said of the WIN Waste incinerator (formerly known as Wheelabrator and BRESCO), the largest stationary source of industrial air pollution in Baltimore. 

Located off I-95, next to the city’s most disadvantaged communities, the incinerator emits hazardous pollutants including mercury, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter. Those noxious emissions contribute to respiratory issues, heart conditions and other serious health problems, particularly in adjoining neighborhoods.

“As we take steps to incentivize true, clean energy in Maryland, 2025 must be the year that we remove waste incineration from our Renewable Portfolio Standard,” Ferguson declared.

Under Maryland law, electricity providers can buy renewable energy credits (RECs) sold by energy providers—including trash incinerators—and pass the costs of those credits on to consumers in their energy bills. RECs are issued when one megawatt-hour of electricity is generated and delivered to the grid from a renewable energy source. 

Lewis Young said she was happy to see Ferguson go from being on the fence a year ago to fully supporting the efforts to deny millions in public dollars to incineration companies. 

She’d opposed trash incineration before she entered the Maryland General Assembly in 2015. “For me, the No. 1 issue was the negative environmental effects of burning trash,” she said. “We were spending, on average, $17 million a year to incentivize dirty energy. That money could be better spent elsewhere, not only financial resources but job growth in clean energy industries.” 

She said her research led her to believe that more than 80 percent of dirty energy sources like incinerators were located in communities where 25 percent or more of the population identified as either minority or lived below the federal poverty line. “Because of those reasons, I got increasingly enthusiastic and determined to get trash incineration removed as clean energy,” she said.

In the 2024 legislative session, Lewis Young sponsored the Reclaim Renewable Energy Act, which proposed excluding energy derived from burning waste from the RPS. The bill failed to advance out of committee in either chamber. 

It was the seventh consecutive year a bill seeking an end to a public subsidy for trash incineration failed to pass. In 2023, a similar bill proposing the removal of trash incineration, factory farm gas and woody biomass from the RPS met the same fate. Because the 2024 bill focused solely on ending credits for trash incineration, advocates were hopeful about its passage. But Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, refused to get behind the bill, attracting the ire of environmentalists. 

It’s anyone’s guess if the Moore administration will act differently in the 2025 legislative session. Carter Elliott, a press secretary for the governor, provided a written comment that did not answer the question: “The governor looks forward to working with the state legislature, local leaders, and advocates on behalf of all Marylanders this upcoming session. The Moore administration is working with all partners involved to ensure that we are continuing to put forward legislation that will make Maryland safer.” 

Incinerators have been eligible for public subsidies through the state’s clean energy credit system since then-Gov. Martin O’Malley signed legislation in 2011 declaring the electricity generated from burning trash a “tier one” renewable energy, on par with wind and solar. 

Also called “waste-to-energy” facilities, trash incinerators like those operated by WIN Waste convert non-hazardous, non-recyclable materials into usable energy through combustion. They also release hundreds of thousands of tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide every year in addition to PM2.5—extremely small particles that get into blood and lungs. 

With Ferguson’s support, Lewis Young is hopeful the General Assembly will finally remove trash incineration as “tier one” renewable energy. 

Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat from Montgomery County, said she was thrilled to hear of the Senate president’s commitment. “It’s a very good sign, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to make it a reality. Nothing’s a done deal until the entire General Assembly votes to make it happen. And while I join in the optimism, we’re going to continue to work to make sure that it happens.”

Charkoudian stressed that the 2024 legislation was about ending the public subsidy for incineration and is unrelated to the question about waste management. Incineration companies wrongly asserted at the time that removal of the subsidy will lead to waste management problems, she said. 

She said that incineration does not belong in the RPS and public dollars should be used to increase the amount of real clean energy on the grid: solar, onshore and offshore wind and hydro. 

She said that taking away this subsidy will not make a difference in whether these plants continue to operate. “If you look at their profits and revenue statements, there’s zero evidence to suggest that taking this subsidy away would result in the closure of the plants.” 

Charkoudian is also working on a separate “Clean Resource Adequacy Bill” to be introduced in the upcoming session that aims to restructure the RPS, bringing in as much new clean energy generation to the grid as possible while rapidly adding energy storage. 

Mary Urban, communications director for WIN Waste Innovations, said the company has recently invested nearly $50 million to upgrade the facility. “Similar legislation has been introduced over the past several years, but each proposal undermined the Renewable Portfolio Standard program’s goal to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels,” she said in emailed comments. 

Urban added that Maryland generates minimal energy from wind and solar and relies predominantly on energy from nuclear, natural gas and coal. “Excluding waste-to-energy (WTE) from the RPS requires Marylanders to subsidize out-of-state businesses while ignoring the work WIN does to divert waste from landfills and reduce greenhouse gases while avoiding fossil fuels,” she added.

Between 2012 and 2030, Maryland is set to pay more than $300 million to trash incinerators, according to a March analysis by the nonprofits Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Clean Water Action and Progressive Maryland. It showed that the participating trash incinerators emitted more CO2 per megawatt-hour than any other energy sources included in the RPS. Among the facilities operating in Maryland, the WIN Waste incinerator in Baltimore City emitted the highest amount of CO2, estimated at 690,033 tons per year. 

In 2022, the most money went to Covanta, which owns and operates a trash incinerator in Lorton, Virginia, and pocketed $11.7 million, the data showed. WIN Waste Innovations, which owns and operates the incinerator in Baltimore, received about $4.2 million through the sale of RECs.

In the past 10 years, the report said, the price of RECs sold by trash incinerators increased more than sevenfold. They are now more expensive than RECs affiliated with wind, a clean, renewable energy source. 

Ferguson’s announcement has energized community groups and environmental organizations who have long voiced their opposition to burning trash for energy at public expense.

Jennifer Kunze, Maryland director for Clean Water Action, called Ferguson’s statement a “game changer” and the result of his constituents making sure this issue remains a priority. She said the communities impacted by trash incineration have been “really loud and consistent for years” in highlighting it as a major climate and environmental justice problem that needs to be addressed.

She said that there’s still a lot of work that needs to happen between now and the end of the legislative session in April, particularly for making sure that the bill moves forward in both House and Senate committees. “We are really looking for the House now to make it known early that this bill is going to be an environmental justice priority,” Kunze said, adding that a lot depends on House Speaker Adrienne Jones and C. T. Wilson, chair of the House Economic Matters Committee. 

“We’re really looking to Gov. Moore, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Maryland Energy Administration to issue a similar public statement that trash incineration needs to come out of the RPS and won’t be part of the state’s clean energy plan,” Kunze said.

Separately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is investigating a federal civil rights complaint alleging that Baltimore City’s 10-year solid waste plan failed to commit necessary resources to end the city’s reliance on the WIN Waste incinerator.

The South Baltimore Community Land Trust, the community group that filed the complaint along with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Environmental Integrity Project, called Ferguson’s announcement “a critical step forward for environmental justice.” In a statement, the group said: “South Baltimore residents have long suffered the health and development impacts of the BRESCO incinerator—the largest single source of air pollution in Baltimore and the source of toxic ash filling the city’s landfill also located in the neighborhood.” 

Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said the lack of progress on trash incineration during the last legislative session was listed in her group’s 2024 environmental scorecardas an impediment to the state’s transition to clean energy. 

Coble said the inability to remove polluting energy sources from the RPS was one of the many bills with environmental justice implications that the 2024 General Assembly session failed to make progress on. 

“Unfortunately, none of the bills passed that were directly related to environmental justice. So that’s a problem. The same with climate and energy,” she said. “And none of the three bills related to generating revenue [for climate action] got out of the committee.” 

Lewis Young said issues of energy and climate action will take center stage during the upcoming General Assembly session. She expects bills calling for making polluters pay—that type of proposal “met some pushback” from the administration last year, she said, alluding to the Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act. The bill, which failed to pass, aimed to make oil and gas companies pay for their pollution. 

Other bills calling for new penalties and incentives will also likely drop next year to generate momentum for meeting the state’s climate and emissions reduction goals, she said.

The post Advocates, Lawmakers Hope 2025 Will Be the Year Maryland Stops Subsidizing Trash Incineration appeared first on Baltimore Beat.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News.

With Republicans on track to win control over both chambers of Congress and Donald Trump returning to the White House in January, the responsibility for keeping the clean energy transition going has passed to states. Maryland, where Democrats hold the governorship and control both chambers of the legislature, is primed to lead that charge from the front, experts and advocates believe.

“Maryland has the most aggressive short-term greenhouse gas reduction goals in the country,” said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. “We have been a leader across the nation, and fortunately, our governor is committed to being a national leader on this. So Maryland has an important and significant role to play.” 

Even so, anxiety is setting in as residents consider what a second Trump term could mean for Maryland, including the fate of billions of dollars in federal funding granted during the Biden administration for the clean energy transition. 

During a Nov. 8 cabinet meeting, Gov. Wes Moore tried to allay some of those fears when he said that his administration had been preparing for a possible Trump victory for months. “In February, I convened my advisors to begin scenario-planning for possible outcomes of the 2024 presidential election. We have worked tirelessly for months, analyzing how Donald Trump’s plans might impact Maryland,” he said, without touching upon the specifics of his plan. 

Some state legislators and environmental advocates expect the Trump administration to rescind at least some federal funding, particularly for environmental justice programs. 

“I’m sure the Trump administration is going to try and pull those [funds] away,” said Jillian Blanchard, director of the climate change and environmental program at Lawyers for Good Government, a nonprofit advocacy group. “We are tracking a lot of the environmental justice grants that didn’t go to the state, to communities within Maryland and across the country, to make sure and help those grantees get all of those funds obligated before a Trump administration takes over.”

She added that a lot of the federal funding within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act has already been announced and is in the process of being awarded. “At that point, the funding is and should be protected under the Impoundment Control Act,” which prevents the president and other government officials from redistributing congressionally allocated funds, she said. 

The Inflation Reduction Act triggered the preparation of state-level climate plans, which required state and local governments to work together and build coalitions, Blanchard noted. Those plans can still be implemented with funding that’s already been awarded. 

“Maryland is a good example of taking strong climate action in advance,” Blanchard said, pointing out that Moore issued a wide-ranging executive order in April, directing state agencies to come up with climate implementation plans no matter what happens at the federal level. “All of that will take place regardless of federal support. The states have a lot of power to move things forward on climate and Maryland is one of them.”

Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat from Montgomery County, said that for decades, a majority of climate policy and action happened at the state level. The IRA and the Infrastructure Law were exceptions to that rule. 

“While we are devastated that we’re likely going to be going it alone, we will double down on our commitment to climate and specifically to a clean energy future grounded in good union jobs that build a middle class, and we can do that at the state level,” Charkoudian said. 

She pointed out that many components of the IRA are baked into tax structures and have been leveraged by both Republican- and Democrat-led states. “My hope is that because it’s so well structured and so effectively distributed across the entire country, that it will stay [despite political pressure],” she said.

The concern is whether funding for specific programs managed by federal agencies will continue under new appointees. “The second thing is regulations,” Charkoudian said, “for instance on emissions or in the case of home appliances,” which she said would have a significant impact on climate justice.

“Home appliances have an impact in terms of healthy housing and cost savings for people, especially low-income folks or people who’re paying a lot for their electricity bills. So I worry about that.”

Morgan Pinnell, managing director for the mid-Atlantic at Advanced Energy United, a clean energy advocacy group, said that manufacturing of electric vehicle charging infrastructure underway in the state could take a hit under the Trump administration “because they may dismantle the incentives and programs that create demand for it.” 

Maryland could also miss out on $69 million in efficiency rebates because the state agencies have not applied for it, she said, adding that another $100 million under the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships award could be lost if the U.S. Department of Energy’s Grid Deployment Office doesn’t close the negotiations in the next two months. “The $62 million Solar for All grant, which is part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, should be fine. But it’s fair to worry about Trump Administration scrutiny,” Pinnell noted in emailed comments. 

Justin Balik, senior state program director at the nonprofit Evergreen Action, said the Biden administration’s work getting IRA money out the door gives Moore “a huge opportunity to continue to drive clean energy development in the state, helping businesses and developers leverage all those tax incentives.” Some of those IRA incentives are credits and deductions on EVs, energy-efficient home improvements such as heat pumps, and clean energy projects. 

States like Maryland will also need to counter actions by an incoming administration hostile toward climate action, Balik said.

“Governors are sort of the front line of the defense strategy,” he said. “They are in a position to mobilize the business community, mobilize constituencies that are actually working on clean energy projects, to speak out in terms of what these historic investments are actually delivering for communities.”

State-led litigation was a central pillar to beat back anti-climate efforts in the last Trump term, when California and attorneys general from several other states, including Maryland, filed over 70 climate and environmental lawsuits against the federal government, he said. 

“If you go back to the George W. Bush administration, Massachusetts joined 11 other states in challenging the EPA, which resulted in the federal government being required to regulate greenhouse gas pollution,” he said. “State-led litigation, coalitions of states teaming up on legal defense, is going to be important.” 

States will also need to do more within their own borders to keep decarbonizing big sectors, from buildings and construction to power and transportation, Balik said.

“I think Gov. Moore is positioned to do that. We also know that clean energy is creating jobs and lowering costs across America, and it remains a huge economic opportunity for states to bring in new investment and economic development,” he said. “It really is going to be up to states to fight back against what we expect to be President-elect Trump’s climate denial and to accelerate their own ambition.”

The post Advocates expect Maryland to drive climate action when Trump returns to Washington appeared first on Baltimore Beat.