• Maryland lawmakers are considering a bill that would impose a $13 per short ton fee on coal transported through the state. The goal is to reduce pollution from the energy source and fund asthma treatment programs. West Virginia officials oppose the legislation, claiming it unfairly targets out-of-state coal producers, as Maryland’s Port of Baltimore is the nation’s second-largest coal-exporting port.
• West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey argues the legislation violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, nearly doubles coal transport costs and allows Maryland lawmakers to “fill their coffers at the expense of hard-working Americans miles away.”
• West Virginia has offered to work with Maryland on alternatives but warns that legal action will likely be pursued if the bill is not significantly revised.

---

Full Story

A proposed coal fee in Maryland faces opposition from officials in neighboring West Virginia, one of the nation’s largest exporters of this energy source. Maryland lawmakers are currently considering the Coal Dust Cleanup and Asthma Remediation Act, which would charge out-of-state coal producers $13 per short ton of the fossil fuel transported through the state.

What are the arguments for and against this coal fee?

Maryland would use revenue generated through the legislation to address pollution caused by coal dust, including funding for asthma treatment in affected communities. Meanwhile, West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey has suggested the bill may violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting states from enacting laws that unduly restrict or discriminate against interstate trade.

McCuskey claims the fee would “nearly double the cost of sending coal to or through Maryland” and argues that states should not “fill their coffers at the expense of hard-working Americans miles away.”

In a letter urging Maryland’s legislative leaders to table the bill, McCuskey wrote, “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 U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2023, West Virginia was the second-largest coal-producing state in the country, while Maryland ranked 16th. However, Maryland is home to the Port of Baltimore, the nation’s second-largest coal-exporting port, making it a key transit hub for coal shipments from West Virginia and other states.

A 2024 study by Johns Hopkins University found measurable amounts of coal dust pollution affecting communities nearly a mile from the port, which impacted schools, playgrounds and residential areas. Funds from the fee would be used to mitigate environmental and public health concerns to help address the problem.

How will this impact West Virginia?

While McCuskey says West Virginia “supports Maryland’s efforts to solve its internal problems,” he argues that only 2% of the funds created by the fee would actually go towards “programs related to asthma treatment for communities impacted by coal dust.” The rest, he alleges, would go to the state’s general fund.

The attorney general further asserts the Port of Baltimore’s importance to West Virginia’s coal exports, which make up over 50% of its total export product, will contribute to an increase in costs for his state of $182 million annually.

What happens next?

McCuskey has offered to collaborate with Maryland on alternative solutions to reduce the effects of coal pollution but warned that if the legislation proceeds without major changes, West Virginia may pursue 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 fight against a similar bill. We hope we will not be compelled to do the same as to Maryland. We would rather devote our time to working together to resolve the problems facing our region, including environmental concerns.”