Safe and Healthy Homes for All Act
HB1218 establishes a temporary Task Force to Develop a Realistic Electricity Plan for Maryland and directs it to study the state’s electricity needs and costs under several future scenarios. The task force must examine projected demand, the share of electricity imported from outside Maryland, capacity-market costs passed on to ratepayers, and policy options to keep out-of-state electricity purchases at or below 25% in 2030, 2035, and 2040. It is also required to consider how to maintain reliability and adequacy of supply for households and businesses through 2040.
The task force is composed of legislative, executive, utility, consumer, agricultural, environmental, and energy-sector representatives, and the Maryland Energy Administration must provide staff support. It may also hire an independent consultant. The task force must report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by December 31, 2025. The bill is paired with a one-year moratorium on the Public Service Commission’s approval of new or expanded transmission lines in Maryland, from July 1, 2025 through May 1, 2026, after which the act sunsets on June 30, 2026.
The bill would temporarily change Maryland utility regulation by preventing the Public Service Commission from issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity or otherwise approving transmission line construction or expansion during the specified period. It also creates a short-lived advisory body to inform future energy policy, with potential implications for generation planning, transmission investment, renewable development, nuclear expansion, energy storage, and electricity procurement. The bill does not permanently amend substantive utility law, but it could influence future legislation and regulatory decisions affecting ratepayers, utilities, and energy infrastructure developers.
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a planning and affordability measure, with an emphasis on reliability, cost control, and reducing dependence on imported electricity. The inclusion of a broad task force with utility, consumer, environmental, agricultural, and government representation indicates an effort to balance competing interests. The recorded Senate vote of 24-9 suggests the measure had meaningful support but also notable opposition, consistent with a controversial energy-policy proposal.
The main point of contention is the one-year prohibition on PSC approval of transmission line construction or expansion, which could be viewed by supporters as a pause to reassess system planning and by opponents as a constraint on needed grid upgrades and reliability projects. Another likely area of debate is the bill’s goal of limiting out-of-state electricity imports to 25%, which may raise concerns about feasibility, cost, and the role of regional power markets. The bill also implicates broader disagreements over the future mix of nuclear, renewable, storage, and transmission investments, as well as who should bear the costs of ensuring reliability for Maryland ratepayers.