HB49 revises Maryland’s Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) framework for covered buildings, which are generally commercial, multifamily residential, or State-owned buildings of 35,000 square feet or more. The bill directs the Department of the Environment to update regulations to include energy use intensity targets by building type and to account for building age, regional differences, tenant control issues, district energy systems, biofuels, and special operational needs. It also adds explicit credits and exclusions for on-site renewable energy, biomethane, steam sterilization, emergency backup power, and certain secure or sensitive facilities, including permanent SCIF areas operated by federal or State entities.
The bill expands the compliance structure by creating or clarifying alternative compliance pathways for both direct greenhouse gas emissions and energy use intensity targets. Covered building owners may pay fees for excess emissions or excess energy use, with a specified energy-use fee of 5 cents per thousand BTUs, adjusted for inflation, and a floor tied to the social cost of carbon. It also authorizes one-time waivers for certain existing equipment through 2039 and separate waivers for impracticable or economically infeasible measures, subject to engineering studies, review fees, and Department standards. The Department must provide training for qualified energy auditors, publish a list of trained auditors, and make waiver forms available online.
HB49 also changes how the program is administered and funded. It requires a $100 annual reporting fee per covered building, adjusted for inflation, to cover administrative costs, and directs alternative compliance payments into the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund. Those funds are to be used primarily for grants and loans to help building owners comply, with up to 10% available for administration. The bill further allows the Department to certify a county’s own BEPS program if it is at least as stringent as the State program, which would let the county enforce its own standards and collect fees and penalties in a comparable manner.
The bill’s impact on state law is to make Maryland’s BEPS regime more detailed, more flexible, and more administratively structured, while also delaying enforcement of alternative compliance fees and penalties for non-reporting violations until 2032. It amends definitions in the Environment Article and related cross-references in the Economic Development, Public Utilities, and State Government Articles, and it creates a new statutory use for the Strategic Energy Investment Fund. It also requires the Department to conduct and submit a policy analysis by December 31, 2026 comparing emissions-based, energy-intensity-based, and hybrid building performance approaches.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears to be supportive of the bill’s final form, with third-reading passage in both chambers, but the rejected floor amendments suggest some disagreement over the details. The main points of contention appear to be how strict the standards should be, how alternative compliance fees should be calculated, and how much flexibility should be given to building owners, counties, and special-use facilities. The bill’s numerous exemptions, waivers, and delayed enforcement provisions indicate an effort to balance climate policy goals with concerns about feasibility, cost, tenant control, and operational security.
HB49 amends Maryland’s Environment Article to expand and refine the State’s building energy performance standards program for covered buildings, including new compliance options, fee structures, waiver processes, reporting requirements, and exemptions. It also amends the State Government Article to route alternative compliance payments into the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund and dedicate those funds to grants and loans for compliance assistance. Related definitional changes in the Economic Development and Public Utilities Articles support the bill’s treatment of life sciences, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure, while the bill also requires a Department analysis of future policy options for building performance standards.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, as reflected by successful third-reading passage in both chambers, but not unanimous agreement on all policy details. The rejection of two floor amendments suggests that some members sought to change the bill’s approach, likely around compliance flexibility, fee levels, or exemptions. The final enacted version reflects a compromise that preserves the BEPS program while adding multiple carve-outs, waivers, and delayed enforcement provisions to address implementation concerns.
The most notable disagreements center on the balance between emissions reduction goals and practical compliance burdens. Supporters of stronger climate policy likely favored tighter standards and more immediate enforcement, while opponents or skeptics of the original framework appear to have pushed for amendments and broader flexibility for building owners. Specific contentious issues include the size and timing of alternative compliance fees, the treatment of hospitals, laboratories, military and secure facilities, the ability of counties to run their own certified programs, and whether owners should be able to avoid fees when upgrades are impracticable or economically infeasible.