Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers - Purchase and Use - Prohibitions
HB0167 would create a new subtitle in the Environment Article restricting the State’s purchase and use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers. The bill defines “gasoline-powered leaf blower” broadly to include combustion-engine handheld, backpack, and walk-behind blowers and vacuums, and it also treats certain electric blowers powered by gasoline generators or other fossil fuels as covered equipment. It excludes stationary or tow-behind vacuum/mulcher/debris loader devices and snow blowers, and it carves out uses tied to wildfire suppression, prescribed burns, firefighting, and certain emergency response activities.
The bill sets two main deadlines. Beginning July 1, 2026, the State may not purchase gasoline-powered leaf blowers. Beginning January 1, 2031, the State and its contractors or subcontractors working on State-owned land may not use them. Executive branch agencies would be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance within their own operations. The bill also preserves the ability of counties, municipalities, and other local governments to adopt standards that are at least as strict, or that take effect earlier, and requires the State to comply with those local standards when managing State property.
HB0167 would amend Maryland environmental law by adding a new subtitle governing gasoline-powered leaf blowers and by imposing procurement and operational limits on State government. It would affect State agencies, State contractors, and subcontractors working on State-owned land, while also recognizing and deferring to stricter local government regulations. The bill does not ban private use statewide, but it could influence equipment purchasing and landscaping practices on public property and in government contracting.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a policy-driven environmental and emissions-reduction proposal rather than a highly contentious one at this stage. There are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided, and the bill is only noted as having had a House hearing. The structure of the bill suggests support for gradual transition rather than an immediate prohibition, with delayed implementation dates and explicit exemptions for emergency and fire-related uses.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the practical burden on State operations and contractors, the cost of replacing gasoline-powered equipment, and whether the phased timeline is too aggressive or too slow. Supporters would likely emphasize reduced air pollution, noise, and fossil-fuel use, while opponents may focus on equipment performance, cost, and operational flexibility for grounds maintenance and emergency-related work. Another possible issue is the bill’s interaction with local standards, since it allows stricter local rules and requires State compliance with them on State property.