Advocates Oppose Incentives for New Nuclear And Methane Gas Facilities In Maryland

Groups warn that proposals pose massive financial risk for ratepayers and taxpayers, and distracts from cheaper, safer, cleaner options.

Published Feb 3, 2025

Categories

Climate and Energy

Groups warn that proposals pose massive financial risk for ratepayers and taxpayers, and distracts from cheaper, safer, cleaner options.

Groups warn that proposals pose massive financial risk for ratepayers and taxpayers, and distracts from cheaper, safer, cleaner options.

Leaders of environmental, social justice, consumer, and public health organizations expressed disappointment today over plans to incentivize expensive, dangerous new nuclear energy and add new methane gas facilities in Maryland.

Today state leadership announced legislation that would create financial incentives for the buildout of new nuclear reactors, costing taxpayers and ratepayers tens of millions. The legislation also promotes new methane gas power plants in Maryland, increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Last month Governor Wes Moore unveiled the Empowering New Energy Resources and Green Initiatives Toward a Zero–Emission (ENERGIZE) Act that would also promote the buildout of new nuclear facilities across Maryland. 

Advocates released the following statements in opposition to these new plans:

“State leaders’ apparent embrace of new nuclear power and fracked gas plants in Maryland is an alarming sign for the future of clean energy in Maryland. Governor Moore and the legislature should not be investing in these polluting industries that will only raise utility rates for all Marylanders long-term,” said Food & Water Watch Southern Region Director Jorge Aguilar. 

“New nuclear plants would cost Marylanders billions of dollars, with higher taxes and energy bills, and would take ten to twenty years to build – the cost is not just dollars, but lives lost every year while we fail to reduce fossil fuel pollution and effectively address climate change. New gas-burning plants also create higher energy costs, and harm our health by emitting pollutants and climate change causing greenhouse gases that we need to reduce. This is not the clean energy future that Maryland needs.” Gwen DuBois, M.D., M.P.H., President, Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility. 

“Maryland needs to focus on solutions that are here today, such as wind, solar, grid enhancement technology and virtual power plants. They are cheaper for ratepayers and put us on a path to achieving our clean energy goals. To just accept nuclear as a remedy for fossil fuel-generated energy is a distraction and essentially capitulation in our fight for real clean renewable energy.”  Dave Arndt, Maryland Legislative Coalition – Climate Justice Wing CoChair.

“Nuclear power plants take at least 15 years to plan and build, and nearly all take far longer and cost far more than originally proposed. Ratepayers in Georgia have had their rates go up nearly 25% to pay for nuclear reactors that took 18 years and $37 billion to plan and build. If utilities provided realistic cost estimates and schedules up front, the projects would never be approved. But once nuclear corporations get their noses under the tent, politicians are reluctant to pull the plug. Solar and wind projects rarely go over budget, and take far less time to build. Our problem in Maryland is that Annapolis sets goals but provides no enforcement. That’s what we need to fix.” Tim Judson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

Story continues after this message

Stay
Informed!

Get the latest on food, water and climate issues delivered
to your inbox.

GET UPDATES OOPS! SUCCESS!

Press Contact: Seth Gladstone [email protected]

BACK
TO TOP