The Maryland legislature failed to reach an agreement to increase the state’s 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target Monday after the House of Delegates and Senate deadlocked over the Climate Solutions Now Act (SB 414).

Sen. Paul Pinsky (D) — lead sponsor of the Senate bill and chair of the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee — persuaded his colleagues to reject House revisions that would have set the state’s 2030 goal at 50% of 2006 levels — a step back from his proposed 60% target.

The House also stripped energy efficiency and solar-ready requirements for large new commercial and residential buildings. Also eliminated was a requirement that all new schools be solar-ready or net zero beginning in 2022. (See Maryland Panel Votes to Boost GHG Goal to 50%.)

“It dramatically changes what this body did over a month ago,” Pinsky said on the Senate floor, contending the House version not only deleted the school requirements from his bill but also eliminated existing “green building” requirements. “So not only was it not a hold-harmless, it was a major step backwards.”

House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D) responded with a video calling on the Senate to drop its “posturing” and adopt the “practical, science-based bill” as amended. “I certainly hope the disappointing over-the-top rhetoric of a few doesn’t sink this critical legislation.”

House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D) urged the Senate to drop its “posturing” and adopt the “practical, science-based [climate] bill” as amended by the House. The Senate refused. | Adrienne A. Jones via Twitter

Although both houses appointed conference committees to seek a deal, Pinsky and Del. Kumar Barve, chair of the House Environment and Transportation Committee, were unable to agree before the legislature’s 90-day session expired at midnight Monday.

The failure of the bill left the state’s current target, a 40% reduction from 2006 levels, in place.

“This bill would have taken steps in the right direction, particularly with regards to setting a definitive goal of net-zero emissions by 2045,” said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. “Science tells us we need stronger, faster emissions reductions to meaningfully address the urgency of the climate crisis, and statewide polling tells us that’s what Maryland voters want. It is disappointing that for the second year in a row, legislators were not able to pass a comprehensive bill that would adequately address the climate crisis.”

“We were frustrated that the General Assembly didn’t pass the Climate Solutions Act, especially when the Senate took action so early, giving them more than enough time to work out differences,” said Josh Tulkin, director of the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club. The Senate had approved the bill March 12.

Accomplishments

But Coble and Tulkin noted the legislature did pass bills to provide transit funding, reinvigorate its environmental justice commission and transition the state’s bus fleet to zero-emission vehicles.

“The biggest victories came on transit, where the state finally allocated the six years of funding needed to bring the Maryland Transit Administration [MTA] into a state of good repair,” Tulkin said, referring to HB 114.

Another bill would require the MTA to purchase only zero-emission buses beginning in fiscal year 2023, which is expected to cost the state an additional $25 million annually (SB 137).

The bill would allow the MTA to purchase an alternative-fuel bus, one with reduced emissions compared to a diesel that is not powered by diesel or gasoline, if it determines that no available zero-emission bus meets the performance requirements for a particular use.

The state estimated 40-foot electric buses will cost $948,750 each, including almost $100,000 in charging infrastructure, a $378,750 premium over the $570,000 cost of a diesel bus. Electrified versions of 60-foot articulated buses would have a smaller $209,000 premium at $1.05 million, versus $840,000 for its diesel counterpart.

Forest Mitigation Banks

Tulkin said the legislature “reached a good compromise” on a temporary measure for forest mitigation banks, which have been used by developers to meet replanting requirements by putting existing forests into protected easements.

In October, the Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion concluding that easements on existing forest, in contrast to an intentionally created or restored forest, would not qualify as mitigation banking under the Forest Conservation Act, a position Tulkin said advocates have been arguing for years.

HB 991 would allow developers to continue the past practice for three years but requires them to protect two trees for every one lost to development. In the interim, the state will order a study to consider the impact of the practices and develop a long-term replacement.

Pinsky was able to add to the bill a provision from the climate bill setting a goal of planting 5 million trees by the end of 2030, including at least 500,000 in “underserved” areas.

The Sierra Club says the state is losing about 3,000 acres of forest annually, most of it to development.

The legislature also approved a bill that would require the Department of Transportation (MDOT) to develop an urban tree program to replace trees removed during the construction of certain transportation projects, with priority to those affected by environmental justice issues or “heat islands” (HB 80).

Environmental Justice Commission

Legislators took action to change the composition of the Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, which was created by executive order in 2001 and codified in 2003 (SB 674).

The bill would require members to reflect the diversity of the state, gives it new responsibilities and requires that it meet at least six times per year, including once each in a rural and an urban location. The chairman, previously appointed by the governor, will be elected by the commission.

It would require the commission to use data sets and mapping tools to analyze the impact of current state laws and policies on communities and to coordinate on recommendations with the Commission on Climate Change in addition to the Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council. The commission also would be charged with developing a list of potential “supplemental environmental projects” — activity not required by law but that an alleged violator agrees to undertake as part of a settlement or enforcement action — to address environmental justice issues.

RPS Changes

The legislature passed several changes to the state’s renewable portfolio standard, including HB 1007, which creates a carve-out for geothermal systems in Tier 1, beginning in 2023 at 0.05% and increasing annually until reaching 1% in 2027.

The bill prompted a lengthy debate in the Senate Finance Committee on April 10.

Sen. Brian Feldman (D), who sponsored the Senate version of the bill, said the legislation could have a big impact. “I think this is only the beginning for geothermal,” he said. “I think geothermal is where solar was 10 or 15 years ago.”

Supporters said that it had passed with broad bipartisan support in the House (114-21) and had been endorsed by environmental groups and labor unions.

“When you have the environmental folks and labor folks all working together what else can one ask for?” said Sen. Katherine Klausmeier (D). “It doesn’t happen too often. It doesn’t happen often enough.”

But critics said geothermal already is eligible for renewable energy credits under the RPS and said the bill would benefit Google spinoff Dandelion Energy. Sen. Malcolm Augustine (D) sought unsuccessfully to amend the bill into a study.

“Nobody understands this bill,” said Sen. Stephen Hershey Jr. (R), citing concerns from the Public Service Commission. “They have said several times that the methodology in this bill cannot be implemented.”

PSC Chair Jason Stanek cited several “technical concerns” with the legislation in a letter Feb. 18.

Stanek said that to reach the 1% carve-out by 2026 would require increasing the number of RECs by 278% from the current level. “While there are some incentives available through EmPOWER Maryland and other state programs for geothermal systems, there is a substantial risk that sufficient geothermal systems may not be deployed to meet the new requirements,” he wrote. “The cost of the renewable portfolio standard may be more expensive to ratepayers if suppliers need to pay alternative compliance payments in lieu of purchasing RECs for compliance with the law.”

Feldman insisted the commission’s concerns had been addressed by changes in the bill.

Stanek told NetZero Insider on Tuesday that the changes “addressed some, but not all, of our technical concerns.”

“While the bill, as passed, provides the commission with additional time to implement the legislation, we still have concerns regarding how to properly measure the geothermal output for certain types of geothermal systems,” he said. “However, since the legislation would now take effect with geothermal systems installed in 2023 rather than 2022, we have some time to find a solution.”

Lawmakers also approved HB 561, which would expand the definition of Tier 1 renewable sources to include raw or treated wastewater used as a heat source or heat sink for a heating or cooling system connected to the distribution grid.

They also took action to exclude black liquor, a byproduct of paper manufacturing, and any product derived from it from eligibility as a Tier 1 resource beginning Jan. 1, 2022 (SB 65). According to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Maryland is the only state in PJM that includes black liquor as an eligible Tier 1 resource besides Pennsylvania.

Electric Generation

Solar power developers got some good news with SB 417, which would set a six-month deadline for the Department of the Environment and DNR to review and make recommendations on a completed application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for power plant construction. The PSC, which has ultimate authority over issuance of CPCNs, may waive the six-month deadline for “good cause.”

The Sierra Club testified in favor of the bill, saying that the average time for CPCN reviews had increased from nine months to about 18 months. “This prolonged process has contributed to a decrease in the number of CPCNs being granted from eight in 2018 to two in 2019 and three in 2020,” the club said. Meeting the Clean Energy Jobs Act in-state solar energy target of 14.5% of energy will require developers to build an average of 625 MW of solar annually this decade, the organization said. “The slow rate of utility scale project approval resulting from the prolonged and less than optimally productive CPCN review process is one major barrier to accomplishing this.”

Sierra’s Tulkin also praised SB 83, which would prohibit the PSC from issuing a CPCN for a new electric generation plant without considering its impact on GHG emissions, and its consistency with the state’s emission reduction goals.

Other Legislation

The following bills also were approved by veto-proof majorities during the session (three-fifths of those elected):

• Electric Vehicle Recharging Equipment for Multifamily Units Act (HB 110): declares void and unenforceable recorded covenants and condominium or homeowners association bylaws that prohibit or unreasonably restrict the installation or use of electric vehicle charging equipment.
• Energy Efficiency, Net-Zero Homes, Contract Preferences (HB 70): requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to give preference to applications for funding for a net-zero home from the Energy-Efficient Homes Construction Fund that hire small, minority, women-owned and veteran-owned businesses.
• Public Utilities – Net Energy Metering (HB 584): bars the PSC from prohibiting the construction or operation of multiple net metered solar generating facilities located on contiguous lots that are owned by a local government solely because the capacity of the combined systems exceeds the 2-MW limit. The bill applies to generating facilities intended to be used solely for the benefit of the local government, with a maximum capacity of 5 MW. It does not apply to customers of electric cooperatives or municipal utilities.
• Clean Cars Act of 2021 (HB 44): increases the Electric Vehicle Recharging Equipment Rebate Program from $1.2 million to $1.8 million annually for fiscal years 2021 through 2023. The bill includes a Republican amendment requiring the Maryland Energy Administration and MDOT to produce a study on the impact of EVs on the state’s Transportation Trust Fund, which is funded almost exclusively by the state gasoline tax.
• Montgomery County Community Choice Energy Pilot Program (HB 768): authorizes Montgomery County, the state’s most populous, to begin a community choice energy pilot program beginning in 2024. The county would serve as an aggregator for residents who have not selected an electric generation provider other than the standard offer service supplier.