Maryland Environmentalists Face Awkward Choice: Support Moore’s Budget Raid or Fight for Climate Goals

Maryland environmental groups are backing Gov. Wes Moore’s plan to redirect more than $700 million from the state’s main clean energy fund while at the same time pushing for legislation to prevent similar raids in the future and secure hundreds of millions of dollars in guaranteed yearly climate spending going forward.

Securing that commitment from Maryland lawmakers, currently in Annapolis for the 2026 legislative session, is one of the top legislative priorities for advocacy groups and coalitions operating in Maryland, among them the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN).

Moore’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget proposal would draw $725 million from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF), which collects penalties from utilities for failing to meet the state’s renewable energy mandates, depleting the fund by 82 percent and leaving behind $164 million for clean, efficient energy investments.

The largest portion, $292 million, would be used to plug the state’s estimated $1.5 billion budget deficit. A recently proposed bill, the Lower Bills and Local Power Act, would direct $100 million in utility rebates disbursed as roughly $40 for every eligible household and another $100 million for gap financing to support solar and battery storage projects affected by federal cuts.

The remaining roughly $230 million would be used for renewable and clean energy programs, climate research, capital projects, energy planning implementation and fund swaps.

This is the second consecutive year Moore has proposed tapping the SEIF to balance the state budget. Although climate‑related allocations from SEIF have more than doubled in recent years, going from about $148 million in FY 2024 to around $365 million in FY 2026, advocates have said repeated raids risk undermining Maryland’s climate goals.

Adding to the worry is a recent analysis by the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability, which reported that under current policies Maryland will only reduce its emissions by roughly 40 to 45 percent below 2006 levels by 2031, well short of the 60 percent reduction mandated under the Climate Solutions Now Act. The study identified major gaps in the transportation and electricity sectors as the main culprits in the shortfall.

Democrat‑led states such as Maryland are facing financial and political headwinds since the Trump administration paused or rolled back clean‑energy funding and tax incentives tied to the Inflation Reduction Act, including cuts to some electric‑vehicle credits and grants, forcing states to rethink how to fulfil their climate commitments without the same level of federal support.

Moore, who took office in January 2023, positioned himself as a climate leader, promising investments in clean energy and environmental justice initiatives, and adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II rule requiring all new vehicles sold in Maryland to be zero‑emission by 2035. He also ordered the accelerated deployment of renewable energy and incorporated climate planning across state agencies’ work.

But last year, environmentalists called out the Moore administration for backsliding on climate commitments after he signed the Next Generation Energy Act, approving up to 10 new gas plants. Another 2025 law weakened Maryland’s Building Energy Performance Standards by creating broad exclusions for hospitals and allowing continued use of gas equipment. Moore also approved delaying enforcement of Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced Clean Trucks programs.

This year, the tone has markedly changed as the same environmental leaders are publicly supporting Moore’s SEIF-backed spending proposal.

“By financing shovel‑ready solar plus storage projects, this legislation ensures utility accountability and prioritizes the most cost‑effective, rapidly deployable energy sources making energy more affordable for all Marylanders,” Maryland League of Conservation Voters Executive Director Kim Coble said in a Jan. 27 release announcing the Lower Bills and Local Power Act.

“Gov. Moore understands that we can reduce utility bills, create a stable electricity grid and pursue our climate goals all at once,” said Maryland Sierra Club Director Josh Tulkin in the same announcement.

But in separate interviews with Inside Climate News, the same groups voiced concerns about the scale and structure of the SEIF drawdown, even as they support the governor’s climate spending package.

Coble said LCV understands “the pressing needs of a significant budget shortfall, but feel it is important that the SEIF not be used as a source of funds to support un‑related programs,” seemingly referencing the $292 million transfer to the general fund.

Coble defended using the fund for rebates, arguing that energy assistance is already an intended use. But she emphasized “any ratepayer assistance from SEIF should prioritize funds for middle and low‑income households.”

Brittany Baker, Maryland director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said the rebate proposal “is responsive to the moment that we are in” but cautioned that “it would not be a wise use of funds to continue this rebate into future years.”

She also drew a distinction between Moore’s budget decisions and his energy policy: “Moore’s energy agenda is separate from his budget proposal. His energy agenda this year does not include any gas proposals. It is very easy to support his commitment to transmission, battery storage, and solar.”

Tension between the proposed drawdown, which would leave $164 million in the SEIF at year’s end, and advocates’ goal of guaranteeing roughly $365 million in annual climate spending supported by SEIF revenues going forward remains.

Coble said that with the $365 million proposal, “we basically are setting the funding floor for the program.”

She did not spell out in detail how SEIF’s annual revenues, drawn from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon auctions and compliance payments, would consistently support $365 million in yearly spending after this large drawdown.

Defending the move, Rhyan Lake, a spokesperson for Moore, said the governor “believes we can walk and chew gum at the same time, which includes making historic investments in clean energy and climate action and lowering costs for everyday people.”

Dr. Mileah Kromer, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said environmental groups are responding to political realities. A UMBC poll found that more than six in 10 Marylanders said addressing the costs of household energy bills was a high priority, she noted, making affordability politically unavoidable.

“Maryland is home to some incredibly savvy and effective environmental leaders and groups,” Kromer said. “They understand the limits of what they can accomplish, particularly at a time when household energy affordability is a top‑of‑mind priority for most voters, including Democrats. Environmental groups appear to be adopting a pragmatic position: securing some policy wins and protections is preferable to fighting for preferred outcomes that are unlikely in this budgetary and political climate.”

The roughly $365 million annual floor would still fall well short of the roughly $1 billion in climate‑oriented investments per year recommended in Maryland’s 2023 Climate Pollution Reduction Plan, which modelled multiple pathways and called for new revenue sources such as statewide cap‑and‑invest programs to finance emissions reduction and decarbonization initiatives.

Tulkin of the Sierra Club said his group is beginning to lay the groundwork for proposed climate revenue tools, including a cap‑and‑invest program and implementation of the Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act, which directs the state to calculate the costs of climate damages and make major fossil fuel companies pay to fund adaptation and recovery from extreme weather. But he did not expect those proposals to pass the legislature this year. 

A workable cap‑and‑invest framework would be “exciting,” Coble said, noting that the Maryland Department of the Environment recommended it in the state’s climate pollution reduction plan “as a way to meet our goals,” after earlier attempts to pass such legislation failed.

She also highlighted the Transportation and Climate Alignment Act, which would require state transportation spending to align with Maryland’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, as another one of LCV’s main priorities this session. The bill, introduced “several years in a row,” has support from environmental groups and some transportation advocates, she said.