Fiscal, Political Woes Dim Environmental Hopes In Bay States For Legislative Action

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – As state legislative bodies reconvene for their spring sessions in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, environmental advocates are expecting to see red — or purple.

Red because, in Maryland, that’s the color of the bottom line. The state is facing a $761 million shortfall in fiscal year 2025, and it could grow to $2.7 billion by fiscal year 2029, budget forecasters say.

Purple because, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, the governments are split between red and blue political factions.

Either way, observers say chances are slim that major environmental legislation will come to fruition in the Chesapeake Bay drainage states. But advocates are hopeful that they can nudge some small but meaningful measures across the finish line.

Here’s a look at what each state might do (or not do) on Bay initiatives and broader environmental issues.

Chalk it up to new blood. In last November’s election, all 140 seats in the state’s General Assembly were up for grabs. In the House of Delegates, about one out of every three offices got new nameplates. In the Senate, it was about two out of five. Democrats now control both legislative houses instead of just the Senate.

Much of this year’s attention is likely to focus on the state’s two-year budget, which is adopted in even-numbered years and amended in odd-numbered years.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in December proposed $500 million in conservation funding over the next two years. Half of that total is for improving water quality, but some say those figures are only the starting point for negotiations.

The following are among environmentalists’ priorities during the legislative session that runs from Jan. 10 to March 9.

Flooding: Under Youngkin’s budget, communities would get less funding to fight floods caused by rising seas and increasingly intense rainstorms.

Youngkin’s predecessor, Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, signed a law in 2020 directing the state to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, a carbon cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing emissions at power plants.

Youngkin’s administration has moved to pull out of RGGI. In 2023 alone, RGGI generated $136 million for the state’s flood-fighting fund. The governor’s budget dips into general revenues instead, setting aside just $100 million in 2024 and nothing in 2025.

“Getting out of RGGI really puts the pressure on the legislature and general revenue to back fill,” said Jay Ford, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Virginia policy and grassroots advisor.

Richmond’s wastewater: Richmond relies on a system dating back to the 1800s that spews untreated sewage into the James River, a major Chesapeake Bay tributary, whenever there’s too much rainfall.

City leaders say they need $100 million a year from the state to fix the system and avoid raising customers’ bills. Youngkin proposes that they get $50 million.

Protection for Norfolk: Norfolk would receive nearly $74 million toward the $2.6 billion needed to construct an 8-mile floodwall around its downtown as protection against storm surges.

The budget language stipulates that the flood-beleaguered city could apply for a $21 million loan from the state as well. But that is contingent on the city tapping into revenues generated by a yet-to-be-built casino on the Elizabeth River waterfront.

Smaller steps: Observers doubt that the divided government in Richmond will produce any sweeping legislation on charged issues. On the environmental front, for example, that means Republicans are unlikely to pass their long-sought repeal of the law requiring the state to match California’s ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035.

Smaller-bore issues are likely to take precedent this session, said Bejamin Hoyne, policy director for Virginia Interfaith Power and Light.

“Obviously, it’s still a bipartisan government in terms of the legislature and the executive branch,” Hoyne said.

According to environmental advocates, though, some areas maybe fertile for compromise: expanding the state’s shared solar program, also known as community solar, into Appalachian Power territory; bolstering local governments’ authority to protect tree canopies; and increasing the availability of electric vehicle charging stations in rural areas.

Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro last year announced the state will take its fight to join RGGI to Pennsylvania’s highest court. A lower court has upheld Republican legislators’ contention that former Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf exceeded his powers when he declared the state would join RGGI.

If the state Supreme Court overturns the decision, that state could receive hundreds of millions of dollars from carbon fees, and Shapiro needs to determine how best to use that money, said Molly Parzen, executive director of the Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania.

“It’s important to use those funds in the best ways such as clean energy, creating well-paying union jobs, economic development and job training,” Parzen said.

On the legislative front, environmental groups hope that state lawmakers will be motivated to act this session after a relatively quiet year.

“It’s an election year, so members of the legislature will want some victories to take home and talk about with their voters,” said David Masur, executive director of the PennEnvironment group.

Here are some of the topics on the table.

Alternative energy standards: Shapiro, Democratic legislators and environmental groups have been pushing hard to raise the mandate of the percentage of the state’s electricity that is produced from renewable sources from the current 8% to 30% by 2030. Pennsylvania met that standard years ago, and it’s much lower than what surrounding states require.

Streamside buffers: A bill would provide legal protection for existing vegetative growth found on each side of streams. With some exceptions, no development would be allowed in buffers of at least 100 feet on either side of a stream. Streams rated as high quality or exceptional value by the state would be protected for 300 feet on each side. The legislation would also allow municipalities to adopt regulations to protect and restore streamside buffers. And new housing developments would have to prohibit fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides on lawns bordering the buffers.

Farm conservation practices: In 2022, the legislature authorized an unprecedented $220 million to help farmers apply conservation practices that reduce polluted runoff. But the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others say long-term dedicated funding is needed for Pennsylvania to make up its shortfall in meeting Bay pollution reduction goals.

Solar energy for schools: A bill passed by the House with strong bipartisan support and awaiting action in the Senate would use federal funds to pay for 30–50% of the costs for the state’s 500 school districts to install solar panels on school buildings.

Community solar projects: Residents and communities would be allowed to pay for the construction of small-scale solar projects and save money on energy bills, under a bill that has come close to passage for several years.

“It’s very frustrating to continue to watch that not advance,” Parzen said. “It keeps coming down to small minutiae disagreements over how to go about it.”

Efficiency standards for appliances: A bill with bipartisan support would require commercial appliances sold in Pennsylvania to meet energy efficiency and water conservation standards. Appliances such as light bulbs, deep fryers, air purifiers and shower heads are a few examples.

New recycling fees: With recycling programs struggling in many counties because it is no longer profitable, a bill would allow counties to levy a fee of up to $4 a ton for waste taken to landfills and incinerators that would help maintain or establish recycling services.

Lead in school drinking water: Some schools have found elevated lead levels coming from drinking fountains. A bill would set aside $30 million to replace all older drinking fountains with water-filtering water stations by 2025.

The fiscal crunch couldn’t come at a worse time. At the end of December, the Maryland Department of the Environment released a long-awaited plan for reducing the state’s climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2031. With just seven years to reach that goal, the plan calls for new policies, programs and regulations to expand renewable energy, increase electric vehicle use and retrofit thousands of buildings to be energy efficient, among other things.

But that roadmap comes with a $1 billion annual price tag. State officials hope to tap federal funds to help cover some of it but don’t spell out how they would raise the rest.

“We were very disappointed that the administration did not commit to developing a funding mechanism or even looking into developing a funding mechanism,” said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters and a co-chair of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change.

Climate activists hope to reduce the funding gap with a bill requiring the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies to pay a one-time fee for the harm done to the state by their emissions. Proponents say that could raise $9 billion. It faces long odds; a similar bill died in committee last year.

Here is a look at environmentalists’ other priorities.

Clean water enforcement: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 stripping many wetlands and streams of federal protection also took away citizens’ rights to sue in federal court to prevent or stop harm to them. They are still protected under Maryland law, but there is no corresponding right under state law for the public to sue to enforce the law. Maryland’s waterkeepers are drafting a bill, the Clean Water Justice Act, to change that.

Bay watersheds pilot: Activists want to try a new approach to Bay restoration in the wake of a discouraging scientific report last year that found existing efforts to curb pollution aren’t achieving the desired results. This measure, championed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, would launch a pilot program seeking coordinated improvements in five targeted watersheds.

Solar energy: One bill would provide financial incentives to place solar panels on rooftops and over parking lots and landfills. Another would seek to end the struggle between climate activists and rural preservationists over development of larger-scale, ground-mounted solar projects on farmland by establishing statewide siting criteria and permitting standards.

Environmental justice: Most environmental bills are likely to contain environmental justice provisions. One revived bill, though, would give MDE authority to deny permits based on a project’s impact on disadvantaged and overburdened communities.

Living shorelines: While state law requires the installation of “living shorelines” to stabilize eroding waterfronts, property owners with failing bulkheads and riprap often get waivers to replace them. A bill supported by the Bay Foundation would require regulators to scrutinize such waivers more closely.