Maryland’s emissions reduction requirements for large buildings challenged in federal court

Maryland: So, here’s the scoop. Trade groups for builders and developers, along with Washington Gas, decided to take legal action against Maryland’s new emissions rules for big buildings. They filed the lawsuit on Monday.

The lawsuit claims that the state’s requirement for buildings over 35,000 square feet to hit net-zero emissions by 2040 is against the law. They argue that only the U.S. Department of Energy should set these energy standards, not the states.

In their court filing, they said these rules are not in the public’s best interest. They believe it limits choices for consumers and could worsen Maryland’s housing crisis. Plus, they think it’s pushing energy demand onto an electric system that’s already struggling.

This regulation, known as the Building Energy Performance Standard, is a big part of Maryland’s climate strategy. Buildings were responsible for 16% of the state’s carbon emissions in 2020, according to a report.

The Maryland Department of the Environment created these rules after the state legislature pushed for them in the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022. The goal is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.

These rules impact various types of buildings, including offices and apartment complexes. Some historic buildings and schools can apply for exemptions, though.

To meet these new standards, many building owners will need to swap out gas appliances for electric ones. This includes replacing furnaces and boilers with heat pumps and water heaters.

They might also have to change out gas stoves to cut down on emissions. If they don’t want to comply, they can pay fees based on how much extra emissions they produce.

The first deadlines for building owners are coming up in June. They’ll need to submit an assessment of their current energy use. The state is giving them a bit of leeway until September for this. But the real emissions cuts won’t kick in until 2030.

Maryland’s Department of the Environment is currently reviewing the lawsuit. They’ve stated that they’ve worked with building owners to develop these standards and are ready to help them adjust.

Interestingly, about a third of the buildings that fall under these rules already meet the standards. The department believes that cutting emissions from buildings is crucial for reaching climate goals.

While the upfront costs for retrofitting buildings are high—around $1 billion a year—the long-term savings could be significant, totaling about $4.5 billion.

The lawsuit also references a previous ruling from the Ninth Circuit that struck down a similar ordinance in Berkeley, California. However, that ruling doesn’t apply to Maryland.

In their argument, the plaintiffs claim Maryland hasn’t applied for a waiver that would allow them to set these standards. They believe even if Maryland tried, it wouldn’t be able to get one.

On the other side, environmental advocates argue that the state needs these regulations to meet its climate goals. They believe the lawsuit is based on a misinterpretation of federal law.

Washington Gas has also challenged similar emissions rules in Montgomery County and Washington, D.C. They argue that Maryland’s regulations could hurt their customer base and lead to higher costs for those who still use gas.

The lawsuit includes not just the utility but also several housing developments, like Leisure World in Montgomery County, which is home to many seniors. They’re worried about the financial burden these new rules could impose.

In short, the plaintiffs are concerned about the costs and disruptions these regulations could bring, especially for communities with residents on fixed incomes.

Homebuilders are also worried that these regulations will make it harder for them to meet customer demands, as many people prefer gas appliances. They fear that the costs will push potential buyers out of the market.

Got a news tip? You can reach out to Christine Condon at chcondon@baltsun.com or call 667-256-6883. You can also find her on X @CChristine19.