CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series Number 23 April 2017
Veto Override and RPS Expansion in Maryland: Roles of Actors and the Economy Rio Mizuno, University of Michigan
This paper is available online at http://closup.umich.edu Papers in the CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series are written by students at the University of Michigan. This paper was submitted as part of the Winter 2017 course Environ 302: Energy and Environmental Policy Research, made possible through funding provided by the University of Michigan Third Century Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy or any sponsoring agency
Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan
1 Rio Mizuno Environ 302 Professor Sarah Mills 26 April 2017 Veto Override and RPS Expansion in Maryland: Roles of Actors and the Economy ABSTRACT The excessive generation of greenhouse gases by fossil fuel electricity production, and its resulting contribution to climate change, are some of the most threatening environmental issues today. To combat this problem, many US states have adopted a renewable portfolio standard to increase electricity production by renewable sources. RPS has been successful in mitigating GHG emissions, and about half of these states have expanded their RPS goals. In this paper, I conduct a case study of Maryland’s passage of the Clean Energy Jobs Act, a bill calling for a RPS increase, and the reversal of the governor’s veto to better understand what made these events possible. I find that the state’s divided government had a significant effect in causing the clash between the sponsor of the bill and the governor- this political clash spurred arguments based on economic factors. Furthermore, I find that provisions to the bill accounting for economic impacts likely led to its passage, and that the high economic well-being of Maryland was a determining factor in the state’s implementation of the RPS. The importance of economic reasoning suggests that provisions regarding economic growth are crucial to gaining support for increased targets in renewable energy production.
2 INTRODUCTION In discussing today’s climate change crisis, it is crucial to focus on the energy sector, both as a notorious contributor to the phenomenon and an agent for hopeful change. The extensive burning of fossil fuels for energy production, historically and globally, have contributed to climate change by causing copious amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide. These emissions continue at an unsustainable rate, as oil, coal, and natural gas still hold their places as the main energy sources for much of the world. In the US, electricity production is the largest GHG emitting sector, comprising 30% of the country’s total emissions (EPA, 2014). As energy demand continues to accelerate, the necessity for heightened renewable energy production becomes increasingly urgent. In an effort to mitigate the use of carbon intensive energy sources, 29 US states have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) to promote renewable energy production. RPS are regulatory mandates that require electric suppliers to source or sell a certain amount or percentage of their energy from renewable sources (Barbose, 2016). RPS designs are unique to each state, with differences in the renewable energy target, timeline, eligible energy sources, penalties, compliance enforcement methods, and more. The implementation of these state mandates has been largely successful; most states have fully reached their set RPS targets recently, with an overall RPS achievement of 95% in 2014 (Barbose, 2016). In addition, many RPS states continue to modify their existing policies. Approximately half of all states with RPS have revised it to raise overall RPS targets since its initial adoption. However, this remarkable progress in renewable energy policy does not come without obstacles. There have been some cases of regression in RPS revisions- Ohio has enacted a freeze on its RPS in 2014, and Kansas has repealed and replaced it with a voluntary renewable energy
3 goal in 2015 (Barbose, 2016). Although they have yet to be enacted, many other bills have been proposed to similarly repeal, reduce, or freeze renewable energy policies. The adoption of RPS in new states have been stagnant in recent years; since 2010, only one state has implemented a new RPS (Barbose, 2016). A notable dichotomy can be observed- on one side, there are the states that are actively enforcing, revising, and achieving their RPS targets; on the other side are the states remaining idle, or even backtracking in promoting renewable energy use. For Maryland, its position in the former side has been further solidified by its recent change in policy. A renewable portfolio standard of 20% by the year 2022 was first implemented in Maryland in 2004. In February of 2016, the Clean Energy Jobs Act was introduced to increase the state’s RPS from 20% to 25%, and shorten the timeline of achieving that goal from 2022 to 2020. Although it was enthusiastically passed by the General Assembly in March with vetoproof margins, Governor Larry Hogan vetoed this bill in May, citing the economic burden that the bill would place on taxpayers (Hirji, 2017). However, on January 31, 2017, his action was met with vigorous opposition from both the state’s House of Delegates and the Senate, who voted to override Hogan’s veto by 88-51 and 32-13, respectively (Hirji, 2017). Now, the bill has become law in Maryland. The factors that fed into this clash between the legislative and executive branch, and the strong veto override are intertwined and mysterious. This paper will seek to determine and analyze the role that actors and the economic conditions of Maryland played in the override of Governor Hogan’s veto of the Clean Energy Jobs Act in 2017.
4 LITERATURE REVIEW Before delving into this case and its analysis, I first look to previous literature, focusing on two pertinent topics. The first topic is renewable portfolio standards, from broad overviews of its effectiveness to more specific factors that affect RPS legislation. Next, I move onto research conducted on the workings of state politics and relations to green energy legislation. This literature review will serve both as a background against which I introduce my findings, and as information that I compare my conclusions to.
On Renewable Portfolio Standards The term “green energy policy� is ambiguous and diverse- it can involve an array of different technologies, laws, locations, and vary in its success. Menz (2005) explains the history of green energy technologies and policies in the US through collecting quantitative and qualitative data about green energy programs, energy production, etc. He found that of the instruments used to promote green energy, financial incentive combined with mandatory regulations- such as RPS- was the most effective. However, he also found that many barriers can cause very slow development in the green energy market, for example, high cost, price distortions from external costs, and lack of customer awareness. This narrows down the policies that have the most successful effect, and sets RPS as an exemplar in this area. This leaves us with the question: what kind of effect does RPS have and how successful is it? The question posed previously regarding the effectiveness of RPS is answered by Eastin (2014). The methodology for answering this question was developing an original dataset of presence of state RPS implementation, amount of CO2 emissions, and amount of renewable energy, derived from the DSIRE database. He concluded that states with RPS were more likely
5 to have emitted less CO2, have better air quality, and have larger increases in renewable energy production. This study strengthens the point that RPS is an effective policy in mitigating climate change, and confirms the success of RPS policies that led to these positive results. However, not all RPS are created equal, and there has been research which considers how specific designs of RPS impact its effectiveness. Berry and Jaccard (2001) address the key design considerations of RPS and results of those considerations. The authors used surveys from different jurisdictions in this article. They found that the selection of target involves a three-way trade off between environmental improvement, long-term technology strategy, and cost. Other considerations are geographic application and eligible technologies. These key features that have generally been used by states that implement RPS can be used as suggestions for states or governments that wish to implement RPS in the future, and can serve as a way to analyze the RPS adopted in Maryland. Although the properties of the policy itself are important, considering the background of the state is also crucial in its decision to adopt the policy. Upton and Snyder (2015) attempt to answer the question: What is the impact of a state’s renewable energy potential in its adoption of RPS? The political and economic conditions of the state and their impacts on RPS adoption were also investigated. The authors collected data of the NREL’s estimates of wind and solar resource potential by state, the political leanings of the state, and gross state product, along with the data of which states have already adopted RPSs. They found that wind and solar resource potential were both significant predictors of RPS adoption, as well as political leanings. They also concluded that in general, state GSP per person is positively correlated to RPS adoption. This study implies that RPS adoption largely depends on how effective it is projected to be on the state, based on its pre-existing political, economic, and geographic conditions. These conditions
6 of Maryland can be contrasted with those of other states to analyze whether Maryland is a stronger candidate for RPS than others, or if there are any discrepancies between RPS status and state characteristics. Furthermore, a factor that is as important as the adoption of RPS is the revisions to the initial policy. Holt and Galligan (2013) explore the reasons that states retain or change their RPS laws. The authors collected information from other literature written about strengthening and weakening RPS policy, and related them to specific examples of RPS renewal or rollbacks. They identified three specific reasons why states might retain and/or strengthen existing RPS policiesenergy source diversity and cost, CO2 emissions reduction, and public support. These findings have political implications in that it may be a challenge for states to retain or strengthen their RPS in cases of high energy prices- an increase in energy prices, even temporarily, could have a serious effect of weakening RPS. For this case study, these three factors could be further investigated in Maryland to evaluate if it contributed to the struggle of the bill passage.
On State Politics and Green Energy Legislation To analyze this case, it is necessary to look into research conducted on an event that initiated the battle: the governor’s veto. Klarner and Karch (2008) seek to characterize gubernatorial veto activity by assessing the applicability of two approaches: the “presidentcentered” approach, which holds an individual focus on personality traits and veto strategies of presidents (in this case, governors), and the “presidency-centered” approach, which emphasizes institutional structure and societal conditions, such as minority party opposition. Forty-eight states were analyzed by using an event count model to examine individual and institutional sources of veto activity. This assessment provided stronger support for the institutional
7 perspective. In this context, the veto is seen as a direct conflict between the legislative and executive branch. Increasing number of legislators needed to override is a factor contributing to greater vetoes. The existence of divided government also causes the governor to issue more vetoes. In other words, the partisanship composition of the state government is an essential factor to consider when analyzing a gubernatorial veto. This approach may help explain governor Hogan’s veto in this case, since Maryland has a divided government, with a Republican governor and Democratic House and Senate. Political partisanship is not only important in investigating a veto, but also in analyzing support for a law. The role of political ideology on support for renewable energy legislation in the US was explored by Hess, Mai, and Brown. They used a mixed method approach to answer this question, using both qualitative (interviews with legislators) and quantitative (levels of support and success for bills) means of gathering information. They concluded that policy instruments associated with liberal ideologies (like mandates) were generally supported less, and those associated with conservative ideologies (regulatory reduction, tax reductions) had higher support rates. However, the view that renewable energy policy in the US is highly polarized merely due to political ideology is oversimplified, and it is possible to gain bipartisan support by attending to these ideological differences. Since differences in political ideology between the governor and the legislature is apparent in Maryland, this research may help explain the role of this difference in the mixed reviews of the Clean Energy Jobs Act. More specifically, Coley and Hess (2012) examine the context that shapes Republican votes for green energy laws. They use a database of over 6000 votes on RPS and PACE laws by state legislators in the US. They found that although Republicans tend to be less supportive of green energy laws than Democrats, Republican support is higher in states with weaker fossil fuel
8 industries. In addition, Republicans were shown to support these laws where median income is lower, environmental organizations are weaker, and Democrat proportion in the legislature is lower. This study shows that the relationship between Republicans and renewable energy policies is not black-and-white; certain circumstances can lead to unpredicted political results. These results can be contrasted with the circumstances of Maryland, and investigate whether any of them are correlated with Republican support (or lack thereof) of the RPS renewal. Legislators are not the only important group of actors that influence lawmaking; although indirectly, environmental groups hold much agency and influence over the public and policymakers. Through a case study, Doblinger and Soppe (2013) investigate the contribution of environmental groups in encouraging renewable technology diffusion. These groups were viewed as change-actors, who initiate change through a bottom-up process. Doblinger and Soppe utilize the social movement theory, emphasizing the role of agency and the actors’ strategies to alter institutionalized practices. They found that environmental groups approach two main constituents in various ways: they first approach legislators to lobby for changes, creating environmental alertness by informing policymakers about the values and benefits of the new renewable technology. In addition, groups approach the public/consumers by educating them about the technology’s benefits, while promoting new sets of assumptions and values. In doing so, environmental groups create a more favorable regulative environment. This framework can be contrasted with the actions of the Maryland Climate Coalition, a principal environmental group that advocated for the Clean Energy Jobs Act. There is a large amount of literature available on broad concepts surrounding the RPSfor example, its definition, its overall effectiveness in the US, its main characteristics, and factors that influence its adoption. Much of these are based on a national level, and there is very little
9 literature available that researches a specific state, or further, a single case. In addition, much of the literature that I found held a view of RPS in states as a binary factor, as either existent or nonexistent. Many journal articles sought to identify factors that were associated with RPS adoption. There seems to be a gap in focusing on RPS as a policy of many different levels, and specifically, on RPS renewal, rather than just adoption. This paper aims to fill that gap, by providing information on a single case in which the issue is not adoption of a new RPS, but revisions of an existing policy. My research question is: What role did actors and the economic conditions of Maryland play on the overwhelming reversal of Governor Hogan’s veto of the Clean Energy Jobs Act in 2017?
METHODS This situation can be characterized as a deviant case- this is the first instance of a governor’s veto override in terms of updating a RPS, and it exemplifies the stark dichotomy of the governor’s opposition and the legislators’ overwhelming support for the bill. As explained earlier, although many states already with RPS are honing their policies through revisions, there have not been new adoptions of RPS in recent years. Among this stagnancy in recent years, combined with the anti-environmental sentiment of the new US administration, this case stands out in the realm of energy politics, and could prove to be influential. First, it is important to consider the broader political context in which this event occurred. I seek to examine the struggle between the legislative and executive branch, and the partisanship divide between those groups. Understanding the political landscape of Maryland at the time is helpful in determining the factors that were deviant or unique to this case. By utilizing previous literature which delves into gubernatorial vetoes, I explain the clash and interactions between
10 Maryland’s governor and legislatures in terms of how partisanship can contribute to political actions such as vetoes and veto overrides. I then look to the influence of actors. I identify the key actors in this case by looking for important people and organizations that appear most frequently in news reports about the override. I also examine evidence such as hearings for the bill, the governor’s veto letter, statements by local environmental organizations, and sponsorship of the bill. First, I identify House Delegate William Frick to be a crucial actor, as he was the main sponsor for the bill. I also investigate the central opposing force to the advocacy: Governor Larry Hogan. I examine the details not only of his veto, but also of his environmental and political stance in the past, in order to connect the veto to the larger framework. In addition, due to the mention of the Maryland Climate Coalition in the majority of the news articles, I believe that this group and its constituent actors are crucial groups that had a significant influence on this political incident. This organization played a pivotal role in promoting the bill and the veto override, representing other actors including environmental groups, business and labor organizations, grassroots organizations, health care groups, faith groups, and electric cooperatives. I investigate the actions and arguments of all three actors from official statements and news reports. All in all, I believe that viewing the bill from the perspectives of these stakeholders proves useful in analyzing the determinants of this deviant result. An additional framework is the economic conditions of Maryland, and how it compares to results from literature regarding the associations between a state’s economic background and its probability of RPS adoption and durability. In particular, a state’s Gross State Product per person has been shown to be positively correlated with the state’s probability of adopting a RPS (Upton and Snyder, 2015). In analyzing this case, I consider how Maryland’s GSP, as well as
11 other economic indicators, could help explain its RPS adoption and renewal. To do this, I use tools such as Social Explorer, which allows nationwide comparison of state economic measures. I also investigate the specific revisions made in the bill to address the economic progress that would be implemented from its passage. Overall, the economics of Maryland is clearly an essential factor to examine, because of its integral role in both the bill itself and increasing support for it.
RESULTS The Legislative-Executive Clash First, it is necessary to set the background for this case with a brief explanation of Maryland’s state politics. Veto overrides in this administration had not been uncommon- in fact, the 2016 General Assembly session opened with the legislature overriding every one of Governor Hogan’s vetoes from 2015 (Wiggins and Hicks, 2016). In May of 2016, Hogan vetoed five other bills in addition to the Clean Energy Jobs Act, all of which had passed both the state’s General Assembly and Senate with veto-proof margins (Wiggins and Hicks, 2016). It is clear that the legislative branch and the executive branch of this administration have had significant clashes in passing legislation- what explains this battle of the vetoes in Maryland? The state government in Maryland can be compared to an analysis of gubernatorial vetoes by Klarner and Karch (2008). They found that the existence of a divided government is an influential factor that causes the governor to issue more vetoes. This circumstance applies perfectly to the state government of Maryland. A divided government means that the party of the governor and the legislature in a state is split; Maryland’s governor, Larry Hogan, is a Republican, while its House of Delegates and Senate are both majority Democrat-controlled. A
12 2017 survey of the US states shows that 15 states have divided governments in which both legislatures are controlled by the opposite party of the governor, and 7 of those, including Maryland, has a Democratic legislature with a Republican governor (NCSL, 2017). The political background of Maryland is just one of many factors that contributed to the dramatic override of Governor Hogan’s veto; it sets the stage for the actions taken by actors of various interests regarding the Clean Energy Jobs Act. Now, we move on to identify key actors in this case and the mobilization of their agencies.
Actors In this section, I identify three influential actors and investigate their goals and actions, starting from the humble beginnings of the bill, and leading up to the override of the governor’s veto. In doing so, I contrast the actors’ arguments for or against passing the Clean Energy Jobs Act, and analyze their agencies.
Delegate William Frick William Frick is a Democrat delegate of the Maryland General Assembly and a House Majority Leader, representing District 16/Montgomery County. He had been a sponsor of the bill from its very beginning; along with Senator Brian Feldman, he sponsored the Clean Energy Advancement Act in February of 2015, which originally proposed to expand the state’s RPS from 20% by 2022 to 40% by 2025, and 25% by 2020 (SRECTrade, 2015). This bill was unpopular among legislators, and withdrawn two months later. He took part in revising this bill into the Clean Energy Jobs Act in 2016, which he became the lead House sponsor for (See Figure 1 for timeline).
13 In advocating for the Clean Energy Jobs Act, Frick emphasized the economic component much more than he had the environmental aspect. In an interview with UtilityDive, he stated that “the environmental message was critical…but the economic message was extremely important” to the initial passing of the bill (Trabish, 2016). More specifically, his statements and comments to the media focused most on the projected job growth that the bill would bring- he argued that the bill would result in the creation of over 1,000 jobs in the state, and that solar employment in Maryland is already larger than the harvesting of the iconic blue crabs from Chesapeake Bay (Kuckro, 2017). Frick referred to the bill as a “winning formula” which would offer opportunities to build the middle class and grow jobs, while reducing GHG emissions by expanding the use of renewable energy (Trabish, 2016).
Figure 1: Timeline of the Clean Energy Advancement Act and Clean Energy Jobs Act
February 2015: Maryland Clean Energy Advancement Act of 2015 is brought to the House Economic Matters Committee
April 2015: Unfavorable Report by Economic Mattersbill is withdrawn
February 2016: Clean Energy Jobs Act is brought to the legislature
May 2016: Governor Hogan vetoes the Clean Energy Jobs Act
March 2016: Clean Energy Jobs Act passes the House and Senate with veto proof margins
January 2017: The House overrides Hogan’s veto 88-51
February 2017: The Senate overrides Hogan’s veto 32-13, and the bill becomes state law
14 Governor Larry Hogan Larry Hogan was inaugurated as governor of Maryland in January of 2015; he became the second Republican governor of the heavily liberal state in nearly 50 years (“Governor Larry Hogan”). As a former business owner, Hogan ran on a political platform that emphasized economic components, mainly “fiscal restraint, tax relief, and job creation” (“Governor Larry Hogan”). Accordingly, many of the achievements listed on his online biography relate to reining in state spending and fostering job creation. The tumultuous battle between the executive and legislative branch was initiated in May 2016, by Hogan’s veto of the Clean Energy Jobs Act- or what he called a “sunshine and wind tax” (Lang, 2017). In his veto letter of the bill, he cited “an additional burden on taxpayers” as his principal reasoning; he explained that he appreciated the economic benefit of Maryland’s growing solar industry, but could not support the tax increase of between $49 million to $196 million that the bill would impose (Hogan, 2016). Furthermore, he argued that Maryland already retains its status as a national leader in RPS achievement, and that increasing taxes to achieve the goal of 25% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 was the wrong approach (Hogan, 2016). The veto letter made clear Hogan’s focus on negative economic ramifications in his decision to reject the bill. Hogan’s veto was surprising to many (including Delegate Frick), considering the proenvironmental stance that the governor had taken in the past, and his dedication to improving the state’s business development climate (“Governor’s Report Card”). He had renewed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act in April 2016 in an effort to mitigate carbon pollution, and was responsible for other environmental successes as well, such as passing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, investing in the preservation of the Chesapeake Bay, and making Maryland
15 the first state in the US to pass a ban on neonicotinoid pesticides (“Governor’s Report Card”). However, according to the Maryland League of Conservation Voters—which assigned a “Needs Improvement” mark for Hogan’s environmental efforts—the governor’s actions have not strongly reflected his pro-environmental statements and promises. Especially in the realm of renewable energy and climate change, the only significant action he had taken was the renewal of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act. On the other hand, Hogan’s recent efforts in renewable energy must be noted- in early January of 2017 (before the veto override), the governor released the state’s 2017 energy agenda, addressing the need for clean energy. Main features of this plan include a $3 million investment in the EARN program, which trains workers in green industries, a $7.5 million partnership with the University of Maryland Energy Research Center to attract private investment in clean energy initiatives, and a $41 million investment in renewable energy projects (Maloney, 2017). However, this policy initiative did not involve much consultation with environmental advocates and legislators- it lacks specific mandates with measures for further action in promoting wind and solar energy (Maloney, 2017).
Maryland Climate Coalition The Maryland Climate Coalition (MCC) is a nonprofit environmental coalition, committed to its mission to “unite Marylanders to mitigate climate change to protect [their] environment, health, and economy” (“Maryland Climate Coalition”). The group engages in policy advocacy, grassroots organizing, and public education to achieve their goals, bringing together a diverse array of environmental, faith, labor, and civic organizations in the process. The MCC is comprised of 17 coalition members (including large NPOs such as the Chesapeake
16 Climate Action Network), along with 10 official supporters, including local businesses and NPOs. The coalition’s work in advocating for the Clean Energy Jobs Bill and the override of Governor Hogan’s veto has been extensive. According to Tiffany Hartung, manager at the Maryland Climate Coalition, the group introduced the topic of increasing renewable energy to legislators and worked to build grassroots power by bringing in more business and labor groups, over a period of three years (Trabish, 2016). The main focus of the group was to connect with the public, through education of the importance of renewable energy and mobilizing their power to advocate for the bill. The significance of renewable energy was framed in terms of benefits to the environment, health, and economy- the three main pillars of protection in their mission statement (“Maryland Climate Coalition”). A page explaining the benefits of the bill to these areas is listed under the “campaign” section of MCC’s website to educate the public. Although it lists ozone pollution, climate change, and the prevalence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease as consequences of fossil fuel combustion, the abundance of economic arguments cannot be ignored. Even in the “improving health” section of the page, MCC emphasizes the average cost per month of illness caused by polluting energy sources, and concludes by mentioning the projected annual regional economic growth of $200 million to $450 million from better health outcomes. The section entitled “Creating Family-Supporting Jobs and a Diverse Clean Energy Workforce” highlights the creation of roughly 4,600 wind power installation jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs in the state’s solar industry each year- numbers that are repeatedly mentioned by Hartung in various interviews (“Maryland Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2016”).
17 The growing support of the public was reflected in a February 2016 poll conducted by independent firm OpinionWorks in partnership with MCC. 71% supported the expansion of the state’s RPS to 25%, even if it meant adding 50 cents per month to their electric bill; when adding provisions to train more people in the clean energy sector, the support rose to 74% (OpinionWorks, 2017). Moreover, support was demonstrated in all parties- Republican, Democrat, and Independent- and support was widespread across the state, spanning urban, rural, and suburban areas. Furthermore, MCC put in significant effort into mobilizing this growing public momentum. In November 2016, the coalition launched a public outreach campaign through a radio advertisement, calling on Marylanders to contact their state legislators to override the governor’s veto. The advertisement once again mentions the Clean Energy Job Act’s benefits to the state’s economy and health, emphasizing that it would only add 58 cents to residents’ monthly bills (Bebon, 2016). In addition, the campaign is listed on their website, providing a link to a template letter to send to legislators. All of this outreach effort contributed to building awareness of the public and helped translate their agency into action; according to Hartung, the most influential action of MCC was its creation of large “grassroots momentum among [the] voters that [the] legislators couldn’t ignore” (Trabish, 2016).
Analysis of Actors Clearly, the clash between Delegate Frick and Governor Hogan is rooted in much more than their stance on an environmental issue. Both Frick and Hogan had taken a proenvironmental stance, through their past statements and legislative actions. Looking into their dialogue regarding the Clean Energy Jobs Act reveals that the focus is on economics than
18 anything else, much of the arguments centering on tax burdens and job growth. Even further, at the foundation of their economic debates is an important political undercurrent. This was a point that Frick addressed as well, following Hogan’s veto; he stated that Hogan’s issue with the bill was much more political than environmental, and that the problem was “about Larry Hogan still being in campaign mode and sticking with the same Republican Governors Association talking points that got him elected in the first place” (Kuckro, 2017). These two actors’ contrasting agencies and actions illustrate the conflict between a divided government- specifically, a Republican governor and a Democratic legislature. Much of their divisiveness can be attributed to the legislature’s majority Democrat control; as concluded by Upton and Snyder (2015), Democrats tend to show more support for green energy legislations. However, as Hess et al. (2016) stated, the struggle of this bill cannot be oversimplified into merely a battle between the political parties and their opposing ambitions. The issue at hand is not as simple as the idea that Democrats support green energy legislations more, and Republicans less. In fact, the bill had bipartisanship support in the legislature and even more so in the public, as the polls revealed. Aside from differences in political ideology, the conflict between the governor and the legislature results from a combination of various factors, including the common history of Hogan’s veto overrides, and Hogan’s personal focus on fiscal restraint in his political career. All in all, although the fundamental political ideology difference seems to be at the core of this struggle, it is not the only variable. Both the governor and Frick wanted economic invigoration; however, they set on different approaches to reach this shared goal, Hogan emphasizing tax relief, and Frick advocating for job growth. Both of these actors showcased the effect of divergent political ideology on achieving a common goal.
19 Amidst this battle on the state politics level, the Maryland Climate Coalition’s efforts were rooted in the encouragement of public education and mobilization of their rising agency. MCC matched Doblinger and Soppe’s (2013) investigation of NGO contribution in initiating change and diffusing new green technology. MCC approached both the legislature and the public in different ways, albeit placing an emphasis on the public. They started their advocacy by introducing the idea to the legislature, and then worked to build a coalition from groups of disparate interests. As outlined by Doblinger and Soppe (2013), they promoted new sets of assumptions and values by additionally integrating the environment and public health issues to their argument for the bill, while still asserting the economic benefits. The actions of MCC matched the descriptions of NGOs in previous literature- the group played the role of building public momentum and awareness in order to influence the lawmaking process, and promote renewable technology. By creating momentum among the public by educating and campaigning, as well as asserting its position in the economic arguments taking place at the state level, MCC was successful in contributing to the override of Hogan’s veto.
The economy However, the actors are not the only factor that make this case unique. The ubiquity of economic reasoning at the core of their arguments implies a crucial focus on the economic conditions of Maryland into this struggle. The name of the 2016 bill itself—The Clean Energy Jobs Act—is an indicator of the value placed on job growth. Moreover, the dramatic increase in support that stemmed from changes in economic content to the original 2015 bill suggests how important it is to analyze Maryland’s economy and its part in ultimately contributing to the veto override.
20 Revisions to the Clean Energy Advancement Act: Addition of Economic Benefits First of all, the major changes from the Maryland Clean Energy Advancement Act of 2015 to the Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2016 need to be investigated and analyzed. According to Frick, the 2015 bill that he sponsored “didn’t have the workforce development and small business provisions”, and that the new economic content was what made the 2016 bill successful (Trabish, 2016). The 2015 bill contained only the mandate to increase the RPS from 25% by 2022 to 40% by 2025, and no other provisions to facilitate this transition. A nonpartisan fiscal and policy note for the Clean Energy Advancement Act was developed by analysts in the Office of Policy Analysis, who noted that the additional costs borne from the increased RPS compliance would amount to between $141.5 million and $566.2 million in 2025 and later (“Fiscal and Policy Note, HB377”). The bill was withdrawn two months later in April 2015, due to an unfavorable report by the House Economic Matters Committee (“General Assembly of Maryland”). On the other hand, the new content added to the Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2016 would help ease the transition to achieve an increased RPS target and expand the clean energy job sector. These new proposals included measures such as establishing a workforce account to be used to provide job training, career paths, and advancement in the clean energy industry, providing funding to the Small, Minority, and Women-Owned Businesses Account to help these businesses in the clean energy industry, and building further workforce capacity by cooperating with other organizations (“House Bill 1106”). These proposals presented a more realistic and cooperative method to increasing renewable energy use, and additionally, contributed to gaining the support of a new sponsor. Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Cathy Pugh, became a sponsor of the Clean Energy Jobs Bill, after voting against the Maryland Clean Energy Advancement Act
21 in 2015 (Trabish, 2016). The added major economic incentives help explain her switch from opponent to strong supporter, and ultimately paved the way for the bill’s success.
Maryland’s Economic Status Much of the literature surrounding the economy in green energy legislation relates a state’s economic conditions to its probability of adopting a RPS- Maryland’s economic indicators and its relations to those of other states in the US can be used to contrast against results discussed in previous literature. Census data (see Table 1) shows that Maryland is one of the richest states in the US, ranking #1 in median household income and #3 in income per capita (Social Explorer). Plus, Maryland is #13 in per capita gross state product, or gross domestic product by state (Statista). Upton and Snyder’s findings of a positive association between GSP per capita and RPS adoption probability, coupled with Maryland’s high GSP per capita, signals Maryland’s high probability of RPS implementation (Upton and Snyder, 2015). No studies were found that correlated these economic conditions with RPS durability or expansion, so Maryland’s RPS renewal cannot be concluded as predictable or not, in relation to the state’s economic rankings. However, it could be inferred from the connection of high economic productivity with high probability of RPS adoption that economically well off states, like Maryland, are more receptive to implementing renewable energy measures. Maryland also ranks well in the solar jobs sector. According to the Solar Foundation’s 2015 Census, Maryland ranks #12 in solar jobs nationally, and #14 in solar jobs per capita. The state experienced a 42.3% growth rate in solar jobs in 2015, rising to #9 in the US in solar installation jobs, a category in the solar jobs sector. Rafalson (2016) attributes this rise to the
22 state’s RPS, which has fostered steady growth and a secure market for solar renewable energy credits (SRECs)- credits purchased by utilities to provide proof of RPS compliance.
Table 1: Maryland’s Economic Indicators and Rankings in the US (2015) US Ranking
Value
Median Household Incomea
#1
$74,551
Income Per capitaa
#3
$36,897
Solar Jobsb
#12
4,269
Average Electricity Pricea
#12 (highest)
12.11 cents/kWh
Gross State Product Per capitac
#13
$54,626
Sources: aACS 2015, U.S. Census Bureau. bSolar Jobs Map 2015, The Solar Foundation. c Statista 2015.
Summary of Results To sum up, the override of Governor Hogan’s veto of the Clean Energy Jobs Act was influenced by various components—the divided government, actors, and Maryland’s economy. The divided government of a Republican governor and Democrat controlled legislature set a political climate in which the governor is more likely to issue more vetoes. Maryland’s state government setup also contributed to the clash between House Delegate Frick and Governor Hogan. These actors revealed their divergent political ideologies and approaches in striving to reach the shared goal of the state’s economic well-being. In doing so, they progressed debates about economic implications and pushed for major political actions (such as the initial passage of the bill, the veto, and the veto override) to occur. The Maryland Climate Coalition took on the
23 role of mobilizing the power of the public and grassroots organization in order to promote the Clean Energy Jobs Act. The importance of the economy in influencing these political actions is apparent- the addition of economic provisions to the 2015 Clean Energy Advancement Act led to the success of the 2016 Clean Energy Jobs Act. Furthermore, Maryland’s high ranking economic indicators suggests that the state had a higher probability of adopting an RPS, contributing to the widespread support for raising the goal for renewable energy use.
CONCLUSION Limitations & future research A limitation of this research was its narrow scope of subject- it addresses a single case within a single state, the like of which has not occurred elsewhere. This research raises questions of comparisons to other states: what are the characteristics of the Clean Energy Jobs Bill that are similar or different to those of other states? Have there been similar struggles in green energy legislation, and if so, how do actors and economic conditions factor in those cases? Another limitation lies in the focus on just three actors- due to the time constraint of this research, I decided to investigate what I considered to be the key three constituents. Other potentially important actors may have been left out, for example, utility companies and other environmental nonprofit organizations. These groups, and more, could be included in future research of this case. Furthermore, research could be conducted in investigating RPS legislation in other political settings- since the existence of a divided government was a significant factor for the veto override battle in Maryland, it would prove interesting to examine legislative battles in nondivided governments, or split legislatures. Another area of potential research is in the
24 characteristics of a state that are associated with the longevity or renewal of a RPS- much of the literature found revolved around initial RPS adoption and related state characteristics, but very few mentioned continuation or changes in RPS. This course of study would have significant influence in understanding what kind of states actively revise and enforce their RPS.
Policy implications Nevertheless, the success of the Clean Energy Jobs Act in Maryland suggests that the bill’s characteristics could have implications for green energy legislation in the future. Policymakers might consider the integration of economic provisions that facilitate an increased goal in renewable energy, modeled after the major revisions made to the Maryland Clean Energy Advancement Act of 2015. The addition of funding for job training, career advancement within the clean energy industry, and financial assistance for small businesses to achieve the new RPS were a few of the aspects in the revised bill, which led to a dramatic increase in legislative support and signaled a turnaround point in the bill’s success. Provisions like these would not only raise approval of the public and legislature, but would also greatly aid the implementation of a heightened renewable energy target.
25 REFERENCES Barbose, G. (2016, April). US Renewables Portfolio Standards 2016 Annual Report. In Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Retrieved March 5, 2017. Bebon, J. (2016, November 10). Md. Coalition Makes Push for Veto Override of Renewables Bill. Solar Industry. Berry, T., & Jaccard, M. (2001). The renewable portfolio standard: design considerations and an implementation survey. Energy Policy, 29(4), 263-277. Coley, J. S., & Hess, D. J. (2012). Green energy laws and Republican legislators in the United States. Energy Policy, 48, 576-583. Doblinger, C., & Soppe, B. (2013, October). Change-actors in the U.S. electric energy system: The role of environmental groups in utility adoption and diffusion of wind power. Energy Policy, 61, 274-284. Eastin, L. J. (2014). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States. The Electricity Journal, 27(7), 126-137. (2016). In General Assembly of Maryland. Retrieved April 25, 2017. Governor's Report Card (2016). In Maryland League of Conservation Voters. Retrieved April 25, 2017. Hess, D. J., Mai, Q. D., & Brown, K. P. (2016, January). Red states, green laws: Ideology and renewable energy legislation in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 19-28. Hirji, Z. (2017, February 2). Maryland to Get 25% of Electricity from Renewables, Overriding Governor Veto. Inside Climate News.
26 Hogan, Lawrence J., Jr. “Veto Letter.” Letter to Michael E. Busch. 27 May 2016. General Assembly of Maryland. N.p., n.d. Web. Holt, L., & Galligan, M. (2013). States’ RPS Policies: Serving the Public Interest? The Electricity Journal, 26(10), 16-23. Klarner, C. E., & Karch, A. (2008). Why Do Governors Issue Vetoes? The Impact of Individual and Institutional Influences. Political Research Quarterly, 61(4), 574-584. Kuckro, R. (2017, January 6). Lawmakers poised to override energy bill veto. Energywire. Lang, R. (2017, January 31). Delegates Vote To Override Hogan's Renewable Energy Veto. In WBAL 1090. Retrieved April 25, 2017 Maloney, P. (2017, January 6). Maryland Gov. Hogan rolls out $65M environmental plan. Utility Dive. Retrieved 1 April 2017. Maryland Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2016 (2016). In Maryland Climate Coalition. Retrieved April 25, 2017. (n.d.). In Maryland Climate Coalition. Retrieved April 25, 2017. Maryland. General Assembly. Fiscal and Policy Note, HB377. 2015 Regular Session. (2015). Maryland General Assembly. Maryland. General Assembly. House Bill 1106: An Act concerning Clean Energy JobsRenewable Energy Portfolio Standard Revisions. 2016 Regular Session. (2016, February 11). Maryland General Assembly. Menz, F. C. (2005). Green electricity policies in the United States: case study. Energy Policy, 33(18), 2398-2410. OpinionWorks. (2017, February). Maryland Voter Poll on Climate Issues.
27 Proposed Bill Aims to Double Maryland’s RPS by 2025. (2015, February 26). In SREC Trade. Retrieved April 1, 2017. Rafalson, S. (2016, March 8). Will the Clean Energy Jobs Bill Stabilize the Maryland Solar Market? SolSystems. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2014). In EPA. Retrieved March 8, 2017. Trabish, H. K. (2016, May 10). It's the economy: Maryland RPS debate illustrates national divide on clean energy policy. Retrieved March 12, 2017. Upton, G. B., & Snyder, B. F. (2015). Renewable energy potential and adoption of renewable portfolio standards. Utilities Policy, 36, 67-70. Wiggins, O., & Hicks, J. (2017, May 26). Hogan vetoes six bills, setting stage for another override battle. The Washington Post. 2017 State & Legislative Partisan Composition. (2017, March 1). In National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved April 2, 2017.