Maryland legislators and environmental advocates expressed dismay after Gov. Wes Moore vetoed a series of widely supported climate and environmental study bills last week, actions they believe not only mark a sharp departure from his climate promises, but also reflect a breakdown in communication between the governor and members of his own party in the legislature.

On May 16, Moore vetoed more bills than he had in the past two years combined, including multiple proposals that had passed with strong backing from legislative leadership and key climate coalitions. 

The vetoes—affecting studies on climate costs, energy reliability, data center impacts and racial reparations—have left activists and lawmakers questioning whether Moore remains a reliable ally in the fight for climate and racial justice and whether his political calculus may have shifted, placing short-term cost savings above long-term structural reform.

Among the vetoed bills was the Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act of 2025, which would have tasked the comptroller and state agencies with assessing the total cost of greenhouse gas emissions and reporting findings by December 2026. Stripped down from its original version, which proposed financial penalties for fossil fuel companies, the bill was seen as an important step toward documenting climate damages and laying the groundwork for future polluter-pay policies.

Today’s Climate

Twice-a-week

A digest of the most pressing climate-related news, released every Tuesday and Friday.

Breaking News

Don’t miss a beat. Get a daily email of our original, groundbreaking stories written by our national network of award-winning reporters.

ICN Sunday Morning

Go behind the scenes with executive editor Vernon Loeb and ICN reporters as they discuss one of the week’s top stories.

Justice & Health

A digest of stories on the inequalities that worsen the impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities.

The estimated cost of the study was about $500,000, drawn from the state’s Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF)—a dedicated fund supported by penalties utilities paid for failing to meet renewable energy targets. It has ballooned to over $300 million in recent years.

Moore also rejected the Data Center Impact Analysis and Report bill, which called for a collaborative study on the environmental and economic footprint of data center expansion across Maryland. The report, required to be completed by September 2026, was meant to guide future zoning and energy decisions as these power-intensive facilities expand statewide.

In a letter to the Senate and House leadership, Moore stated budget shortage, agency workload and redundancy as key reasons for the vetoes. “Many of these reports are never read and simply collect dust on shelves,” Moore wrote, calling the expected $1.28 million cost “an unsustainable commitment given the state’s current financial constraints.”

Also vetoed was the Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act, which would have created a Strategic Energy Planning Office within the Public Service Commission to assess long-term electricity reliability, model resource scenarios and recommend planning strategies. It was designed to help Maryland manage increasing energy demands as the state transitions toward clean power. The office would have released a major report every three years, coordinating with state agencies and collecting public input. The veto stalls forward-thinking energy planning, critics said.

In a separate letter to Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Adrienne Jones, Moore justified his veto of the Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act by citing fiscal constraints and overlaps. He pointed to the estimated annual cost of $4.4 million to $5.3 million, warning it would duplicate efforts and pass costs on to consumers. “This cost would ultimately be passed along to Maryland ratepayers at a time when we are actively working to limit their burden, not add to it,” he wrote.

The Moore administration did not provide additional comments on the vetoes.

The vetoes sparked immediate backlash. Del. Jheanelle Wilkins (D-Montgomery) defended the RENEW Act as “monumental” in its potential to drive meaningful climate justice, adding that the study’s cost was minor given the stakes. Reflecting on the broader political message the vetoes send, Wilkins, who chairs the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, said, “If there was any place for us to get this done … this would be it. So it does send a message that really reverberates across the country.” 

“I’m surprised and disappointed by the governor’s decision to veto important legislation,” said Sen. Katie Fry Hester (D-Howard, Montgomery), the lead sponsor of the strategic energy office bill. “I look forward to working with leadership in the legislature on next steps.” 

“This veto is extremely frustrating and simply does not support the state’s climate goals.”

— Kim Coble, Maryland League of Conservation Voters

Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, sharply criticized Moore’s decision to veto the RENEW Act and the data center study, calling the process “horrible” and the reasoning “politically mistaken.” 

“I met with the governor in person in mid March. It was a one-on-one meeting with one of his aides specifically to talk about the RENEW Act,” Tidwell said. He received no objections at the time and was blindsided by the veto. The administration “never even called us,” he said, rejecting Moore’s fiscal justification, calling the $500,000 cost estimate “a rounding error” that would ultimately be funded by the SEIF—not taxpayer money. He emphasized that the study would have helped Maryland quantify climate damages and make polluters, not residents, pay. 

“If the governor vetoes a bill to basically begin to study what the polluters owe us, then the only conclusion you can make is he wants taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for a mess that the oil companies knowingly created,” Tidwell said. 

On the data center veto, he said Moore is “woefully behind the public,” ignoring the strain these energy-hungry facilities place on the grid. Ultimately, Tidwell concluded, “the governor sent a terrible message … that apparently he doesn’t believe we should even study how to generate revenue from the polluters,” and said Moore has undermined national efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.

“This veto is extremely frustrating and simply does not support the state’s climate goals,” said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. She said the RENEW Act study was a recommendation of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change and was supported by 69 percent of the members of the General Assembly. 

“[The] Maryland Department of the Environment identified creating a long-term funding source to support the state’s climate program as the most effective action Maryland can take to reduce emissions. This veto is not fiscal responsibility, it’s a definitive step in the opposite direction of our climate goals,” Coble said.

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, a climate advocate and member of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, called Moore’s vetoes a major letdown for environmental advocates. “It’s really heartbreaking to see a multiple number of climate groups have to come out against a Democratic governor who made so many wonderful climate promises,” she said. Mizrahi noted there was no public warning during the session that these vetoes were coming, and argued that the RENEW Act, in particular, was a missed opportunity to pursue accountability for fossil fuel companies. 

“Holding fossil fuel companies accountable will take time and legal action,” she noted, and added that Maryland needs to act now because climate harms are accelerating and lives are at stake. She warned that denying communities even the data to affirm their lived experiences undermines trust and preparedness.

Moore also vetoed a high-profile bill calling for the creation of the Maryland Reparations Commission to examine the legacy of slavery and systemic racial discrimination, including but not limited to housing discrimination, redlining and restrictive covenants, and recommend reparative policies by 2027. Though it did not mandate payments, the bill sought to explore a wide range of potential remedies and had strong backing from the Legislative Black Caucus, the largest Black caucus in the nation. The measure was projected to cost roughly $54,000 in its first year.

In his letter explaining that veto, Moore argued that Maryland had already conducted extensive studies on the legacy of slavery, including the Maryland Lynching Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 

“Now is not the time for another study,” he wrote. “Now is the time for continued action that delivers results for the people we serve.” He said the administration would focus instead on expanding homeownership, narrowing the racial wealth gap and uplifting Black entrepreneurship through direct policies.

Wilkins was deeply disappointed by Moore’s veto of the reparations bill, a top priority for her caucus, and rejected the fiscal rationale Moore offered for blocking it. “We carefully ensured that … it was very fiscally prudent. It was just a $50,000 study to pull together the commission,” she said. “There’s never been a time in Maryland history … that we’ve examined the issue of reparations.” 

In its statement, the Legislative Black Caucus more bluntly expressed its disappointment: “[T]he state’s first Black governor chose to block this historic legislation that would have moved the state toward directly repairing the harm of enslavement.”

Efforts are underway to reverse Moore’s vetoes on the RENEW Act and the reparations study bill. “I think there’s a strong possibility,” Wilkins said. “There’s a lot of passion on both bills and a lot of interest … and they did both pass with veto-proof majorities.”

The legislature holds the authority to override a veto with a three-fifths vote in each chamber. If the General Assembly is not in session, it can be convened into a special session by the governor or upon a petition by a majority of the elected members of both the Senate and the House of Delegates. 

Aman Azhar

Reporter, Washington, D.C.

Aman Azhar is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who covers environmental justice for Inside Climate News with focus on Baltimore-Maryland area. He has previously worked as a broadcast journalist and multimedia producer for the BBC World Service, VOA News and other international news organizations, reporting from London, Islamabad, the United Arab Emirates and New York. He holds a graduate degree in Anthropology of Media from University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and an MA in Political Science from the University of the Punjab, and is the recipient of the Chevening scholarship from the UK government and an academic scholarship for graduate studies from the Australian government.

• 
  @TheAmanAzhar
  
• 
  [email protected]