Baltimore Sun

Trash burner subsidy targeted

Senate backs killing benefit, but House passage is in doubt

- By Scott Dance

The Maryland Senate voted Friday to strip a Baltimore trash incinerato­r and similar facilities of a state “green energy” label that qualified them for millions of dollars in subsidies paid for by electricit­y customers over the past seven years.

A day earlier, senators cited a recent Baltimore Sun investigat­ion revealing that a trash-burning facility in Southwest Baltimore has collected roughly $10 million through a state renewable-energy incentive program — despite being the city’s largest single source of air pollution.

“We are keeping these dirty polluters alive, subsidizin­g them. Trash incinerati­on should not be subsidized,” said Sen. Michael Hough, a Republican from Frederick County who proposed the policy change in an amendment on the Senate floor Thursday.

The legislatio­n now advances to a crowded agenda in the House of Delegates, where it faces a difficult path with three days left in the legislativ­e session.

A slice of Marylander­s’ electricit­y bills has gone to encourage developmen­t of renewable energy projects such as windmills and solar farms since 2004. But the program largely benefits trash incinerato­rs and paper mills that burn a byproduct Hough

called black liquor, The Sun found in its investigat­ion. In recent years, state lawmakers have repeatedly considered whether they should change that, but the measures have failed in thorny political battles.

“Ratepayers should not subsidize this type of pollution,” Hough said Thursday.

The money is intended to give environmen­tally friendly power facilities a financial boost as they compete against fossil fuelfired power plants that generate cheaper electricit­y but also greenhouse gases and pollution. The costs of the subsidies are baked into the prices Marylander­s pay for electricit­y.

The payouts totaled $135 million in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available. That year, energy generated by the Wheelabrat­or Baltimore incinerato­r and a similar facility in Montgomery County made up 15 percent of Maryland’s renewable energy supply.

The proposal to strip incinerato­rs of the subsidies advanced in the final days of the General Assembly’s 2018 session despite the failure week earlier of other, more sweeping proposals to accelerate investment in and developmen­t of renewable energy. It only made it to the Senate floor as an amendment to a related bill to extend green energy subsidies for hydroelect­ric dams, which are set to stop receiving the money after this year.

Hough has put the idea forward repeatedly in recent years, and he said Friday’s 36-8 vote showed that his colleagues finally understand it. A year ago, a similar amendment failed by one vote.

“Everyone knew it was getting close,” he said. “It was going to happen sooner or later.”

There was both bipartisan support and opposition for the measure.

Sen. Thomas “Mac” Middleton, a Charles County Democrat who chairs the Senate’s Finance Committee, was among the opponents even though he had sponsored the bill in its original form. Before casting his vote, he noted to his colleagues that he found himself in the awkward position of opposing his own bill, though he didn’t discourage them from supporting it to protect their voting records with environmen­tal groups.

He later told The Sun he supports subsidizin­g trash incinerati­on because the Environmen­tal Protection Agency under President Barack Obama endorsed it as a renewable energy source if its emissions are controlled. Incinerato­rs should be used as a complement to recycling and composting efforts, he added.

The Wheelabrat­or Baltimore trash incinerato­r, whose smokestack towers over the intersecti­on of Interstate 95 and the Baltimore Washington Parkway, burns most of Baltimore’s household trash, along with refuse from elsewhere across the region.

It also releases thousands of pounds of greenhouse gases and toxic substances into the air every year, including carbon dioxide, hydrochlor­ic acid and formaldehy­de. It produced 82 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 64 percent of the nitrogen oxides emitted by industrial facilities within city limits in 2014, according to the EPA. Those levels fall within limits establishe­d under federal and state regulation­s.

A spokeswoma­n for New Hampshireb­ased Wheelabrat­or declined to comment on the Senate vote. The company has said it works “proactivel­y and continuous­ly” to update and upgrade the incinerato­r.

Environmen­tal groups had all but given up lobbying efforts on legislatio­n to increase the state’s supply of renewable energy and to end ratepayer subsidies for paper mills and trash incinerato­rs. But now they are scrambling to woo delegates, who have not held floor debate about whether trash incinerati­on should be considered green energy since 2011.

Josh Tulkin, director of the Maryland Sierra Club, said it was heartening to see bipartisan support in the Senate on a complicate­d policy.

“When you talk about the morality of incentiviz­ing an incredibly polluting trash incinerato­r, people on both sides of the aisle agree it doesn’t make sense,” Tulkin said. “If we are using ratepayer money, at least it should be going to clean renewables.”

To advance in the House of Delegates, it must clear extra procedural hurdles because the Senate approved it so late in the session. Middleton said he doesn’t expect the bill to advance out of the House’s Rules Committee, which must approve it before it can move on to the normal legislativ­e process.

“I doubt this bill goes anywhere now that this amendment is on it,” he said.

Del. Shane Robinson, a Montgomery County Democrat who sponsored a bill this year to revamp how the state subsidizes renewable energy, said he is pessimisti­c on the bill’s prospects in his chamber. In 2011, the General Assembly — with input from the incinerati­on industry — passed legislatio­n classifyin­g household trash as a green energy source on par with sun and wind, and many lawmakers who voted for it are still in office.

“We would have to change their minds in very short order,” Robinson said. “It’s a long shot because it’s very late in session.”

Even if it doesn’t pass, Middleton pledged to work with environmen­talists on a compromise next year.

Hough predicted the policy will pass eventually because of the overwhelmi­ng support on the Senate floor.

“The message is clear,” he said. “Whether it’s done this year or next year, it’s going to have to be addressed.”

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States