[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6619413,"mediaKeyId","2836292-884436fc8936f538f91a6d76a5fdb7dc","parentId",2836292,"title","Senate advances next‑generation energy bill with $200 million rebate, procurement and rate changes; waste-to-energy removed from RPS","audioSeconds",3789,"startMs",10460000,"endMs",14249000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2836292-884436fc8936f538f91a6d76a5fdb7dc&start=10460&end=14249","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2836292-884436fc8936f538f91a6d76a5fdb7dc/thumbnail_10460000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6619413/Maryland/Senate-advances-nextgeneration-energy-bill-with-200-million-rebate-procurement-and-rate-changes-waste-to-energy-removed-from-RPS","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619413-29ce593733a7c06f216144195bd1fa59/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139081&Signature=LhefC7wt0MKBjU0rZeczVqEDNlHdfnDLV8mL0iKqvO3MG7LHAtNBWCd5DO4Bt5Cq-Nhozx~Y~7FaAvgYyUywyM3lJltgSbDuW~Wq2wu3mmtMLf8DQvjK02WS8JYGuxrNyPLUbhOZqR3BfIKF9DGhWAC6bEaGUoNXSDz8p8FRx38aeZds-BzOuPO~XnGKsh9rWKOUC77q8IgJiERouzPPX2uVx68yd-See4zmIyq7o0qsAWPjK-1rQpt8TUbfV-1A1jYDnf8EjQbr0AzK5FxxkVzxVOy-gak7UWtMhyvg1hS1R6Go8Qzq4fBNeVMdSNGBoVtkVqgTZgWAz1iO76vo9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Senate Sessions","date","2025-04-01T18:36:04.857Z","article","Senate Bill 937, described on the floor as the Next Generation Energy Act, carried multiple provisions aimed at stabilizing electric costs and increasing in‑state, dispatchable generation. The Senate adopted five committee amendments and debated the bill at length on April 1; the bill was ordered printed for third reading after the committee report was adopted.

Key provisions discussed on the floor
- $200 million one‑time rebate: The bill directs approximately $200,000,000 to be returned to ratepayers from alternative compliance payment (ACP) revenues in the Strategic Energy Investment Fund. The sponsor described the rebate as targeted relief to arrive around expected peak billing periods.
- Multi‑year rate plans and reconciliation: The bill keeps multi‑year rate plans as an option but tightens conditions, prohibits mid‑plan reconciliation that would allow additional recovery during a plan’s term, and requires the Public Service Commission (PSC) to find plans beneficial to customers before approval.
- Procurement and generation: The legislation creates an expedited procurement framework and authority for the PSC to seek dispatchable in‑state generation—capacity that can be turned on to meet peak or reliability needs—and it includes language intended to support new nuclear or other dispatchable technologies over the longer term.
- Empower program (energy efficiency): The bill amends the program to permit loans as well as grants through the Department of Housing and Community Development, a change intended to stretch existing program dollars further.
- RPS change and waste‑to‑energy: The bill removes waste‑to‑energy facilities from the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible list. The Senate floor saw sustained debate on that change because the removal reduces the number of in‑state RPS-eligible facilities; opponents warned removal could raise ACP payments or shift procurement to out‑of‑state generators.

Floor debate and outcomes
Floor speakers described the package as a multi-pronged effort to provide near‑term ratepayer relief while addressing mid‑ and long‑term reliability by encouraging in‑state dispatchable generation. The minority leader and other senators pressed for stronger or faster actions to limit rate increases; proponents emphasized the $200 million rebate and other protections in the bill.

A proposed amendment to require the PSC to return all ACP funds to ratepayers annually was defeated on a roll call; senators noted some ACP funding is earmarked for low-income bill assistance, clean energy programs and other investments. Another amendment that would lower the RPS goals in proportion to removing waste‑to‑energy also failed on the floor.

The committee and sponsors argued the bill balances ratepayer relief with investments in reliability and clean generation, and that procurement tools will accelerate buildout of needed capacity while protections in the bill curb some utility recovery mechanisms.

Where this matters
The bill touches ratepayer bills (one‑time rebate and ongoing rate mechanisms), grid reliability (procurement and dispatchable generation), the state’s clean‑energy goals (RPS changes and incentives for nuclear), and energy‑efficiency programs that typically target low‑ and moderate‑income households.

Status
SB937 passed committee amendments on the Senate floor, defeated several amendments proposed from the floor, and was ordered printed for third reading; the transcript captures extensive floor questioning of the sponsor and recorded votes on floor amendments that were decided during the April 1 session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Floor Session, 4/1/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 937, the Next Generation Energy Act, won committee amendment adoption and floor passage to third reading on April 1 after debate over a $200 million rebate to ratepayers, multi‑year rate rules, procurement authority for dispatchable generation and the removal of waste‑to‑energy from the RPS.","taxTitle","SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15090,"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},6619416,"Senate advances solar siting bill with 5% cap in county-designated preservation areas; amendments fail",5187,5199000,10386000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2836292-884436fc8936f538f91a6d76a5fdb7dc&start=5199&end=10386","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2836292-884436fc8936f538f91a6d76a5fdb7dc/thumbnail_5199000.jpg","/articles/6619416/Maryland/Senate-advances-solar-siting-bill-with-5-cap-in-county-designated-preservation-areas-amendments-fail","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619416-6e68e8c8d576665dd371c57d433542da/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139081&Signature=e9rGY6LzAR7K~trd7EYuswmgK0wFoXVaX5~VVWMzTA1d0X3Ski-x5q~lt42RZdWHAvf4IsuKkUMEXYghJnlJUdwdqyVA9BstFDHr6YAPoLvpK40KvroZXd1DdCMWt0HZLcrWmqq~fDC1pjj7lPUCtsCBoSuTek7w4KCeCyKTPw63JWzSubtzHVEpLcK0K4ppF2NRy3aCIUVX9ivHyZGWOc856P7uCBrbVErG7gp6K2MX7hhqVXPdGFxoy3bO~DSox4RICj-cgX7lSfvAHO9x7X4hEqwQVTc~myVcdrDkesOJ58AVAQVHE-8oA37ZxJitCkSQroRKih8hMQBzw6OjPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 931, sponsored in session as the public utilities generating stations, generation and siting, and renewable energy certainty act, cleared Senate committee work and was debated on the floor April 1 in Annapolis. The sponsor identified the bill’s goals as increasing in‑state generation, reducing transmission pressure, and providing predictable siting standards to attract solar and battery storage projects.

The bill sets statewide standards for setbacks, grading and topsoil preservation, requires decommissioning or landscaping bonds, and creates an expedited review pathway for utility‑scale solar projects that meet those standards. The floor sponsor told the Senate the committee adopted numerous changes recommended by local governments’ association representatives. The bill also includes a provision—unique among U.S. state proposals according to the committee sponsor—that limits utility‑scale solar in county-designated “priority preservation areas” to a cap of 5 percent of land area so designated; if local counties establish a priority preservation area by the statutory cutoff date in the bill, state preemption over local zoning does not apply within that area once the cap is reached.

Floor debate focused on the 5% cap and the cutoff date for county designation. The minority leader and other senators argued the cap and associated statewide standards were necessary protections for farming communities; other senators said counties already were using zoning and local planning to carve out suitable areas and questioned whether the state should continue to limit local control. The sponsor emphasized the bill strikes a balance between the need for in‑state generation and protection for local farmland and said the 5% number reflects compromise between developers and agricultural interests.

Two floor amendments were offered to change the 5% cap. One would have reduced the cap to 2% statewide (proposed to match certain out-of-state limits on prime farmland), and another would have set an initial 2% cap but allowed counties to expand to 5% only after every county had reached 2% (an “equitable distribution” approach). Both amendments were rejected in recorded roll calls on the floor. A technical drafting amendment was adopted, and the bill was ordered printed for third reading after the Senate adopted the amended committee report.

What the bill does and does not do
- Applies statewide standards for utility‑scale solar (projects over the statutory 2-megawatt threshold go to the Public Service Commission siting process).
- Establishes priority preservation areas designated by counties; within those areas the bill imposes a 5% cap on land used for utility‑scale solar and limits state preemption once that cap is reached.
- Requires bonding and landscaping standards intended to improve the chances that land could be returned to agricultural use at the end of a project’s useful life.
- Does not eliminate local permitting or environmental permitting; the sponsor said state environmental permits and other local permitting processes remain intact.

Votes and outcome on the Senate floor
- Floor roll calls recorded several amendment defeats and the bill was reported out of the Senate with committee amendments adopted. The bill was ordered printed for third reading—the transcript records the committee amendment adoptions, the failed amendments extending debate on cap levels, and the bill being advanced to third reading, but not final enactment.

Why it matters
Utility‑scale solar developers, county officials and farming groups are pressing for predictability about where projects can be sited. Supporters argue standardized siting rules with an expedited track will bring projects online faster and reduce upward pressure on ratepayers from constrained generation; opponents worry about farmland loss, visual and habitat impacts, and want stronger local control.

Evidence in the transcript
The public debate and the roll calls on the proposed cap amendments are recorded in the April 1 Senate transcript; the senator sponsoring the bill explained the policy aims and the committee’s changes, and several county and agriculture concerns were discussed on the floor.","Senate Bill 931, aimed at streamlining permitting for qualifying solar-plus-storage projects and setting statewide siting standards, advanced from the Senate with committee amendments on April 1 after floor debate over a 5% cap in county-designated preservation areas.",{"_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},6619422,"Maryland Senate passes fiscal 2026 budget and BRFA after floor debate",2611,1188000,3799000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2836292-884436fc8936f538f91a6d76a5fdb7dc&start=1188&end=3799","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2836292-884436fc8936f538f91a6d76a5fdb7dc/thumbnail_1188000.jpg","/articles/6619422/Maryland/Maryland-Senate-passes-fiscal-2026-budget-and-BRFA-after-floor-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619422-7a53a6961fc18cf2caeabd29d19b75f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139081&Signature=l3xTfJSIQ~wxSnMQI6GV52Z6LYgb2R5xHLIX3ErTc13ICQ8RyYLAZ0-FvbLd7Dr6pIBJi3VoMnhvik9AQKQs8Vt7KCLezFCjdGiZhqdcy~m3~UGi-gDnkNvEX7l64uQHdUMiNHspRR8ZzN8sXhE-E5GHsM5J0C8mrhhQT2-tHo2Fur4FRmgltlkD1WOX9bahTPfyQXRpuYBKr1o6xbMBJ8rhwPGq41pskx0of7PGG9KUiiBXGoxr6XcYjFwlSuOHTVHNhtHlgcTxzL~SQJi5gnrVr3a~6ZCRzETLS7v9N3W~nnT9Fkkio~YZ8XW4sQREowgYaLD5wF3uLGqP-RiLmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maryland Senate passed House Bill 350, the fiscal 2026 budget, and House Bill 352, the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act, after several hours of floor debate on April 1 in Annapolis. The clerk recorded 33 votes in the affirmative for HB350 and later 29 votes in the affirmative for HB352, each vote meeting the constitutional majority requirement.

Lawmakers divided on the approach to balancing the coming fiscal year, with supporters saying the package protects core services and opponents arguing it relies too heavily on new taxes. Senator from District 2, speaking during third-reading debate on HB350, said, “Unfortunately, this year, this is a year that I don't think that our side of the aisle is gonna be able to support the budget.” Opponents repeatedly raised concerns about tax increases and long-term fiscal policy; supporters said the measures were necessary to protect education, health care and public safety as federal funding and economic conditions change.

The debate touched on revenue forecasts and previous surpluses. Several senators cited figures during floor remarks: multiple speakers referenced a $3,000,000,000 shortfall reported earlier in the session and testimony that a prior cash surplus had been used for one-time capital spending. Supporters said the plan trims operating spending while preserving targeted investments. In debate on the BRFA, opponents characterized the bill as adding roughly $1,600,000,000 in new taxes this year to close the gap; supporters said the reconciliation bill and companion tax changes were necessary to balance the budget and protect priority programs.

Senate leaders and members of the Budget and Taxation Committee repeatedly described the budget as a compromise reached through committee work and conference with the House and the governor's office. The committee chair noted the state faces a structural budget challenge and said the package preserves key programs while leaving options available if federal actions or economic conditions force further adjustments.

Votes at a glance
- House Bill 350 (budget bill, fiscal year 2026): Passed. Clerk recorded 33 votes in the affirmative; the bill was declared passed after roll call.
- House Bill 352 (Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2025): Passed. Clerk recorded 29 votes in the affirmative; the bill was declared passed after roll call.

What supporters said: Senators on the majority side said the budget protects health care, schools, public safety and transportation, and provides targeted tax relief to many Maryland taxpayers while preparing contingency steps to respond to further federal cuts.

What opponents said: Critics argued the package relies on new or increased taxes, places burdens on businesses and counties, and does not do enough to reduce state spending. Several senators from both parties said counties are already strained by state mandates.

Next steps: Both bills were declared passed by the Senate during the April 1 session. (The transcript records final Senate passage and the vote tallies noted above.)","The Maryland Senate voted to approve House Bill 350, the fiscal 2026 budget, and House Bill 352, the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act (BRFA), after hours of floor debate about taxes, cuts and federal aid. HB350 passed 33–0 (constitutional majority declared); HB352 passed 29–0 (constitutional majority declared).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate advances next‑generation energy bill with $200 million rebate, procurement and rate changes; waste-to-energy removed from RPS

Senate advances solar siting bill with 5% cap in county-designated preservation areas; amendments fail

Maryland Senate passes fiscal 2026 budget and BRFA after floor debate