Top Mary­land Dem Backs Green Ener­gy Bill That Could Line His Own Company’s Pock­ets

Top Maryland Dem Backs Green Energy Bill That Could Line His Own Company’s Pockets

Demo­c­ra­t­ic Mary­land Sen­ate Pres­i­dent Bill Fer­gu­son is back­ing leg­is­la­tion to strip trash incin­er­a­tions from the state’s renew­able ener­gy sub­sidy pro­gram — a pol­i­cy shift that could direct­ly ben­e­fit the solar com­pa­ny that now employs him.

Law­mak­ers are qui­et­ly fold­ing the pro­pos­al into a broad­er ener­gy pack­age set for a vote before the leg­is­la­ture adjourns Mon­day. If it pass­es, mil­lions in tax­pay­er-fund­ed renew­able ener­gy cred­its could be redi­rect­ed from waste-to-ener­gy plants to solar firms like CI Renew­ables, where Fer­gu­son took a job last year. (RELATED: Green Ener­gy Groups Cling To Tax Cred­its As GOP Law­mak­ers Look To End Biden-Era Cli­mate Sub­si­dies)

Fer­gu­son, of Bal­ti­more, announced in June that he had accept­ed the job with CI Renew­ables, a com­pa­ny that finances and devel­ops large-scale solar projects in Mary­land and along the East Coast. He retained his lead­er­ship posi­tion in the state Sen­ate, where he now holds near-total con­trol over which leg­is­la­tion advances.

Fer­gu­son told the Dai­ly Caller News Foun­da­tion his employ­ment did not vio­late any eth­i­cal rules, and that “most all of [Mary­land law­mak­ers] have out­side jobs. So just like we have a doc­tor in the Sen­ate who works on health­care issues — the the­o­ry of a part-time leg­is­la­ture is that you bring exper­tise into the long leg­isla­tive process.”

“Before I even con­sid­ered this posi­tion with CI [Renew­ables], I spoke to our ethics coun­cil,” Fer­gu­son con­tin­ued. “I made sure we had clear lines of where prob­lems could arise in the case that there was some­thing in Mary­land, and I dis­closed it all through all of our pub­lic fil­ings. We’ll con­tin­ue to always dis­close it — it’s some­thing that’s real­ly impor­tant … can’t be in a way that’s per­son­al­ly ben­e­fi­cial, and we main­tain very strict ethics rules here in Mary­land.”

The full pack­age, called the Next Gen­er­a­tion Ener­gy Act, is expect­ed to be tak­en up in the com­ing days — like­ly before the ses­sion gavels out Mon­day. Law­mak­ers are advanc­ing the pro­pos­al as part of a larg­er leg­isla­tive vehi­cle, allow­ing it to move for­ward despite miss­ing the usu­al pro­ce­dur­al dead­line.

In Octo­ber, Fer­gu­son post­ed on X that he would intro­duce a bill to remove trash incin­er­a­tors from Maryland’s Renew­able Port­fo­lio Stan­dard (RPS). Envi­ron­men­tal groups who have long sought such a move argue waste-burn­ing plants should not qual­i­fy for clean ener­gy sub­si­dies.

By remov­ing incin­er­a­tors from the RPS, solar com­pa­nies would face less com­pe­ti­tion for lucra­tive state sub­si­dies. The Mary­land gov­ern­ment doles out these sub­si­dies via renew­able ener­gy cred­its (RECs) that divert state-man­dat­ed green ener­gy spend­ing away from waste-burn­ing facil­i­ties and toward solar devel­op­ers — like Ferguson’s employ­er. There are 208 solar com­pa­nies oper­at­ing in Mary­land as of 2024, accord­ing to the Solar Ener­gy Indus­tries Asso­ci­a­tion.

Though the bill failed to meet the Gen­er­al Assembly’s “crossover dead­line” — typ­i­cal­ly a death knell for leg­is­la­tion — Ferguson’s office now says it’s being fold­ed into the Next Gen­er­a­tion Ener­gy Act, the sweep­ing omnibus bill that must be final­ized before Mon­day. The state Sen­ate pres­i­dent is play­ing a cen­tral role in shap­ing this pack­age.

“The [CI Renew­ables state con­tracts] are pre-estab­lished before I came on board. But I’m large­ly not on, sort of, the deal side of it. I’m, sort of, a gen­er­al coun­sel role. So I do a lot of the legal leas­ing review and PPA agree­ment — that sort of legal agree­ment side of the house,” Fer­gu­son said of his involve­ment with CI Renew­ables’ state con­tract nego­ti­a­tions.

The com­pa­ny mar­kets itself as a turnkey solar provider that works direct­ly with state and local gov­ern­ments, includ­ing through pow­er pur­chase agree­ments — long-term deals that often hinge on state-lev­el tax incen­tives or cred­its.

At the cen­ter of the pol­i­cy bat­tle is Baltimore’s Whee­labra­tor incin­er­a­tor — respon­si­ble for 36% of all indus­tri­al air emis­sions in Bal­ti­more, accord­ing to Clean Air Bal­ti­more. Envi­ron­men­tal orga­ni­za­tions such as Clean Air Bal­ti­more have lob­bied for years to elim­i­nate the plant’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty for RECs, argu­ing it props up an out­dat­ed and dirty form of ener­gy.

“If you look in Europe, actu­al­ly, waste incin­er­a­tion is a large com­po­nent of their refuse cycle, but they oper­ate with much clean­er, tech­no­log­i­cal­ly advanced facil­i­ties than we have here in Mary­land,” Fer­gu­son said. “If we could get rid of waste incin­er­a­tion, I would be total­ly for it. But there are real con­se­quences about what you do with the rest of the waste cycle, and what that means for land­fills — ide­al­ly we can fig­ure out a longer term plan.”

Incin­er­a­tor oper­a­tors and labor unions argue the Whee­labra­tor plant pro­vides union jobs — 65 jobs as of 2019, accord­ing to The Real News Net­work — helps reduce land­fill waste and gen­er­ates base­load elec­tric­i­ty, Mary­land Mat­ters report­ed. Remov­ing it from the sub­sidy pro­gram, the oper­a­tors and unions say, could push the facil­i­ty toward clo­sure, elim­i­nat­ing local jobs and increas­ing trash exports to oth­er states.

“[Incin­er­a­tion and solar] are both called renew­able ener­gy under the cur­rent par­a­digm in Mary­land, but the waste-to-ener­gy incin­er­a­tion issue has been some­thing I’ve been very much against since it start­ed,” Fer­gu­son con­tin­ued. “I was first elect­ed in 2011 and it was one of the first bills I ever vot­ed on against lead­er­ship was when incin­er­a­tion was added as a tier-one renew­able source.”

Behind the scenes, lob­by­ists for waste-to-ener­gy com­pa­nies are prepar­ing to mount a last-ditch effort to block the bill’s inclu­sion in the final ener­gy pack­age, accord­ing to Mary­land Mat­ters. (RELATED: Baltimore’s Cli­mate Change Law­suit Against Ener­gy Com­pa­nies Can Pro­ceed, Supremes Say)