Energy rift grows between Gov. Wes Moore and the Maryland legislature

BALTIMORE — A conflict is growing between Gov. Wes Moore and the Maryland General Assembly over the best ways to generate energy and lower utility bills for state residents.

“It didn’t go far enough,” Moore said in mid-June of a comprehensive package of energy bills sponsored by legislative leadership.

Last week, state Senate President Bill Ferguson, who co-sponsored one of the bills with House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, both Democrats, said that some of the work in the energy arena that the General Assembly took up in 2025 is “some of the more important work that we’ve done in the last 20 years” in regard to incentivizing additional generation in the state.

“I don’t know what the governor was talking about when he said that. I genuinely don’t know what he was referencing,” Ferguson said. “I think that we did incredibly important work to make it easier for all sorts of cleaner energy — from natural gas, to wind, to solar, to batteries — we ran the gamut in trying to incentivize and encourage new generation as quickly as possible.”

The governor instead propped up his ENERGIZE Act, which did not pass this year, as the bill that could have boosted energy generation in the state.

“We introduced legislation this year that would have allowed more nuclear into the state, that would have allowed nuclear to be seen as a clean energy source — which it is — and so, I’m proud of the work we did in partnership with the legislature, but I want to be crystal clear: It did not go far enough, and we need to be able to do more,” Moore said.

But, according to Mike Tidwell, the director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the generation under his legislation may have been costly and slow.

As introduced, Moore’s bill would have established a 100% clean energy goal for the state, incorporated nuclear into the state’s clean energy portfolio standard, altered the process and requirements for offshore wind energy projects to allow them to be directly connected to the PJM grid rather than a central point on the Eastern Shore, and increased solar alternative compliance payments.

It also would have created a nuclear energy procurement process through the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC), funded by surcharges on ratepayers’ energy bills.

Ferguson said Thursday that the legislature tried where it could to incorporate measures from his legislation to expedite nuclear energy expansion in Maryland, but that the increased energy costs that would have been passed on to ratepayers under Moore’s bill “was not tenable.”

“That was not something that we were going to tolerate,” Ferguson said.

Moore’s bill passed out of the House chamber, but with most of the meaningful measures removed. The legislation that died in the Senate chamber would have only incorporated nuclear energy into the state’s clean energy portfolio standard and set the clean energy goal.

In the debate over energy policy this legislative session, Republicans hailed nuclear as a panacea for the state’s energy woes.

“I think nuclear is the future, largely, of widescale energy production — not just in Maryland, but in the United States,” Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready, a Carroll County Republican, said in an interview Monday.

Tidwell said that the Chesapeake Climate Action Network supported the ENERGIZE Act, which he called “a good faith effort” on behalf of the Moore administration “to figure out if there’s a way — primarily through nuclear — to bring more generation online.”

However, Tidwell said that nuclear tends to be very expensive when compared to alternatives like solar, wind and battery storage. It also has a lengthy permitting process.

“It could take a decade to go nuclear and … I think the permitting process is going to be multiple years,” he said. “Frankly, most people don’t want a nuclear powerplant where they live.”

Ready acknowledged the lengthy permitting process for nuclear. He lamented the notion that Maryland policymakers have spent nearly a decade focusing on wind generation, when he said that the state could have stronger nuclear generation now if the focus had shifted years ago.

“Part of the reason it takes so long is all of the regulatory red tape,” he said. “Certain groups were very much opposed to it, and now have eased off of it.”

This session, the General Assembly leadership sponsored a package of energy bills aimed at lowering continuously climbing utility bills and making Maryland more energy independent.

Republicans generally opposed the energy package during the legislative session, saying they don’t believe that it will provide “real relief” to Marylanders’ pocketbooks.

Jones and Ferguson introduced the Next Generation Energy Act — the largest of the three bills — which requires the MPSC to solicit proposals for new energy generation sources to meet energy needs during peak summer hours.

This would allow the state to phase out coal and oil while maintaining enough power generation for when those plants close. The legislation does not mandate the closure of existing oil or coal plants.

The Next Generation Energy Act will also provide up to $200 million in utility bill rebate payments based on usage by residential electrical customers during peak summer and winter months.

The MPSC announced Friday that the first round of payments will be issued in either August or September. Second payments are expected to be disbursed in January or February 2026.

In mid-June, the governor announced a similar program that he brokered between Exelon, the parent company of Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) and Pepco, and local nonprofits to issue up to $19 million in one-time payments to low- and middle-income utility customers.

The $19 million is being donated by Exelon. The governor’s office recommends that interested ratepayers reach out to their local energy companies for information on eligibility.

Exelon had a net income of $2.46 billion in 2024.

Moore also signed legislation sponsored by House Economic Matters Committee Chair CT Wilson and Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Chair Brian Feldman, both Democrats, that will set statewide standards for solar energy and battery storage projects.

The governor vetoed the package’s third bill, sponsored by House Economic Matters Vice Chair Brian Crosby and Sen. Katie Fry Hester, both Democrats, which would have established an independent office within the MPSC to end the state’s reliance on PJM Interconnection for energy load forecasting.

PJM Interconnection operates the electrical grid that powers Maryland, as well as Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Moore has publicly railed against PJM, saying last week that its “inefficient and outdated processes” as a cause for the increases.

“We are watching this unbelievable rise in the way that they are charging ratepayers,” he said. “It’s unsustainable, and it’s really damaging.”

While Maryland has lackluster energy generation and is experiencing extreme hot and cold temperatures this year, the cost increases that ratepayers in the state are seeing result from increased prices to deliver electricity to Maryland homes, which have risen significantly in recent years.

For example, BGE’s electricity delivery rate has increased by 30% since 2020.

When the package was announced in February, Crosby said that the creation of the office would have allowed Maryland to look ahead at its energy needs years down the line to “plan accordingly” to “get in front of energy crises.”

In his veto letter, Moore said that the work the new office would have done is duplicative of some of the responsibilities performed by the MPSC, the Maryland Energy Administration and the Power Plant Research Program.

Additionally, the governor said that the cost of the new office could add up to nearly $29 million over five years – a burden ratepayers would inevitably bear.

“This cost would ultimately be passed along to ratepayers at a time when we are actively working to limit their burden, not add to it,” he wrote.

While he is concerned about high costs for ratepayers, the fiscal note prepared for Moore’s bill by the nonpartisan Department of Legislative Services said that his preferred measure could have prompted an increase in electricity rates.

Tidwell said he thinks “it was a mistake for the governor to veto” Hester and Crosby’s bill.

“If those existing entities were already doing a good job in managing our grid in Maryland, then we wouldn’t be in the crisis we’re in with high utility bills and insufficient generation,” he said. “We’ve got to do a better job of planning, period … because PJM is wildly incompetent.”

The legislature has the ability to override Moore’s veto if it can secure a three-fifths majority vote when it next convenes.

-------------