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. 

“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.”

— Mike Tidwell, Chesapeake Climate Action Network

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.