[ad_1]
Advocates and lawmakers pushed for a comprehensive climate bill on Tuesday that would take significant steps to reduce emissions from buildings and set the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal at 60% of 2006 levels by 2030.
“The problem is providing solutions and implementing solutions that will make a difference,” Sen. Paul Pinsky (D-Prince George’s), the lead sponsor of the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, told the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday. “If there are two watch words…they are ‘urgency’ and ‘boldness.’”
“This legislation pushes the envelope — let me admit that upfront — but it is also conscious of the ability to implement what’s in the bill,” Pinsky continued. He called this proposal a “work in progress” and promised to listen to opponents’ suggestions in amendments but said he wanted to hear “evidence that something absolutely cannot work.”
The Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, sponsored by Pinsky and 26 additional Democratic senators, is a far-reaching proposal that calls for a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions — based on 2006 levels — by 2030 and would require building owners to take significant steps in moving away from gas and oil systems and toward electrification. The bill would accelerate the state’s current state goal — set in 2016 — of a 40% emission reduction by 2030.
More specifically, newly constructed buildings would have to meet all water and heating demands without the use of fossil fuels by the start of 2023 and be prepared to install solar energy systems and electrical vehicle charging equipment under Pinsky’s bill.
The legislation would also force the state’s adoption of new building codes. Residential and commercial buildings over 25,000 square feet would be required to gradually reduce their carbon emissions by 2040. Large state-owned buildings, however, would gradually reduce their emissions. A building transition task force would develop a plan to support retrofits using tax credits and subsidies.
The Maryland Commission on Climate Change’s 2021 report recommended that Maryland achieve net-zero greenhouse gases emissions by 2045 and adopt an entirely electric building code for new construction.
A slew of advocates, lobbyists and academic experts testified in-person before the Senate committee for 4 hours and 45 minutes on Tuesday, with proponents heralding the bill for curtailing climate change’s most devastating impacts and opponents arguing that the bill’s decarbonization timeline was unrealistic and too expensive.
Victoria Venable, Maryland’s director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, stated that the Climate Solutions Now Act was a good compromise between setting climate goals and laying out a strategy to achieve those goals. Venable stated that all-electric single-family homes are more affordable than those built using fossil fuels. “The key to decarbonization is electrification,” she said.
Josh Tulkin, director of Maryland Sierra Club, stated that mitigating climate changes also means Marylanders are healthier, as efforts to reduce pollution from buildings results in less toxins in our air. “Climate solutions are public health solutions,” he said.
Opponents claimed that the cost of electrifying buildings or the power grid was too high.
Representatives from NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, stated that retrofitting buildings requires significant financial incentives. “The cost is enormous, and it doesn’t take an architect to think that if you have a 15- or 20-story building and it’s heated by a boiler in the basement … that converting all of that to electricity for heating is going to be difficult,” said Michael Powell, a representative of NAIOP.
Powell stated that although the Climate Solutions Now Act calls to establish a taskforce to develop financial incentives, those incentives need to be in place sooner.
Joe Bryce, representing Pepco — a public utility owned by Exelon Corporation — testified against the bill, saying there are practical consequences of transitioning from gas to electricity that require time to upgrade machinery to ensure it can meet the energy demand.
But Pinsky noted that Anne Linder, director of state government affairs at Exelon and co-chair of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, voted in favor of the commission’s recommendations that included an all-electric standard for new buildings.
“Was that vote when it was [just] talk and now here’s a concrete bill and now Pepco has decided it’s a bad idea?” Pinsky asked.
Bryce said Linder’s vote was not a mistake and pointed out that the bill had not existed when she voted.
Pepco representatives were unable to give specific dates for when they could transition to electricity, when they were asked.
Sen. Katie Fry Hester (D-Carroll) suggested that Pepco, instead of asking for more time, could “come up with some really specific amendments” that could help their cause.
“There’s a lot of energy behind this bill,” Hester said.
Charles Washington representing Baltimore Gas and Electric Company said the bill includes “an aggressive timeline” to shift to electrification that moves “too far, too fast.” Electrification requires additional capital infrastructure and BGE needs more time to analyze the capacity needs to continue reliable utility services, BGE representatives continued.
Pinsky, however, disagreed and stated that more time is necessary.
“The science tells us…that we have to move to clean energy or our planet faces some really big challenges and we face big challenges here in Maryland,” he said.
BGE representatives said they support decarbonization goals but want to consider different cost-effective pathways besides to “ban natural gas and electrify everything.” Gas distribution systems are reliable and should be a part of any future plan, they contended.
After opponents raised the costs of electrification, Kim Coble (co-chair of Maryland Commission on Climate Change) asked the committee to consider the costs associated with inaction. She listed some of those costs: businesses and roads that have to close due to flooding and delayed freight, rising insurance rates and displaced homeowners from climate-related disasters.
The broad-ranging climate proposal also addresses environmental justice. This refers to the idea of no one population, regardless their race, income or national origin, should bear a disproportionate amount of negative environmental consequences.
More specifically, it would require the state’s environmental justice commission and the Maryland Department of the Environment to identify communities disproportionately impacted by climate change and allocate state funding for emission reduction to benefit those communities.
On transportation, the legislation calls for expanding the state’s electrical vehicle fleet, transitioning school buses to electric vehicles, and requiring local school districts to build at least one net-zero school by 2030. A fund, or a “green bank,” that would invest state funds into private projects that reduce gas emissions, would also be created under Pinsky’s bill.
Several dozen advocates and lawmakers gathered in Lawyers’ Mall before the hearing, pushing for a smooth passage of the Climate Solutions Now Act.
Del. Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery), chair of the House Environment and Transportation Committee said that major differences have been resolved between the chambers. led to the legislation’s collapse last year and have been “working hand in glove” during the five months before the legislative session began. He stated that only minor differences remain between the two versions. For example, the House package calls for a 60% in emissions by 2032, two years after the Senate’s proposal of 2030.
Instead of one large bill, the House chamber split its climate package into several smaller bills.
- House Bill 708Sponsored by Barve and Del. Dana Stein (Baltimore County) increases the state’s emission reduction goal, includes environmental justice provisions and provides supports to climate mitigation projects
- HB 806And HB 831Both are sponsored by Stein and Barve.
- HB 696Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo, D-Montgomery, would establish an electric schoolbus pilot program.
- HB 94Fraser-Hidalgo, 13 additional delegate, sponsored the initiative to expand the state’s electric vehicle fleet.
Senators from the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee received testimony Tuesday on several climate bills. Most received positive testimony. The following bills were also approved:
- Senate Bill 61Sen. Craig J. Zucker, D-Montgomery, sponsored the legislation. It would provide worker protections and job training for mechanics working at government-run transit agency that are currently operating on diesel- and gasoline-powered buses. The legislation provides “an attractive unionized green path for young workers” who may not attend college, said Brian Wivell, political and communications director for Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689.
- SB 588, sponsored by Sen. Shelly L. Hettleman (D-Baltimore County), would expand the application of the state’s “high-performance” building requirement to any capital project, including major public school renovations, that receives more than 25% of its funding from state government. The bill also includes a provision that new public school buildings obtain independent certification of their “green” status, and requires the Maryland Green Building Council to ensure compliance with the bill’s requirements.
- SB 627, from Sen. Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery), would update the state’s building code to allow for greater installation of electric vehicle charging stations at apartment buildings and offices. Waldstreicher argued that the state needs to boost its EV infrastructure if it is going to meet its goal of putting 300,000 EV’s on the road by 2025. However, representatives from the building industry claimed that the legislation required builders to provide more electricity to parking lots.
- SB 471, from Sen. James C. Rosapepe (D-Prince George’s) and called Facilitating University Transformations by Unifying Reductions in Emissions (FUTURE) Act, lays out a timetable for the state’s higher education institutions to become carbon-free. Rosapepe introduced the bill in 2012, but it was not approved by the committee.
- SB 494Pinsky: This would require Maryland Energy Administration review certain heating and water efficiency standards in Maryland. The bill passed the Senate last year, but was blocked in the House.
- SB 135The bill, which was introduced by Senator Benjamin F. Kramer (D-Montgomery), would create the Climate Crisis Initiative within the Maryland Department of the Environment. It would also set aggressive greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. As a funding source, this bill would impose various polluting fees on fossil fuels.
- SB 126Kramer would impose pollution charges on vehicles with low gas mileage. “This bill deals with gas guzzler, high pollution-producing vehicles,” he said. The revenue collected by the state would be used to provide rebates to purchasers of electric vehicles, fund the state’s expansion of EV use for transit system buses and school buses, and to increase EV infrastructure across the state.
Josh Kurtz contributed to the report.
