Md. retains ‘big, hairy, audacious’ climate goals
The editorial, “Environmentalists underwhelmed by Maryland’s climate response” April 18, misses the mark.
Yes, in 2022 the Maryland legislature enacted the most rigorous state law in the country reducing greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise addressing climate change. But then bureaucrats drafted building energy performance standards (BEPS) regulations purportedly to implement that law that went far beyond what Maryland senators and delegates could ever have imagined.
What the legislature did this year did not amend or in any way weaken the 2022 statute, but rather only put on “hold” some of those regulations directing a course correction to BEPS that may impact nearly 40% of Maryland residences and almost 80% of businesses. Maryland still has ingrained in statute the big, hairy, audacious goal of dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions to repair the planet.
The legislature is simply requiring that moving forward we all treat this resetting of the trajectory of Maryland’s economy as the great responsibility and opportunity of our time that it is.
— Stuart Kaplow, Baltimore
Data center development must be done with climate in mind
I understand Gov. Wes Moore’s interest in bringing new data centers into the state as revenue generators, however I am alarmed by the approach he has taken through legislation in three ways (“Environmentalists underwhelmed by Maryland’s climate response,” April 18).
First, providing a Certificate of Public Conveyance and Necessity (CPCN) exemption for data centers sets a bad precedent for the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the recently enacted requirement for the PSC to consider climate change when ruling on new electricity-generating facilities. Second, Maryland likely will fall short of the climate change goals in the Governor’s Climate Pollution Reduction Plan, not to mention the potential climate impact of the energy needed for regular data center operations, by allowing a large number of backup diesel generators — essentially the equivalent of a new power plant — without offsetting greenhouse gas emission controls. Third, his bill was short-sighted, seemingly a knee-jerk reaction to the PSC’s CPCN ruling, and it does not address the numerous issues Maryland must consider in order to develop data centers without the types of negative consequences Virginia is currently facing.
I do not oppose data centers coming to Maryland; however, we need to do this in an intelligent way with an eye toward our greenhouse gas emission reduction goal, air pollution, environmental justice considerations, as well as the economy.
— Dave Arndt, Baltimore
The writer is co-Lead of the Maryland Legislative Coalition Climate Justice Wing.
‘Underwhelmed’ is putting it lightly when it comes to waste incineration
I appreciate the editorial, “Environmentalists underwhelmed by Maryland’s climate response,” (April 18), but left unmentioned is a very big and unfortunate miss by the General Assembly. At no cost to ratepayers or taxpayers, the assembly could have aligned Maryland’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (ratepayer subsidies to incentivize new sources of renewable electricity generation) with the recently approved state climate plan and redirected more than $20 million annually in ratepayer subsidies given to out-of-state waste incineration companies to solar and other actually renewable energy for environmental justice communities.
The companies testified they do not need the subsidies to operate; redirecting those funds to better renewable energy will also acknowledge the real harm burning our trash does. Burning municipal waste means burning organics that should be diverted and composted or single-use plastic from fracked methane that shouldn’t be produced in the first place. Burning municipal waste also means generating electricity that’s expensive and severely polluting, causing 800 premature deaths per year in the case of the incinerator in Baltimore City. That’s not renewable energy.
I am sad and frustrated as a citizen and ratepayer advocate watching this legislation die in the House Economic Matters Committee without explanation the past several years. I believe our legislators should be required to publish a one-sentence explanation of every sub-committee, committee and floor vote (or lack of vote), because our legislators seem to be more attentive to lobbyists than accountable to ratepayers and voters.
— Andrew Hinz, Baltimore
Are you sure it’s not the wind causing the flooding?
Wow, what’s new the editorial board bringing up climate change and flooding in Annapolis “Environmentalists underwhelmed by Maryland’s climate response,” (April 18). Isn’t it noteworthy that Annapolis floods when the tides and wind coincide? Annapolis never floods when the wind blows out of the west-northwest, but the editorial board or politicians never write or talk about that when the tide is low. The same goes for Ocean City. When a storm blows in the right direction, water will be pushed onto the streets. But then again what would you expect when the area is pretty much near sea level?
— Martin Sadowski, Fallston
Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content bysubmitting your own letter.
