Maryland’s foray into the progressive “green agenda” has led to a cascade of lamentable energy policy decisions that are both short-sighted and economically burdensome. The impending closures of the Vienna and Brandon Shores electrical generation plants provide a stark example of the perils inherent in abandoning pragmatism for idealism. These facilities, pillars of reliability in a state that once prided itself on self-sufficient energy production, are being shuttered due to policies driven by an insatiable zeal for fossil fuel eradication. What remains is a state that now imports more electricity than it produces, paying exorbitant prices for the privilege of being energy dependent.
Consider the Vienna Generating Station, a modest yet dependable 167 MW oil-fired plant. It quietly performs its duty in the background, a workhorse of energy supply for the Eastern Shore. The Brandon Shores facility, by contrast, is a behemoth, generating 1,370 MW of coal-fired energy with a pair of stalwart Babcock & Wilcox boilers feeding General Electric turbines. Together, these plants are capable of powering nearly two million homes. Yet, in the name of environmental orthodoxy, both facilities are being cast aside without an adequate replacement, a move emblematic of the naivety and hubris that so often accompany sweeping political mandates.
The result? Maryland has found itself in the unenviable position of importing between 1,000 and 6,000 MW of electricity hourly from neighboring states. The financial repercussions of this dependency are staggering. Residential energy users—those hapless pawns in this misguided game of green chess—now face significant increases in their monthly bills. BGE has outlined a series of rate hikes, culminating in a $26 monthly increase by mid-2025. Of that, nearly $10 is tied directly to the state’s lack of adequate generation resources, which necessitates reliance on the PJM Interconnection and its escalating capacity market prices.
In fairness, utilities like BGE and PEPCO are not entirely to blame for the state’s energy woes. They are operating within a regulatory framework that compels them to implement state-mandated energy efficiency programs while managing the fallout from supply chain disruptions, inflation, and the pandemic. Yet, these companies are the public face of the crisis, and it is their customers who bear the financial brunt. Meanwhile, Virginia’s Dominion Energy, operating under a regulated utility model, has shielded its customers from similar price hikes by maintaining control over its energy generation assets. The contrast is illuminating and ought to serve as a cautionary tale.
Lest I appear ingratiating to the public utilities (which is not the purpose of my message), they bear some blame for the present crisis. Senate Bill 1, which was passed in 2024 by the Maryland General Assembly over the strenuous objection of small businesses and ratepayers across the state, rewards profligate spending from the government-subsidized utilities by eliminating consumer choice and retail competition.
No longer can Marylanders compare prices between BGE and private retail suppliers, and choose the plan that is most affordable, best fits their lifestyle, or allows them to secure all their energy from renewable sources. Instead, everyone is herded to what is euphemistically referred to within the industry as “standard offer service,” which is a polite way of describing a relationship in which consumers must accept what the big utilities charge, because they have no other options.
The outcome of all this is predictable and obvious to anyone who has taken high school economics. Rates are skyrocketing. Reports of predatory business practices are on the rise. And even as Maryland families struggle to balance the costs of food, electricity, medicine, and other mandatory expenses, the utilities still petition for higher rates.
The progressive proponents of Maryland’s green agenda may well congratulate themselves on their commitment to combating climate change, but the data suggests that these efforts are unlikely to have any measurable impact on global temperatures. The Climate Solutions Now Act is a monument to aspiration rather than achievement, its goals predicated on the dubious assumption that renewable energy projects can be brought online quickly enough to replace fossil fuels.
Yet PJM’s own data paints a grim picture: only 5% of proposed renewable projects have historically been completed. Even if the state were to succeed in building solar farms on an unprecedented scale, it would require approximately 35,000 acres of solar panels to replace the output of Brandon Shores alone.
In an August 2024 essay, Michael Powell, an energy and environmental attorney with the law firm Gordon Feinblatt, astutely observes that the laws of supply and demand remain in effect despite the legislative wishes of Maryland’s policymakers. The forced retirements of fossil-fueled generation, coupled with sluggish progress on renewable energy development, have created a perfect storm of scarcity and skyrocketing costs. PJM’s latest capacity auction saw prices in the BGE delivery area soar to an astounding $466.35 per megawatt day, nearly sixteen times higher than the previous year’s rates. Such numbers are not the harbingers of a smooth transition; they are the tolling bells of policy failure.
The root cause of this debacle is not merely the retirement of fossil fuel plants. It is the reckless pace at which these retirements are being forced upon the energy sector without a viable plan for replacing the lost capacity. The Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, a hallmark of Maryland’s current political regime, mandates rapid electrification across transportation, home heating, and other sectors, all while sidelining the very energy sources needed to power this transition. The predictable result has been a mismatch of supply and demand, one that threatens not only economic stability but the reliability of the grid itself.
The broader implications of Maryland’s energy policy extend beyond economics. As thermal generators retire at a rapid clip, the state’s ability to ensure grid reliability is increasingly called into question. Governor Moore’s ambitions for energy-intensive data centers and widespread electrification will only exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened system. PJM’s warning of a “potential timing mismatch” between plant closures and renewable capacity additions should be heeded, yet there is little indication that state leaders are willing to adjust course.
Maryland’s voters, many of whom supported the politicians driving these policies, are now reaping what they have sown. The progressive agenda—heralded as a triumph of environmental stewardship—has delivered instead a litany of unintended consequences. Higher energy bills, reduced reliability, and an ever-growing dependence on out-of-state power are the fruits of this misguided experiment. The state’s green ambitions may be laudable in theory, but in practice, they have proven to be a costly exercise in overreach.
In the end, one cannot help but marvel at the irony. Maryland’s policymakers, so eager to lead the charge against climate change, have unwittingly saddled their constituents with an energy crisis of their own making. To those who championed this agenda, congratulations are indeed in order: you have achieved precisely what you set out to accomplish, though at a price far higher than anyone is willing to pay.
Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a lifelong 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.
Alex says
Thank you for your informative article.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Another excellent and timely article by Clayton Mitchell. Please keep them coming. Maryland desperately needs your practical insights and wisdom, as our state government and residents appear woefully uninformed, and far too often misinformed.
Michael Davis says
Mr.Mitchell, Sr. very confidently asserts that if Maryland follows his plan, energy will be abundant and prices will drop. We will never know if that is true so it is easy to say. The supply and cost of energy in all its wonderful forms is not controlled by the law of supply and demand. OPEC does not raise oil productions when demand his high. Only Adam Smith would think that and he’s dead. Nor do people on the Eastern Shore clamor for a nuclear power plant built nearby to reduce our electric bills. Energy: It’s Complicated. More complicated, I dare say, than is represented in Mr. Mitchell’s essay.
Eugene Lopez says
A question for Mr. Mitchell – you mention that $10 of the $26 increase in electric bills is due to the shut down of two aging fossil fuel electric generation plants. What is the other $16 in increase stemming from? I believe it is from electric distribution and Exelon profits. And how much of that $16 is the profit piece? Please answer that, and also please tell us how much Exelon’s profits have increased over the time period he is looking at, and how does the profit increase compared to to the rate of inflation.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Maryland is following California down the road of ruining the state’s energy supply, pricing, and grid in its misplaced and ill-informed claim to virtue as evidenced the article found on this Talbot Spy website and titled “Maryland Leads in Carbon Emissions Reductions – Maryland Matters”.
And consider this from this weekend’s WSJ piece titled “California’s Plan: Make the Poor Sweat in the Dark.” “California’s headlong rush to force people to buy electric cars, trucks, boilers and stoves has skipped over a key detail: Where is all the electricity going to come from, and how will it be delivered? While mandating electrification, California’s regulators have also imposed pricing strategies that punish consumers for using electricity when they most need it. Coupled with the rising costs of wind and solar generation and the cost of backstopping that generation with batteries—electricity is becoming increasingly unaffordable.”