Maryland’s Governor and Legislature Just Got So-So Grades on Their Environmental Scorecards – Inside Climate News

ANNAPOLIS, Md.— When Wes Moore became Maryland’s governor in 2023, he pledged to lead the state into a climate-resilient future by lowering emissions and decarbonizing the economy—and leave no one behind in doing so.

But two and a half years into his term, the Moore administration has fallen short on its climate and environmental justice commitments and notably backflipped on progressive policies, a pair of mid-year assessments from the nonprofit Maryland League of Conservation Voters (LCV) concludes.

Released in mid-August, the 2025 Environmental Scorecard and the Governor’s Environmental Report Card offer a broad-based review of the Moore administration’s performance. The assessments describe lost momentum, budgetary contradictions and legislative backsliding that advocates say make it harder to achieve Maryland’s climate commitments.

In this year’s scorecard, the Maryland General Assembly received a D grade after none of the environmental justice bills the nonprofit supported made it through the legislative session—a first in recent memory. On climate and energy, the House and the Senate got B- and C respectively, because most of the bills LCV prioritized stalled due to a lack of leadership support.  

Moore did only marginally better, earning a C on climate and energy and a C+ on environmental justice in the Governor’s Environmental Report Card. The score reflects advocates’ frustration with Moore’s veto of key legislation, including the Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act, and his administration’s failure to advance long-promised reforms such as incorporating cumulative harm assessment in permitting processes to protect the state’s most overburdened communities.

The reports also emphasized that the administration made several controversial budget decisions that weakened Maryland’s ability to follow through on its own climate goal. These included diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund to cover a budgetary shortfall and a $25 million annual cut from Program Open Space, which provides funds to expand outdoor recreation, for four years. 

While Moore made some notable symbolic and procedural advances since last year’s assessment, such as establishing a climate sub-cabinet and requiring every state agency to draft climate implementation plans, these actions have not yet led to measurable progress, the assessments found. 

“What is evident in the results of our analysis is that the actions needed—including the funding that is needed—to meet those goals are not being taken,” said Kim Coble, executive director of Maryland LCV. “We felt that this was the year to point that out very distinctly.

“Not only are we not going to meet our climate greenhouse gas reduction goals, but even goals around environmental justice. The General Assembly and the governor have not taken the steps necessary to reduce those impacts.”

David Turner, Moore’s communications director, in a written statement, defended the administration’s record, saying the state “saw its most challenging budget backdrop for a legislative session in years.” Despite those circumstances, he said, “Moore has continued to find ways to promote climate progress even in the midst of those challenges.”

Turner cited $100 million in climate funding in the FY26 budget and noted that Moore “signed into law energy bills that will speed up the siting of more solar energy projects in Maryland, remove trash incineration from Maryland’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, and increase the use of battery storage for Maryland’s electric grid.”

He also highlighted a number of recent grants state agencies issued for electric school buses, decarbonizing community buildings and expanding EV charging infrastructure to underserved areas. Another $12 million in grant funding is expected next month, the statement said.

“These programs were all part of the governor’s $90 million climate down payment in the FY25 budget,” Turner said, and added that Maryland joined other states in July to strengthen the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon emissions cap.

Turner also said Moore “signed an Executive Order, ‘Valuing Opportunity, Inclusion, and Community Equity’ (VOICE), to advance environmental justice in Maryland.”

Sacoby Wilson, director of the Health, Environmental, and Economic Justice Lab at the University of Maryland, said the administration’s shift away from environmental goals has been jarring. “It’s moved away from its progressive commitments on climate and also to its core commitments on environmental justice,” he said. “It’s almost like a hard right turn, in some ways … driven less by federal pressures and more by the big business mentality of the state of Maryland.” 

The most significant rupture came when lawmakers, with the administration’s approval, diverted $315 million from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund to help plug a $3 billion budget hole. The report described the move as the largest single environmental cut in state history, raiding the fund intended for clean energy and emissions reduction efforts.

Mike Tidwell, executive director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, called the raid “unconscionable.” 

“Given the extreme vulnerability that Maryland has to climate change,” he said, “it seems unwise to weaken or complicate any environmental enforcement, no matter what the fiscal situation is.”

Coble acknowledged the budget constraints but criticized the administration for diverting funds meant for energy justice programs. “We hope that will not occur again, because we see the climate needs are still continuing to go up.”

The scorecards also spotlight the failure of both the legislative and executive branches to advance all four of Maryland LCV’s priority bills. Though some provisions were eventually incorporated into the broader omnibus legislation, the Next Generation Energy Act, none of the priority proposals passed as standalone bills due to various procedural bottlenecks and lack of visible support from the governor’s office.

Compounding the criticism were Moore’s vetoes of several long-term planning bills. Among them were the Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act, which would have established a strategic energy planning office within the Public Service Commission; the RENEW Act, requiring the state to assess the full economic costs of greenhouse gas emissions; and the Data Center Impact Study, designed to evaluate the rising energy footprint of Maryland’s tech infrastructure.

All three bills were designed to build data-driven frameworks for Maryland’s energy and climate planning and were funded through dedicated climate funds, not general budget dollars. Moore’s office defended the vetoes at the time as necessary cost-saving measures during a tough fiscal year, arguing that “studies often sit on shelves.” 

But the veto of the RENEW Act drew sharp rebuke from advocates. “It stunned everyone,” Tidwell said. “It was unacceptable. We told him it was unacceptable.”

Wilson echoed that frustration, accusing the state of breaking “promises of moving progressive climate action forward. It’s not just on the governor—it’s on the legislature, too.”

Even actions that advocates had previously celebrated, such as the Climate Pollution Reduction Plan, agency-level climate implementation plans and the creation of the climate sub-cabinet, drew scrutiny in the 2025 report.

Despite procedural progress, advocates said no meaningful data yet exists to track the effectiveness or enforcement of those agency climate plans. The state has also failed to create a long-term, dedicated funding stream to implement its Climate Pollution Reduction Plan, which requires nearly $1 billion in annual investment, they added. 

The sub-cabinet, meanwhile, has operated largely behind closed doors, with limited public updates or stakeholder engagement, leading some observers to question whether it functions more as a bureaucratic silo rather than a climate policy accelerator.

Adding to the inconsistency are Moore’s energy policy choices. The administration initially supported the Next Generation Energy Act, which was introduced with provisions that would have fast-tracked new gas plant permitting and bypassed public input. Though strong public advocacy weakened the bill’s worst elements, the administration’s early support still pained advocates.

“The proposal to fast-track the building of gas plants in Maryland—I just never thought I would see that,” Coble said. “Not only was it put out as a legislative proposal, but it was endorsed by the leadership. That was particularly difficult.”

She added that under intense pressure from advocates, the bill that passed was a lot better compared to the original language of the proposal. “But it does expedite building gas plants. And there was no room to negotiate on that.”

For Wilson, the policy drift was deeply frustrating. “The Fast Track gas bill shocked me,” he said. “We’ve been saying we’re progressive on climate, but then pushing policies that actually undermine our goals.”

Moore also backed a controversial law exempting diesel backup generators at data centers from state environmental review, despite growing concern over their emissions and cumulative health impacts.

Tidwell said the administration must develop a “rational policy on data centers—rather than letting them tax the grid, pollute, and use water unchecked.” These contrasting policy decisions contradict the governor’s oft-stated goal of steering Maryland toward 100 percent clean energy and reinforce the main criticism across both LCV reports: The administration’s actions have not consistently aligned with its climate pledges.

The most politically sensitive undercurrent in the reports is the potential erosion of trust among Moore’s support base. Environmental justice groups, climate advocates and local organizers who helped elevate Moore to office on promises of equity and bold climate action now question whether they are being left behind.

“I feel as if the administration has not prioritized environmental justice and reducing the impacts on overburdened and underserved communities at anywhere near the level that is needed,” Coble said.

With one legislative session remaining before the next gubernatorial election, the question now is whether Moore can reenergize his support base and bring transformational leadership on climate targets. Coble said the door isn’t closed yet.

“We laid out accomplishments, missed opportunities, and here are things you can still do,” she said. “If the administration chooses to act, they can still make a significant difference.”