In the past year, Maryland residents have seen their heating bills skyrocket, which has largely been tied to increased costs of methane gas distribution. These costs are expected to worsen as increased spending on the distribution system must be repaid over the next several decades.
At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in the home contribute substantially to climate change, and pollution from fossil fuel heating also has a substantial impact on residents’ health.
The Maryland General Assembly, Governor Wes Moore, and the Maryland Public Service Commission have taken some important initial steps to address these problems. However, long-term cost increases for fossil fuel-based heating remains a pressing concern for Marylanders — particularly those already facing significant energy burdens.
In a new report published today, we explore policies designed to tackle these challenges and provide analysis and recommendations on how to make the transition to updated heating technologies and building electrification more equitable and effective for low-income Marylanders.
The good news is that Maryland is already hard at work in this area. In June 2024, Moore issued an executive order that directed the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to develop a zero-emission heating equipment standard (ZEHES). MDE is currently evaluating proposed regulations for ZEHES, which are scheduled to take effect in 2029.
Although the details of the regulations are still under consideration, they will likely require the replacement of pollution-emitting gas, propane, and oil-fired heating equipment with non-emitting heat pumps at the end of the emitting equipment’s life.
This has two important practical effects: First, building owners are not forced to “eat” the lost value of their functional equipment, and second, implementation will occur over the lifespan of the most recently installed equipment, resulting in gradual implementation through the 2050s.
However, as with all policy, the devil is in the details, and the number of units to be replaced yearly, the costs, and the benefits all should be weighed. In assessing these details, the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Center for Progressive reform conducted research and modeling to evaluate these variables and help MDE, other Maryland agencies, and the public pursue equitable implementation of ZEHES, lower costs to the public and the state, and maximize the energy, health, and greenhouse gas reduction benefits of the program.
Because this analysis looks at equitable implementation of ZEHES, the resulting report focuses on low-income households in the state (under 80 percent area median income). These households are both the most likely to require funding to achieve the transition to clean heating and are the most vulnerable to being “left behind” if the program is not instituted equitably.
Topline takeaways include:
The upshot is that ZEHES will accomplish three things: reduce high energy bills every year going forward, address negative health impacts, and help meet Maryland’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. To be successful, the state must make funding available — especially for low-income households.
By maximizing investment from dedicated funds, Maryland can achieve this without adding stress to the general fund. Specifically, by leveraging monies from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF) for electrification, equitably making full use of the EmPOWER fund (which has been underspending its yearly budget) and ensuring that the 40 percent of residential spending goes to low-income households (up from 22 percent today) , and capitalizing climate finance entities to support electrification, Maryland can pay for the initial costs of electrification for low income households under ZEHES — and ultimately result in a major return on investment for the state.
Prior to 2029, Maryland can and should maximize investment in heat pump installation for homes with propane, heating oil, and electric resistance heating as these homes would see the greatest energy savings during that time period. Although focusing on electric heating (not covered by ZEHES) may seem somewhat counterintuitive, it represents a pathway for individual homeowners to see the greatest heating cost savings in the near-term. It would also build Maryland’s capacity to implement electrification programs and drive a market transformation that will reduce costs for installation, making ZEHES substantially more achievable in 2029. Trials of lower-cost window heat pumps and heat pump installation without weatherization may further lower the cost of the transition.
Through an equitable approach to ZEHES, and building momentum for the 2029 implementation now, Maryland can, and will, achieve a cleaner, healthier, and far more affordable energy future.
Showing 2,930 results
Bryan Dunning, Christopher Stix | October 14, 2025
In the past year, Maryland residents have seen their heating bills skyrocket, which has largely been tied to increased costs of methane gas distribution. These costs are expected to worsen as increased spending on the distribution system must be repaid over the next several decades. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in the home contribute substantially to climate change, and pollution from fossil fuel heating also has a substantial impact on residents’ health. In a new report published today, we explore policies designed to tackle these challenges and provide analysis and recommendations on how to make the transition to updated heating technologies and building electrification more equitable and effective for low-income Marylanders.
Minor Sinclair | October 7, 2025
The Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence released last week pushed the United States one step closer to a country where the right of freedom of speech and peaceful protest no longer exists.
Federico Holm, James Goodwin | September 15, 2025
To say that the policy priorities of the Trump administration represent a U-turn from the Biden administration is a severe understatement. The recent release of the long-awaited Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda — the first of the current Trump administration — provides us with our first concrete picture of just how far the regulatory policy pendulum is going to swing. From climate and energy to public health, the current administration is systematically undermining important advancements achieved during the previous cycle.
James Goodwin | September 3, 2025
Public participation is a defining feature of the modern administrative state. One of administrative law’s functions is to ensure meaningful participation by relevant stakeholders. Importantly, as the public’s expectations of and demands for what participation mechanisms are meant to accomplish have evolved, policymakers and the courts have updated administrative law requirements and doctrines.
Catalina Gonzalez, James Goodwin | August 26, 2025
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted four days’ worth of hearings to gather public testimony on its proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding and the suite of existing greenhouse gas (GHG standards for cars and trucks that the finding supplies the legal justification for. The vast majority of the participants testified in strong opposition to the proposal, and included a broad cross-section of our society: faith leaders; a high school student; community organizers; and concerned grandparents.
Daniel Farber | August 21, 2025
Not that long ago, conservatives demanded that the government balance costs and benefits. They still do, but with a twist: They demand special limits on consideration of environmental effects. But that makes no sense. Whatever rules we have about costs should apply to all types of costs, and the same with benefits. The result of skewing the analysis is, not surprisingly, that we get conservative results more often.
James Goodwin | August 12, 2025
For conservatives and many political centrists, there was a clear villain to blame for congressional dysfunction: Chevron deference. Repealing this legal doctrine — which generally called on federal courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions they are charged with implementing — would inaugurate a new Golden Age of Article I primacy and productivity, they claimed.
Daniel Farber | July 29, 2025
If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it still make a sound? If a law hasn’t been formally repealed but can be violated with complete impunity, is it still in effect? I’ll leave the first question to philosophers, but the second one could have major legal implications. Here’s why.
Daniel Farber | July 21, 2025
President Donald Trump is on a rampage. He has big plans for a mass repeal of existing regulations, he’s trying to use emergency declarations to short-circuit normal environmental protections, and he’s savaging environmental agencies. He’s also at war with the rule of law, dodging court orders, ignoring statutes, and punishing lawyers and law firms that have dared to challenge him. In area after area, Trump has tried to sweep aside legal constraints. Part of the point of Trump’s “shock and awe” campaign has been to overwhelm the ability of opponents and the courts to keep up with his legally questionable actions. Trump’s attack on the bureaucracy is also an attack on the rule of law because one of the key functions of bureaucrats is to ensure that the government follows the rules.