Maryland legislators are considering a bill that would levy a $13 fee per short ton on coal transported through the state. The goal is to reduce pollution from the energy source while funding asthma treatment programs. West Virginia officials oppose the legislation, claiming that it unfairly targets out-of-state coal producers, citing Maryland’s Port of Baltimore as the country’s second-largest coal-exporting port.
West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey claims that the legislation violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, nearly doubles coal transport costs, and allows Maryland lawmakers to “fill their coffers at the expense of hard-working Americans miles away.”
Full Story
A proposed coal fee in Maryland has sparked opposition from officials in neighboring West Virginia, one of the country’s largest exporters of this fuel. Maryland lawmakers are currently debating the Coal Dust Cleanup and Asthma Remediation Act, which proposes charging out-of-state coal producers $13 per short ton of fossil fuel transported through the state.
What are the arguments for and against this coal fee?
Maryland intends to use revenue generated by the legislation to address coal dust pollution, including funding for asthma treatment in affected communities.
Meanwhile, West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey believes the bill may violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from enacting laws that unduly restrict or discriminate against interstate commerce.
McCuskey contends that the fee would “nearly double the cost of sending coal to or through Maryland” and that states should not “fill their coffers at the expense of hard-working Americans miles away.”
McCuskey wrote in a letter urging Maryland’s legislative leaders to table the bill, “This Bill inappropriately targets and extracts large sums of money from energy suppliers to bankroll Maryland’s budget.”
What does Maryland stand to gain from the legislation?
According to the United States Energy Information Administration, West Virginia was the country’s second-largest coal producer in 2023, with Maryland ranking 16th.
However, Maryland is home to the Port of Baltimore, the country’s second-largest coal exporting port, making it an important transit hub for coal shipments from West Virginia and other states.
A 2024 study by Johns Hopkins University discovered measurable amounts of coal dust pollution in communities nearly a mile from the port, affecting schools, playgrounds, and residential areas. The fee funds would be used to alleviate environmental and public health concerns, thereby addressing the issue.
How will this impact West Virginia?
While McCuskey says West Virginia “supports Maryland’s efforts to solve its internal problems,” he claims that only 2% of the fee’s proceeds would go toward “programs related to asthma treatment for communities impacted by coal dust.” The remainder, he claims, would go to the state’s general fund.
The attorney general goes on to say that the Port of Baltimore’s importance to West Virginia’s coal exports, which account for more than half of the state’s total export product, will result in an annual cost increase of $182 million for his state.
What happens next?
McCuskey has offered to work with Maryland on alternative solutions to reduce the effects of coal pollution, but has warned that if the legislation passes without significant changes, West Virginia may take legal action.
“Unless the House or Senate substantially revises the Bill, we do not see how it could withstand judicial scrutiny,” McCuskey wrote to Maryland lawmakers. “West Virginia is already leading the opposition to a similar bill. We hope we will not be forced to do the same as Maryland. We’d rather spend our time working together to solve the problems facing our region, including environmental concerns.”
