House rejects multiple amendments to Next Generation Energy Act after hours of debate

The Maryland House of Delegates spent much of its March 16 floor session debating and voting on amendments to the Next Generation Energy Act (House Bill 15 32). The bill—moved by the environment and transportation committee—contains a package of changes intended to address electricity rates, grid reliability and future generation planning.

The most contested proposal on the floor was an amendment offered by the delegate from Cecil County (S29) that would have repealed Maryland’s statutory constraints around the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and prevented reenrollment. S29 argued the amendment was necessary because RGGI raises costs and hinders new generation, saying, “We need more generation facilities in Maryland,” and warning that the program’s auction costs made expansion cost‑prohibitive for some plants. Opponents said RGGI proceeds fund energy efficiency and low‑income assistance and cited independent studies showing RGGI states’ electricity rates have not been driven by carbon market proceeds. After extended debate, the roll-call tally was 13 in favor and 97 opposed; the amendment failed.

A separate amendment to add nuclear energy—including small modular reactors (SMRs)—to the renewable portfolio’s Tier 1 list was offered to encourage advanced nuclear development. Supporters said nuclear provides reliable baseload power and long‑term competitiveness; opponents warned that moving nuclear into Tier 1 would crowd out solar and wind in the state’s crediting mechanism and require large federal subsidies. The amendment was rejected on the floor (the clerk announced the negative result).

Lawmakers also debated an amendment seeking an open‑ended moratorium on new data‑center construction unless the facilities ‘bring their own power’ (behind‑the‑meter generation) to avoid grid impacts and costly transmission projects. Proponents argued such a requirement would protect ratepayers and farmland from new transmission lines; critics said the change risked sending investment out of state and that the Public Service Commission and an ongoing legislatively mandated study were the proper venues for technical fixes. The moratorium amendment failed on a roll call.

A separate cluster of amendments targeted the Empower energy‑efficiency surcharge. Some delegates urged an outright end to the surcharge to deliver immediate monthly relief to customers; sponsor and committee arguments stressed retaining Empower’s low‑income programs while reducing overhead and improving transparency. Broad proposals to eliminate Empower were defeated in roll calls.

Environment and transportation committee leaders and the bill sponsor repeatedly argued the committee package tried to balance short‑term affordability with long‑term system improvements, including provisions for large‑load tariffs, enhanced transmission review, and support for brownfield energy projects. “We want to send market signals and expectations to data centers,” one floor leader said in debate, urging resistance to blunt moratoria.

Several other targeted amendments—on battery storage sales‑tax exemptions, offshore wind Tier‑1 designation, CPCN notice requirements for transmission projects, and a program to incentivize redevelopment of former industrial sites—were offered and debated; most failed by roll call or were withdrawn. Throughout the debate, chairs and floor leaders repeatedly emphasized that complex regulatory and technical questions remained with agencies such as the Public Service Commission and the Maryland Energy Administration.

What happened next: Committee amendments were adopted earlier and the bill was auto‑printed for third reading. House members also continued through a large consent calendar of favorable committee reports before adjourning. The House is scheduled to reconvene per the chamber calendar.