When Meghan Conklin became Maryland’s first-ever chief sustainability officer in 2024, the state seemed poised for rapid climate progress. With billions of dollars in federal funding available under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), decision makers were preparing to meet statutory mandates to cut emissions 60 percent by 2031 and reach net zero by 2045.

But the political and economic terrain shifted fast. And implications have been dire. 

This year, Maryland delayed its zero-emission vehicle mandates, softened building decarbonization rules, cracked open the door to new fossil gas plants and redirected clean energy funds to cover budget holes. All this came in the wake of the Trump administration’s aggressive moves to gut federal climate programs and freeze key grants.

A year after Inside Climate News last spoke with her, Conklin—who reports directly to Gov. Wes Moore and oversees interagency climate coordination—defended the administration’s approach, acknowledged tough tradeoffs and insisted the state has not backtracked on its long-term climate goals. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

AMAN AZHAR: How has your role changed since we spoke in March of last year?

MEGHAN CONKLIN: This has been a challenging year with the Trump administration’s continued attacks on energy, the environment and climate mandates. It was also a challenging legislative session in Maryland. But I feel we made progress towards our climate goals. I feel lucky to serve with a great team around me, including our secretaries of natural resources and the environment, and the Maryland Energy Administration.

AZHAR: Do you think your office now carries more authority over interagency climate decisions, or are you still building that internal leverage?

CONKLIN: I wouldn’t say authority. It’s a partnership. My approach is to work in tandem with other members of the cabinet and their agencies. I’m a member of the governor’s executive team, which helps me speak directly to the governor and some of his senior team. A key mechanism for our interagency coordination is the climate sub-cabinet, which I co-chair along with the Maryland Secretary of the Environment. I’ve been able to form strong relationships across agencies, helping them move forward. 

AZHAR: Last year you said your main goal was to ensure Maryland meets its bold climate goals. A year later, do you still believe Maryland is on track?

Advertisement

CONKLIN: That’s still our main mission. But we face unprecedented federal challenges. President Trump’s budget proposes historic environmental cuts, and we’ve had a challenging legislative session. Still, Gov. Moore signed one of Maryland’s most comprehensive climate executive orders, establishing a climate sub-cabinet and requiring agencies to produce climate implementation plans. Those were completed on time, and we’ve made real progress, including $100 million in state funding—half for solar projects on state property, half for local clean energy initiatives.

AZHAR: This year’s General Assembly session saw clean car mandates delayed, the Better Buildings Act stalled and up to 10 new gas plants authorized. Advocates say Maryland is retreating on its climate commitments. Do you agree?

CONKLIN: Legislation rarely emerges exactly as proposed. There were some provisions in the energy package legislation on natural gas, driven by Maryland’s presiding officers, not our administration. Still, there were some important gains, including removing trash incineration from our renewable energy portfolio and reducing red tape around solar deployment. Overall, I believe some valuable progress was made despite compromises.

AZHAR: How does opening the door to new gas plants align with Maryland’s climate goals?

CONKLIN: The governor is committed to 100 percent clean electricity. Those gas provisions were not in his bill, which was the ENERGIZE Maryland Act. The administration is focused on clean energy, not just wind and solar, but all the other types of carbon-free electricity, like nuclear. 

AZHAR: Environmental advocates said they felt blindsided by the gas and nuclear provisions, and that Maryland is opening doors to fossil fuels under the guise of reliability. Did you share these concerns?

CONKLIN: Advocates, including Maryland’s League of Conservation Voters, shifted their stance from opposition to neutrality because of the climate-positive elements we added to the energy package. Legislative process often involves difficult compromises, especially under challenging conditions like we have under the Trump administration. Even if it wasn’t ideal, we saw overall gains.

AZHAR: One of your key roles is to help secure and track federal climate funding. Did state leadership anticipate funding upheavals and did your office prepare budget models?

CONKLIN: Gov. Moore anticipated a potential political shift months ahead. I lead our federal investment team, tracking federal funding closely. We’ve aggressively pursued IRA and Infrastructure Law funding and successfully defended some grants in court. For example, the $62 million that Maryland received under the Solar for All grant is now unfrozen as a result of litigation. We also secured $130 million under the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, and those are continuing as well. But challenges remain and litigation is ongoing.

AZHAR: Which specific climate programs are directly impacted by federal disruptions?

CONKLIN: Many, but notably our National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure funds have been frozen. We’re also very concerned about offshore wind projects. Maryland recently joined Massachusetts in suing over Trump’s permitting restrictions on offshore wind.

AZHAR: The state diverted money from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund into the general budget. Did you support that move?

CONKLIN: Gov. Moore faced an unprecedented budget crisis, forcing tough trade-offs. Still, $100 million of that went to climate programs. I don’t anticipate this becoming a regular occurrence. 

AZHAR: Moore initially called climate action an “all-of-government priority.” But some advocates now say that economic pragmatism has taken over climate action. Has there been a recalibration?

CONKLIN: We’re committed to climate action. Protecting the climate and economy aren’t mutually exclusive. The energy legislation streamlined solar deployment in Maryland, which will help climate and economy, reflecting the governor’s continued commitment.

AZHAR: Were environmental justice reviews conducted for the delayed mandates, weakened standards or new gas projects?

CONKLIN: Environmental justice remains a priority. Post-session, we’re reviewing potential executive actions on climate and environmental justice issues. So stay tuned. It’s at the forefront of my mind.

AZHAR: Given the delays, diversions and shifting ground, does Maryland still have a credible claim to national climate leadership?

CONKLIN: We’re still among the leaders. I’ll soon meet with other states through the U.S. Climate Alliance. Despite that it was one of the most challenging sessions I’ve experienced, we continue making progress toward our goals.