ANNAPOLIS Environmental advocates have criticized changes to landmark legislation on climate change in Maryland’s Senate. The compromise was designed to ensure that it passes in the chamber next week. Key provisions were cut by lawmakers.
The Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022 was amended to eliminate a mandate that all buildings built beginning in 2024 must be all-electric.
Climate advocates argue that the provision was dropped because it helped the state achieve some of the emission reduction goals set out in the bill.
Representatives from utility companies claimed that the electricity grid would not be capable of handling the increased demand caused by the all-electric code. Instead, the bill calls for a study to determine whether the grid has the capacity to support such an order.
Mike Tidwell (founder and director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network) stated in an interview with Capital News Service the bill had been substantially diluted. According to him, the legislation is a small step forward.
Tidwell stated that he believed the House of Delegates could make small improvements to a similar bill slate.
Sen. Paul Pinsky of D-Prince Georges was the legislation’s sponsor. He expressed disappointment that the all electric code was removed, but stated in an interview Friday that he believed other provisions were too important not to delay the bill.
Pinsky, the chair of the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, stated that there was a lot of pushback from different places and that he didn’t want to compromise the bill. It’s important that we address the issue again. I don’t think the votes were there. However, the bill’s other parts were important enough to move.
Josh Kurtz (MD executive director of Chesapeake Bay Foundation) said in an interview that he was disappointed by the bill’s lack of the all-electric code. However, he stated that it still had policies which would drive progress in environmental issues.
Kurtz stated that he understands concerns about striking the all-electric code to study a study as a stall tactic but was encouraged by the determination of legislators to keep the bill together.
Kurtz stated that Kurtz believed both chambers would hold firm on key components (of bill)
Josh Tulkin, director for the Sierra Club Maryland Chapter, stated in an interview that utility companies deceived legislators regarding grid capacity to extract as much profit as possible.
Tulkin admitted that he was disappointed that the bill does not require an all electric building code, but he stated that he believes the legislation is still strong.
He said it was not far enough and not fast enough but a good first step in a long journey.
Another amendment altered the way that the state will determine how many buildings larger than 25,000 square feet must reduce their emissions.
Large buildings will be required to start reporting emissions data to the Maryland Department of the Environment beginning in 2025. The information will be used by the state to establish baseline emissions for different types of buildings. According to Pinskys Chief Of Staff Ian Ullman, buildings will need to reduce their emissions by 30% by 2035 and reduce their emissions to net zero in 2040.
The legislation sets out goals for the state to reduce greenhouse gases emissions by 60% by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2045.
Climate advocates believe that the Senate legislation could give momentum to achieve more ambitious climate goals.
This week, the Senate debate was intense as some Republican senators questioned if the bill would have an impact on global environmental problems.
(The bill) places a severe financial burden on Marylanders while failing to deliver any tangible environmental benefits to save our planet or Maryland, Senator Minority Leader Bryan W. Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel) stated on Thursday.
Pinsky stated that he expected the bill to be up for a final vote on the floor early next week.
Republican Gov. Larry Hogan attacked the bill, calling it an “energy tax bill”.
Kaitlyn Levinson contributed to the story.
This article was originally published by CNSMaryland.org.
