Maryland politicians love to tout their environmental credentials. From Annapolis to Baltimore, they celebrate ambitious climate goals, promote expensive renewable energy projects, and impose stringent regulations on businesses, all under the banner of making Maryland a “green” leader. But in reality, Maryland is not green—Maryland is irresponsible.
The state’s environmental policies are not about sustainability; they are about virtue signaling. Instead of practical, balanced solutions, Maryland pursues costly and inefficient programs that burden taxpayers, drive away businesses, and produce little measurable benefit for the environment.
Take offshore wind, for example. Governor Wes Moore has aggressively pushed for an expansion of offshore wind energy, promising jobs and clean energy. Offshore wind is a promising technology, but it remains in its early stages of development and has yet to prove itself as a reliable, cost-effective energy source. These projects are often plagued by cost overruns, delays, and unpredictable energy production, making them an uncertain foundation for Maryland’s energy future.
Maryland’s broader commitment to renewable energy follows a similar pattern. While the transition to cleaner energy sources is an important and worthwhile goal, the reality is that renewables—at least in their current state—are insufficient to meet the high and rising energy demands of businesses and households.
Instead of acknowledging this reality and ensuring a measured, practical transition, Maryland’s leadership is charging ahead with premature policies that retire fossil fuel generation without securing adequate replacement capacity. The result? The rather ridiculous situation in which Maryland is phasing out its own fossil fuel generation, only to turn around and import… fossil fuel-generated electricity from other states at a premium price.
Maryland’s energy crisis further exposes the state’s failures. As Pennsylvania State Senator Kristin Phillips-Hill recently pointed out—as reported in a recent article by Fox 45 News’ Jessica Babb—Maryland already imports about 40 percent of its energy from other states, including Pennsylvania. Many of these electric generation plants use fossil fuels. With the upcoming decommissioning of the Brandon Shores power plant in Maryland, that number is set to rise. Phillips-Hill didn’t mince words:
“Governor Moore likes to tout that he is green, and Maryland’s green, and nothing could be further than from the truth, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Maryland is not green. Maryland is irresponsible.”
As Jessica Babb reported, even Maryland’s own energy officials acknowledge the grim reality. Paul Pinsky, Director of the Maryland Energy Administration, admitted at a legislative hearing this month that the state is unlikely to meet its goal of 100% clean energy by 2035.
Babb also reported that officials from PJM, the regional grid operator, have described Maryland’s energy outlook as “dire.” Meanwhile, Pennsylvania residents and businesses are forced to bear the cost of Maryland’s failed policies, as energy projects like the Cuffs Run Hydroelectric Project threaten farms, forests, and waterways to accommodate Maryland’s growing demand.
Making matters worse, Maryland lawmakers have doubled down on flawed policies with misguided legislation like Senate Bill 1 (SB1). Instead of addressing the state’s growing energy crisis, SB1 further limits competition in the retail energy market by imposing stricter licensing requirements, marketing restrictions, and regulatory oversight on electricity and gas suppliers. This reduction in competition makes it harder for Marylanders to shop for lower-cost energy options, forcing them into expensive, regulated utility plans with fewer alternatives.
Additionally, SB1 expands the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) authority, increasing financial assessments on public service companies—costs that will inevitably be passed on to ratepayers. Rather than protecting consumers, the bill burdens them with higher costs at a time when inflation, supply chain issues, and broader economic pressures have already made energy unaffordable for many Maryland households and businesses. The bill’s restrictions on marketing “green power” also create unnecessary barriers to alternative energy solutions, potentially slowing the transition to affordable renewable energy rather than accelerating it.
In response to my recent article on this subject in The Spy – Next Generation Energy Act: Powerless Policy, Costly Consequences – some readers took issue with my argument that Maryland’s current energy policies are failing. Comments included:
- “Maybe we should hold the electric monopoly accountable for refusing to cut into their profits and taking our tax dollars without getting with the times or living up to their promises. Like the dam Exelon owns and refuses to repair or clean up with their BILLIONS of dollars.”
- “Other countries have converted almost completely to green energy, and people are paying lower utility bills than ever.”
- “Fossil fuels are the PAST.”
- “Ridiculous. You want a return to the prioritization of fossil fuels? Oil? Coal? No way.”
These are passionate responses, but they ignore a fundamental reality: Maryland is failing to produce energy responsibly. While some claim that other countries have transitioned to green energy with lower costs, they ignore the subsidies and government intervention required to make those systems function. They also overlook the fact that Maryland’s renewable energy policies have resulted in higher costs and greater energy insecurity.
Maryland’s failures do not stop with energy policy. The state constantly blames Pennsylvania for pollution in the Chesapeake Bay while ignoring Maryland’s own mismanagement of stormwater runoff, failing wastewater treatment facilities, and sewage overflows into the Bay. The same politicians who claim to be environmental champions have allowed this infrastructure to deteriorate while pushing billions in spending toward trendy and unproven green initiatives.
Beyond the environment, Maryland’s overall governance is equally irresponsible. The state’s tax policies drive away businesses and residents, making it less competitive regionally. Its education system, despite record spending, continues to underperform. Crime in Baltimore remains a crisis. Yet, instead of addressing these pressing issues with pragmatic solutions, Maryland’s leadership remains fixated on grandstanding over climate policies that are more about politics than results.
If Maryland truly wanted to be a green leader, it would invest in practical solutions: modernizing roads and infrastructure, aggressively promoting nuclear energy development, gradually phasing out fossil fuel generation plants over decades as economically viable green energy capacity develops, improving local environmental management, and encouraging innovation rather than regulation. Instead, the state doubles down on ideological policies that have a high price tag and accomplish little.
The progressives are allowing themselves to be beguiled by their chronic lofty rhetoric and utopian fantasies, all while ignoring the economic burdens on ordinary working and middle-class ratepayers, energy instability, and environmental mismanagement that their policies continue to create. Maryland is not green. Maryland is irresponsible. And until the state prioritizes results over rhetoric, that won’t change.
Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a life-long Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals. He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast that discusses politics, business, and cultural issues.
Wilson Dean says
What is truly irresponsible is to be advocating energy schemes that serve to block the effective implementation of energy strategies consistent with dealing with climate change. While the Republican party has become the ostrich with its head in the sand (or, in the case of President Trump, accepted billion dollar donations from the fossil fuel industry), the scientific evidence has been abundantly clear for decades that climate change represents a most dangerous and significant threat to humanity.
Given this reality, keeping ageing coal plants running is ludicrous. The only way they should continue to operate is to install carbon capture, itself one of the most highly government-subsidized technologies in existence. Nuclear power should be considered, but lets all remember that no energy industry has been plagued more by cost overruns, delays, and mismanagement than this one. Finally, natural gas will be an important bridge fuel, but in the end it too is a major contributor to climate change, so it must be gradually phased out.
I agree with the need to develop our renewables responsibly, but let us not forget that all of the alternatives being considered have substantially more costly and deadly downsides than options such as solar, wind, and storage.
Eric Ploeg says
Maryland already requires energy 24/7 yet Moore and his comrades have neglectfully shuttered operational energy sources before providing a reasonable alternative. There in lies our problem. Very poor planning. Our energy sources today are no better just more expensive.
Meanwhile along Mr Mitchell’s point, for 2025 this administration is providing $5 MILLION in grants towards Maryland’s (non-existent) offshore wind energy industry. How many millions have already been granted away yet still no energy relief for Marylanders.
Are we just supposed to feel better?
HR Worthington says
Mr. Dean, the only ostriches I am aware of are the ones who make statements indicating nuclear has been plagued by more mismanagement than any other form of energy. Perhaps you should spend some time in California and ask citizens there how well-managed the green energy industry is in their state? If you can even hear their answer over the din of diesel generators powering their homes in a blackout, I would be surprised. Or perhaps you have forgotten what happened in 2021 during the infamous Texas blackouts? To make matters worse, electrical bills in these areas are not lower as a result of these “renewables” they are higher despite heavy subsidization by taxpayers. The problem isn’t the “management” of these technologies, the problem is basic physics. They do not work at scale.
I have grown weary of paying ever higher utilities bills whilst being lectured by people who I am quite sure couldn’t explain the basics of electrochemistry. When they show they can pass an elementary exam on electromagnetism I might listen to them. In the meantime, I might suggest their heads have been firmly placed somewhere other than the sand. -HR
Denny says
I would like to point out that much of Texas’ problem lies in the fact that they have no transmission lines that tie with the rest of the U. S. By refusing to participate in the benefits to be gained by being part of the national grid they limit their options when generation is impacted by storms, usage spikes or fuel availability. That applies to all fuels, both fossil and renewable.
Mike Allison says
Well said!
Eric Ploeg says
Well said! These are totally Maryland issues, the responsibility of the current administration and legislators in Annapolis. How is this so difficult for people to understand?
Heinz Weverink says
Maryland once was a leader in the environmental protection arena, until the creation of the DOE, a massive bureaucratic feel good failure at a massive expense. Forty years later and there’s no improvement.
Alfred Denman Wallace says
It would be lovely to see items of public interest and safety, such as the power grid, not become political footballs. As your article references, good energy policy lies somewhere between the “drill baby drill” camp and the “100% renewable camp” currently. Having watched a decent generation fuel such as coal fall victim to the warring sides just as it reached the level of relatively clean exhaust gases from power plants points this up. I worked in the energy industry for 40 years, and have watched this all play out. At the same time I have observed the downside of deregulation of such a necessary thing in our lives, the generation and distribution of electricity. The lack of oversight leads to things like: 3 mile island; Fukushima; the ENRON debacle of the late 90’s and early 2000’s wherein utility executives rushed to maximize profits to the detriment of grid reliability and ended in shareholder losses as well. This leads me to believe that handing over necessary oversight of a product as important as electricity to encourage innovation should be tempered with an understanding of the pitfalls of unregulated utilities.
I enjoyed the tone of speaking truth to power, and what I took to be a generally evenhanded view of a more centrist policy concerning energy.
The truth is, someone needs to innovate somewhere at sometime or things stay the same. Making the good of the people one of the more important aspects of energy policy is a necessary item here. To achieve the 99% generation the national power company uses a rate structure that aggressively encourages conservation, and uses rolling blackouts rather than purchase generation elsewhere or run a fossil fuel power plant. In my opinion punishing people with darkness or the inability to run a fan in 95ºF heat is not putting the needs of people in an important policy making position. I hope this is not how Maryland decides to proceed.
I look forward to more articles on this from Mr. Mitchell
Margaret Nutter says
I agree 100% with everything in this article. Spot on!!
Gary says
Great article! Spot on!
Ron says
Great article Clay, right on target !
Michael Palumbo says
Good article Clay and while I tend to be on the other side of the fence, you make some solid arguments for a more balanced approach. And without the federal government investments in Green technologies it will be next to impossible for the state goals to be met.