Income Tax - Subtraction Modification - Donations to Food Banks and Other Charitable Entities
HB0903, titled the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2025, would bar the State, local governments, and their agencies from filing lawsuits seeking monetary or alleged economic damages against a business for the adverse effects of global warming or climate change in Maryland. The bill defines “business” broadly to include most business entities and financial institutions, and it defines “global warming” and “climate change” for purposes of the new prohibition.
The bill also makes clear that it does not limit the federal government, the State, or local governments from enforcing health, environmental, zoning, or other applicable laws, and it does not relieve businesses from complying with those laws. Its practical effect is to create a legal shield against certain climate-related damages actions by government entities, while preserving regulatory enforcement authority. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
HB0903 would add a new section to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and cross-reference the existing Commercial Law definition of “business.” It would restrict government plaintiffs in Maryland from bringing monetary-damages or economic-damages claims against businesses based on the alleged local effects of climate change or global warming. The bill would not change substantive environmental, health, zoning, or other regulatory statutes, but it would limit one category of litigation and could affect future public nuisance, tort, or similar damages claims tied to climate impacts.
Based on the bill’s framing and sponsor list, the measure appears to have support from a large bloc of Republican delegates and is presented as a business- and ratepayer-protection measure. The bill text emphasizes limiting litigation exposure for businesses while preserving government enforcement powers, suggesting a deregulatory and anti-litigation policy goal. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence here of broader bipartisan support or opposition.
The main point of contention is whether state and local governments should be allowed to seek damages from businesses for climate-related harms. Supporters are likely to view the bill as preventing costly, potentially expansive climate litigation and protecting businesses and ratepayers from economic liability. Opponents would likely argue that it improperly shields businesses from accountability for contributing to climate change and could weaken government efforts to recover costs associated with climate impacts. The bill tries to address a possible counterargument by expressly preserving enforcement of environmental and other laws, but the damages ban remains the central disputed issue.