[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6331998,"mediaKeyId","2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3","parentId",2309081,"title","Sponsors urge making major fossil companies pay for climate harms; supporters cite precedent, opponents warn of legal and market risk","audioSeconds",1330,"startMs",17400000,"endMs",18730000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3&start=17400&end=18730","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3/thumbnail_17400000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6331998/Maryland/Sponsors-urge-making-major-fossil-companies-pay-for-climate-harms-supporters-cite-precedent-opponents-warn-of-legal-and-market-risk","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6331998-51f35a5136224e2788352bc61957bf0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157852&Signature=Zh1rCKJvRokZC80bZ92JIEW7y4q2EQwcRKTGkOIa2sOmTbq6Zxcikqcs6jmPcfS3AR9B1bJ4unL2Nj7WemT~igBdgCdBPDMHjN8FzHi26VF4Tz2Su~Iw5XIi8lrmtyvUygiMA4V6XnVhueG~SVek17MrQTzQBusL4pHsxVfZU8hYiYLGUgPdm9yXqES28W~t3yKq3qa9RYUtOfYfSYi~y87-GHGTfywC1VVBMvjRxXjaqPzguLSUjh2uFTS5MiRlS1iKlrpX3P1Ocbi4I0C5rb5NsXzHFLV88280URRSnuhlyyk8vXkKW48TMcQDai0Wkcb4EECgmVlODcv5DcT-Mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MGA - EEE","date","2025-02-13T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 149, the RENEW (Repairing and Equitably Negating Effects of Warming) Act, drew emotional testimony and legal analysis as the committee considered whether Maryland should commission a study and pursue a one‑time assessment on historic greenhouse‑gas emitters to fund adaptation, mitigation and recovery.

Sponsor Senator Katie Fry Hester argued the state should shift costs from taxpayers to corporations with massive historic emissions. The proposal would direct the treasurer and Department of the Environment to assess the fiscal liability associated with specified historic emissions from a list of major producers and — if a statutory assessment is later adopted — channel proceeds into a fund for shoreline protection, local climate adaptation projects, home resilience grants and health‑related programs.

Survivors of climate disasters and local leaders testified in support. Emily Hopkins, who lost her house in last winter’s California fires, told the committee that communities now find themselves unable to secure insurance and that state resources must be available to prepare and recover. Environmental justice and advocacy groups argued a polluters‑pay model would prevent taxpayers from bearing the full cost of climate impacts.

Academic testimony from University of Maryland counsel described legal challenges that similar measures faced in other states and offered design features to improve defensibility — notably, commissioning a neutral study first, tying assessments to historic emissions rather than future conduct, and using a narrowly tailored funding mechanism. The sponsor and witnesses pointed to federal and state precedent, including the Superfund model and other state‑level climate‑related financial instruments.

Opponents and industry representatives — present in writing and virtually — warned the legislation could risk litigation, raise energy prices, or have uncertain economic consequences. Supporters countered that revenues would be modest relative to corporate revenues and would be phased and targeted to adaptation and resilience for vulnerable communities. The committee did not vote during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","EEE Committee Session, 2/13/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 149 (RENEW Act) would require a study and then a one‑time assessment on large historical emitters to fund adaptation and recovery. Supporters framed it as ‘polluters pay’; academic counsel argued a defensible design. Opponents raised legal, economic and implementation concerns. No committee vote was taken.","taxTitle","Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15092,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6332004,"Senators hear wide coalition support for ACE energy bill aimed at adding storage, renewables and rate protections",2670,15060000,17730000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3&start=15060&end=17730","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3/thumbnail_15060000.jpg","/articles/6332004/Maryland/Senators-hear-wide-coalition-support-for-ACE-energy-bill-aimed-at-adding-storage-renewables-and-rate-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6332004-e73bd17f223ca2f3b8a3518d2c1579af/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157852&Signature=B-V2OiVtxf7GdTJm5OpPtUTCYygI-zSgLfYADGVEd4HEuCKh3LuToA-GLA7bWNxS0hxzXE74lUik-OY8eB7vVzL1o1zCEO6vHZqkp0DE9Six9KuZjYQK-ipfA7nDURnXAOSxxX3DbzYRVi1luYRpy0EhYvB9rCQqNahxeQHqQH-iwWUafwO30gMv410yfX073qWNx6bbjbEL7CprQ~XRcDNpX8a9G4MkHmc2TqnB8ywkiZbUAlJFB7XxK8LTRxhGj3LBILzJ2YTpfw2UCitzTDOL0n5IpmI1S7pbm-w3vbEbjnJ8PG~K2ob8nYFgMykzjymFUcWbhQUFKRqKJxn48g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate panel took testimony on Senate Bill 316, the Abundant Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Act, a broad package of proposals to expand battery storage, utility‑scale and distributed solar, transmission planning for offshore wind, and limited financial stabilization for nuclear plants.

Sponsor Senator Brooks described the measure as an “all‑of‑the‑above” approach to address rising capacity costs, growing demand from data centers, and PJM interconnection delays that have slowed new projects. The bill would create targeted procurement pathways for battery storage (including front‑of‑meter and distributed batteries), refine solar incentive programs to prioritize Maryland projects, and direct studies and procurement approaches for offshore wind transmission.

Labor representatives and union leaders supported the measure’s labor and apprenticeship provisions and argued the bill would create construction and long‑term jobs. Environmental groups and clean‑energy industry associations likewise supported the plan’s emphasis on storage and in‑state clean energy deployment, arguing storage helps manage daily peak demand and reduces reliance on fossil peaker plants.

The Public Service Commission appeared in support of the bill’s goals but asked for technical changes; PSC testimony warned that the agency would need additional staff and analysis if assigned procurement roles akin to a project developer. MEA (Maryland Energy Administration) noted it supported storage in principle but warned that redirecting alternative compliance payments (ACP) to a new program would reduce funds for existing low‑income and community solar programs unless alternative funding is found. Witnesses acknowledged trade‑offs and recommended phased implementations and careful procurement design.

Developers and utilities noted that battery storage projects already in late interconnection stages could come online sooner than new thermal generation; witnesses offered Texas and ERCOT as examples where storage was deployed at scale and reduced price spikes. Industry and advocacy groups urged the committee to consider procurement safeguards and terms to protect ratepayers from long‑term contracting risk while facilitating near‑term clean capacity deployment.

Committee discussion focused on procurement design, the role of the PSC, timing and risk allocation for long‑term contracts, and the need to protect ratepayers during a period of high capacity prices. No vote was taken.","Sponsors and a broad coalition of clean‑energy, labor and industry groups backed a comprehensive energy package that targets battery storage, solar incentives, offshore transmission and nuclear support; PSC signaled conditional support with requested technical amendments. No vote recorded.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6332008,"Senate panel backs study to assess data center growth, energy and water impacts after Loudoun experience cited",1250,10800000,12050000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3&start=10800&end=12050","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3/thumbnail_10800000.jpg","/articles/6332008/Maryland/Senate-panel-backs-study-to-assess-data-center-growth-energy-and-water-impacts-after-Loudoun-experience-cited","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6332008-74bdb733fc78cbbce311733ed55d5286/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157852&Signature=l17KNVvLi6ysrrRRXTy~gBjXSJOqvp9D6wEGgD1s6nno4nnUPjoIMSccGN~584Cp3~FmSGXhRIO1qIF8giSeW3dBa27sKApo1-sUR9omjlyAYH6YUH4HoDyxT6LmCgAcl5ssrg-CIut3fgkJ78oTdLeMgY-4Pz~MViM0Z015jeZG8nJenL7~GLC7~a0lGN-7TuzjnPTSu6z4ebgR6ytOiv9Glaf42erZadUM7amFSajQb5MYYAlhqrXOioyC9ODtxdfSegiCOsKgSWDrZc0I10UeDj2pG6FocnHs1bYUO-cCrf0Z~-QUz9KdYcGDcxI9khl1T8amB0LvrYf~aE83vg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Education, Energy and Environment Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 116, a bill that would fund a state study into energy, water and economic impacts of large commercial data centers and produce recommendations for planning and permitting.

Sponsor Senator Karen Lewis Young said Maryland has seen rapid interest from hyperscale data center projects and that the state can learn from Virginia and other states’ experiences. Supervisor Mike Turner of Loudoun County, Virginia — whose jurisdiction now hosts one of the world’s largest concentrations of data centers — urged Maryland to inventory current in‑state capacity, project demand scenarios and provide local jurisdictions a menu of best practices rather than a prescriptive statewide set of rules.

Environmental advocates and some local officials urged the state to examine water demand, transmission needs and ratepayer impacts before large‑scale data center clusters are allowed to proceed. Potomac Conservancy, Nature Forward and others argued that data centers can consume millions of gallons of potable water and require transmission expansions that may raise customer bills.

Industry and logistics witnesses stressed that data centers provide local investment and jobs and that battery storage, solar and other solutions can mitigate some grid impacts. Loudoun County examples were cited repeatedly: supervisors said the county’s demand roughly tripled in recent years and that transmission build‑out and local permitting remain contentious.

Sponsors said the Department of Legislative Services would manage procurement for outside economic analysis and that the study should complete a first phase by 2026; they also discussed phasing and scope adjustments to reduce cost. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.","Senators heard sponsors and conservation groups urge a state study on the scale and consequences of hyperscale data center growth; county supervisors and industry warned of the need for local flexibility and speedy permitting. No vote recorded.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6332012,"Committee hears industry, labor and advocacy concerns over proposed changes to building energy performance standards",3691,3429000,7120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3&start=3429&end=7120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3/thumbnail_3429000.jpg","/articles/6332012/Maryland/Committee-hears-industry-labor-and-advocacy-concerns-over-proposed-changes-to-building-energy-performance-standards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6332012-1757361546a4a998023aaa59d1f12d3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157852&Signature=ORkrTYPV5v5-MRQizi0aU6T-ZZXmK9diBsjq4OupVpuC0HlX3adq2jmGfQ-N6wk7yWZ4z9fTrOIJmgG27EI8yjtBPcxuKgsRk~RXZ3wA6MUiBHChkyJlDUigLHoyL3xK1byLdyw5~SryCUqvXxmdWcOyVC8XXXOVhUpFu6WR6X1qUcF-pBKjJTY20gQHSuJCL76-WRPzCGRvjjslCq0IMX-t47-AYQ11l~z0g998OcRBx4dWz7z6-Z5W6IX~Pt1xgcq0YFdjzABsOmjLuuM3XLRZL5keHDgud6EaWJanQHNHVH43rpEflMX6THxaApSdZkuDYkmkCFZkaaHl93bQPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Education, Energy and Environment Committee took testimony on Senate Bill 256, a package of changes and implementing language for Maryland’s Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) that would add flexibilities such as economic‑feasibility waivers, timeline extensions and alternative compliance fees while directing funds to help covered buildings comply.

Secretary Serena McElwain of the Maryland Department of the Environment told the committee the amendments are intended to create workable exceptions for buildings where retrofits are infeasible or where systems still have long useful life, and to direct alternative compliance fees into grants and loans for covered buildings. The department said the proposal also allows jurisdictions with programs as stringent as the state’s to have buildings comply with a single program rather than duplicate requirements.

Witnesses giving in‑person testimony urged a mix of additional protections and funding: hospitals and academic medical centers sought explicit exclusions for critical equipment such as backup generators and steam systems and sought caps on fees for nonprofit health care providers; county officials requested more time to study local impacts and asked for the bill to allow county programs to preempt the state when comparable; apartment and condo owners warned of very high retrofit costs for older multifamily properties and asked for longer payback windows or a 10‑year payback cap for multifamily housing.

Industry groups and local governments raised concerns about the scale and timing of costs, and asked for more specificity in the bill’s targets before adding energy use intensity (EUI)‑based alternative compliance fees. The Maryland Chamber of Commerce and Maryland Municipal League urged delay or additional clarity, citing a statutory budget‑amendment requirement that statewide benchmarking data be collected in 2025 and used in final standards.

Montgomery County — which already has its own BEPS program — supported the bill with an amendment request to phase in implementation to avoid short‑term county budget impacts; county officials said sales of renewable energy credits had generated more than $12 million for Montgomery County’s budget in a recent year, a revenue stream that would shift if incineration or other sources are addressed.

The Department and local governments agreed to continue technical work; no formal committee vote was taken during the hearing.","Witnesses from counties, hospitals, business groups and tenants pressed for clarifications, waivers and funding after the Department of the Environment proposed amendments adding flexibility to the BEPS rollout. No vote was recorded.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6332018,"Maryland committee hears wide-ranging testimony on bill to remove trash incinerators from renewable energy standard",3337,8000,3345000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3&start=8&end=3345","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2309081-55fa46f21015a1c81a12c60b41a7bdd3/thumbnail_8000.jpg","/articles/6332018/Maryland/Maryland-committee-hears-wide-ranging-testimony-on-bill-to-remove-trash-incinerators-from-renewable-energy-standard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6332018-2b54765389c33c5ef71593347752a401/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157852&Signature=CQkpQwcAGqpCgm6akSTROgqu8pSHzRgy-6HnzFfR8vK3XKfzG-zGcDvoHwLx7xwbUqgaygowWZWHeD88YJnPfwRN3P84-Mh3F~UA5tJzQlOXj9rO0a06Kzw4yVaEtAMK~BgL9KjyPIJqM63ySwYyHNkHPDvaDDFJu2ym0F6YA4uSNIJ151K1y1PpZZ3yxEXWmrFaqVf5Cj0Fa3aQHASay1~SFdZMLVGp7Hld4B0RMTzQXWl3b9fX7EmKsfNu9Eky2E87mSaVABqmotBXxpLy2NT1DwQ-nnvx8ETWkxS-kxiIR6ZuqLSxGlEgG2Ujsv2ZfDsU0ztev-o1XWAY4OJawQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maryland Senate Education, Energy and Environment Committee heard several hours of testimony on Senate Bill 10, the Reclaim Renewable Energy Act, which would remove waste‑to‑energy (trash incineration) from the state’s Tier 1 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

Backers said the change would stop rates and subsidies from flowing to facilities they described as high‑polluting and not truly renewable. Emily Ransom of Clean Water Action and Kim Kobal of Maryland League of Conservation Voters joined elected officials and residents in urging the committee to approve the bill, citing millions in ratepayer subsidies that have flowed to incinerators in recent years and public health harms in neighborhoods near facilities.

Proponents highlighted figures from testimony and written materials: the hearing record included claims that Maryland ratepayers paid about $11.5 million to incinerators in 2020 and $24.3 million in 2023, and that over approximately four years $75 million in RPS subsidies went to municipal solid‑waste facilities. Supporters said the money should instead support wind, solar and other clean sources or be directed to Maryland’s Strategic Energy Investment Fund.

Opponents — including union representatives, facility operators and local nonprofit leaders — warned that excluding incinerators from the RPS could cause plant shutdowns, cost union members their jobs and force higher solid‑waste disposal costs such as longer trucking distances and landfill use. United Steelworkers Local 12517 told the committee the bill could imperil roughly 40 union jobs at a Curtis Bay facility and cited previous job losses elsewhere when similar credits were removed. Representatives of Wind Waste (the local waste‑to‑energy operator) said the firm has invested in emissions controls and local philanthropy and warned losses would reduce community funding and plant investments.

Several witnesses framed the issue as both a climate and an environmental‑justice matter. Senator Karen Lewis Young and community residents said incinerators are disproportionately sited in low‑income communities of color and that particulate and toxic emissions pose health risks. Public health legal advocates and a clinic attorney cited elevated asthma and emergency‑room rates in Baltimore and urged the Senate to remove incineration from Maryland’s Tier 1 RPS.

The committee took testimony from a mix of municipal officials, labor, environmental groups and residents. No formal vote was recorded during the hearing; sponsors and witnesses said they hoped for a committee report after consideration of the day’s testimony.","Supporters told the Senate Education, Energy and Environment Committee that ratepayers have subsidized waste‑to‑energy incinerators for years; opponents warned of lost jobs, higher disposal costs and local nonprofit funding losses. No vote was recorded.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sponsors urge making major fossil companies pay for climate harms; supporters cite precedent, opponents warn of legal and market risk

Senators hear wide coalition support for ACE energy bill aimed at adding storage, renewables and rate protections

Senate panel backs study to assess data center growth, energy and water impacts after Loudoun experience cited

Committee hears industry, labor and advocacy concerns over proposed changes to building energy performance standards

Maryland committee hears wide-ranging testimony on bill to remove trash incinerators from renewable energy standard