Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegate Chisholm pitches Climate Solutions Affordability Act as a 'soft landing' for energy mandates; voiced concerns about rising bills and reliability
Summary
House Bill 1451 would add economic practicability guardrails to Maryland's Climate Solutions Now Act requirements, seeking flexibility for local governments, affordable housing owners, and small businesses amid concerns about power plant retirements and higher utility bills.
Delegate Brian Chisholm presented House Bill 1451, the Climate Solutions Affordability Act, to the House Environment and Transportation Committee on March 11, describing the measure as a "soft landing" that adds an "economically practicable" standard to implementation of parts of the Climate Solutions Now Act.
Chisholm and supporters said Maryland faces urgent affordability and reliability concerns as the state transitions its generation mix. Chisholm reviewed recent power plant retirements and cited a loss of roughly 6,000 megawatts of generation from plants retired in recent years, an amount he said would have served nearly 4.9 million households. He warned of rising utility rates, transmission costs for new lines, and the potential for increased payments to keep some plants available under reliability must'run (RMR) agreements.
The bill's language would require implementing entities to take actions "to the extent economically practicable," defined to consider technology status, economics of improvements in relation to public health and safety benefits, and other socioeconomic considerations. Supporters told members the standard mirrors existing EPA phrasing used when agencies weigh costs and benefits and would give local governments and building owners more time and flexibility for BEPS, fleet electrification and other mandates.
Witnesses from local governments, chambers of commerce, housing providers and small businesses described potential compliance costs for large building retrofits, fleet replacements and energy upgrades. Atlantic Realty Group cited an estimate of roughly $40,000 per apartment unit in upgrades under current BEPS expectations and said that without guardrails affordable housing stock could shrink. Small business owners said rising energy costs already squeeze payroll and operations.
Opponents, including environmental groups and clean energy advocates (not shown in this excerpt), generally argued urgency is required to meet climate and public health goals; the hearing contained both supportive and critical perspectives.
Delegate Chisholm said the bill is not intended to block climate policy but to provide flexibility and avoid unintended economic harm while technology and infrastructure catch up. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing.
