Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard - Nuclear Energy and Renaming
HB0970 would rename Maryland’s “renewable energy portfolio standard” as the “clean energy portfolio standard” and rename “renewable energy credits” as “clean energy credits.” It also expands the types of resources that can count toward compliance by adding electricity generated at certain nuclear energy generating stations, including small modular reactors connected to the state’s electric distribution system, as a Tier 2 renewable source. The bill makes conforming terminology changes throughout the Public Utilities and Natural Resources Articles and applies those changes retroactively to compliance years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.
Beyond the naming changes, the bill updates many provisions governing how the clean energy standard is implemented, tracked, and enforced. It revises definitions, crediting rules, reporting requirements, compliance fees, and offshore wind terminology, replacing “ORECs” with “OCECs” and updating references to the clean energy standard across solar, geothermal, biomass, wastewater heating/cooling, community solar, and offshore wind provisions. It also preserves existing compliance structures, including the Commission’s authority to set regulations, administer credit trading, and assess fees for shortfalls, while extending the standard’s framework to include nuclear generation as an eligible Tier 2 source.
The bill’s impact on state law is broad but largely technical in form and substantive in effect. It amends multiple sections of the Public Utilities Article and one section of the Natural Resources Article, changing the legal terminology used in Maryland’s clean energy compliance regime and altering the resource mix eligible for credit generation. By classifying certain nuclear generation as a Tier 2 source, the bill would allow electricity suppliers to use nuclear output to satisfy part of their portfolio obligations, potentially reducing compliance pressure on other renewable categories and changing the market for clean energy credits.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship and introduction appears supportive of expanding Maryland’s clean energy framework to include nuclear power as a zero-carbon resource and to modernize the program’s terminology. The bill was introduced by a large group of House delegates and assigned to the Environment and Transportation Committee, but no committee transcript or recorded vote is provided here, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal opposition in the available materials.
The main point of contention likely concerns whether nuclear energy should be treated as “clean energy” for portfolio-standard purposes. Supporters would likely view nuclear inclusion as a way to advance emissions reduction and grid reliability, while opponents may object that nuclear power is not renewable and that rebranding the standard could dilute support for wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable resources. Additional practical issues include the retroactive application date, the extensive conforming changes to existing law, and the effect on compliance markets and ratepayer obligations.
HB0970 would amend the Public Utilities Article and Natural Resources Article to rename Maryland’s renewable energy program as the clean energy portfolio standard and to redefine renewable energy credits as clean energy credits. Most significantly, it would add electricity from certain nuclear energy generating stations, including small modular reactors connected to the state’s distribution system, as a Tier 2 source eligible for compliance. The bill also updates offshore wind credit terminology, reporting requirements, compliance fee provisions, and related definitions across the state’s clean energy statutes, with retroactive application to compliance years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.
The bill appears generally favorable toward expanding the state’s clean energy compliance framework and incorporating nuclear power as a qualifying resource. Its introduction by many delegates suggests a coordinated policy effort, but the provided materials include no committee testimony or vote record, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s text itself. Based on the proposal, supporters likely favor the bill as a decarbonization and reliability measure, while critics would likely question the inclusion of nuclear power within a program historically centered on renewable resources.
The central point of contention is the bill’s treatment of nuclear energy as a Tier 2 renewable source for purposes of the clean energy portfolio standard. Critics may argue that nuclear power is not renewable and that its inclusion could reduce incentives for wind, solar, and other renewable technologies, while supporters may argue it is a low-carbon resource that helps meet emissions goals. Secondary areas of potential dispute include the retroactive application to 2026 compliance years, the broad terminology changes throughout the code, and the possible effects on credit markets, compliance costs, and ratepayer impacts.