Coal Transportation Fee and Fossil Fuel Mitigation Fund (Coal Dust Cleanup and Asthma Remediation Act)
SB 882 creates a new coal transportation fee in Maryland and dedicates the revenue to a newly established Fossil Fuel Mitigation Fund. The fee is imposed on the first carrier to transport coal in the state at a rate of $13 per short ton, with a narrow exemption for coal transported solely for farm use when the carrier does not otherwise use, manufacture, package, or sell the coal in Maryland. The Department of the Environment would administer the fee, collect required information, and adopt regulations and audit procedures for carriers.
The bill also establishes the Fossil Fuel Mitigation Fund as a special, nonlapsing fund to support activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address fossil fuel impacts. Eligible uses include home energy efficiency and electrification, building decarbonization, electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, mass transit, asthma treatment in communities impacted by coal dust, and public awareness campaigns. The bill directs that at least 40% of spending each fiscal year benefit overburdened and underserved communities, and it allows the Maryland Clean Energy Center to use part of the fund to issue low-interest bonds for certain clean energy and transit projects. The bill also exempts the fund from the general rule that interest on state money goes to the General Fund.
In terms of state law, SB 882 adds a new subtitle to the Environment Article and amends State Finance and Procurement law to protect the fund’s interest earnings from being swept into the General Fund. It creates a dedicated revenue stream and spending framework for climate mitigation, clean energy, and public health programs tied to coal transport and fossil fuel pollution. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure is framed as an environmental and public health initiative, especially for asthma remediation and climate mitigation. The title and structure suggest support from advocates of clean energy, environmental justice, and pollution reduction.
The main points of contention likely center on the new fee itself, its cost to coal transporters and potentially coal-related industries, and whether the revenue should be used for climate programs rather than deposited in the General Fund. Another likely issue is the bill’s targeting of coal and fossil fuels, which may be viewed by opponents as burdensome or anti-industry, while supporters would emphasize the health and environmental benefits and the requirement that a substantial share of funding go to overburdened and underserved communities.
The bill would add a new coal transportation fee to the Environment Article, impose reporting and payment obligations on carriers that transport coal in Maryland, and create a dedicated Fossil Fuel Mitigation Fund to receive the revenue. It also amends State Finance and Procurement law so that interest earnings on this fund remain with the fund rather than being transferred to the General Fund. The Department of the Environment would gain new regulatory, administrative, and audit responsibilities, and the Maryland Clean Energy Center would be authorized to use certain remaining funds for low-interest bonds supporting eligible clean energy and transit projects.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition from the record supplied. From the bill’s text and title, the measure appears to be presented as a public health, environmental justice, and climate mitigation proposal, with emphasis on coal dust cleanup, asthma remediation, and greenhouse gas reduction. The framing suggests likely support from environmental and health advocates, while industry stakeholders affected by the fee would likely be more skeptical.
The most likely controversy is the imposition of a $13-per-short-ton fee on coal transporters, which could be criticized by coal shippers and related businesses as an added cost on fossil fuel movement. Another point of contention is the earmarking of the revenue for climate and remediation programs rather than the General Fund, especially because the bill creates a special nonlapsing fund and shields its interest earnings from the normal sweep rules. Supporters would likely defend the fee as a pollution-related user charge and argue that the bill appropriately directs money to communities facing asthma, environmental burdens, and climate impacts.