For years, Maryland environmentalists have fought in vain to stop sending millions of dollars in green energy subsidies to facilities that generate energy by burning trash.

But this run of losses could end when the Maryland General Assembly reconvenes in January, as top state lawmakers seem to be aligning around a proposal that would rebrand trash incinerators so that they no longer count as renewable energy.

Senate President Bill Ferguson revealed last week he plans to sponsor legislation this session that would remove trash incinerators from a state program aimed at promoting green sources of energy. It’s a distinction Maryland incinerators first earned in 2011 as the state tried to boost a waste-burning facility planned for South Baltimore, putting these trash kilns in the same class as wind or solar power.

Legislation to change this arrangement has largely fizzled — a bill to reclassify incinerators was pulled last session without ever getting a vote — but the backing of one of the Senate’s top lawmakers could make for a new ballgame this time around.

In the crosshairs for many environmentalists is the WIN Waste incinerator that towers over I-95 south of downtown Baltimore. That facility, which burns trash from Baltimore and surrounding jurisdictions, produces 10% of citywide greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ferguson said he has heard more complaints about this issue from his constituents than just about any other issue, and his announcement was met with cheers in Baltimore’s environmentalist circles — particularly from front-line communities in South Baltimore who have fought for years to shutter the incinerator.

“It has always been about timing and when,” the Baltimore senator said in an interview, arguing that the moment has come for Maryland to stop subsidizing incinerators and start prioritizing “truly” green energy sources.

In part, that’s because the economics now provide companies like WIN Waste with a comfortable cushion, according to Ferguson. The costs of electricity on the local power grid have soared, and the Senate president, who this year took an executive job at a local solar power company, argued that these facilities don’t need the state’s help to stay afloat. He said cutting off these subsidies won’t sink WIN Waste’s business.

WIN Waste maintains that its incinerator gets a bad rap in Baltimore, pointing to a 2019 study it commissioned that found emissions from its facility have “negligible” impact on Baltimore air quality, and arguing for the benefits of burning garbage over amassing it in landfills. The company has pointed to close to $45 million it has invested in recent years into pollution controls and other upgrades.

A spokesperson for the company said “similar legislation has been introduced over the past several years,” but each time it has “undermined the Renewable Portfolio Standard program’s goal to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.” Waste-to-energy incinerators rely on an abundant resource ― garbage — to provide reliable, around-the-clock power, the company argued, an asset nowadays as demands on the electrical grid continue to grow.

But while WIN Waste may hope that this legislation fares similarly to proposals in years’ past, the senate president is no back-bench lawmaker, and he appears to be in agreement with his House of Delegates colleagues.

House Economic Matters Committee Chairman C.T. Wilson said he’s been eyeing 2025 as the year to reclassify trash incinerators since last session. For Wilson, a Charles County Democrat, the move is a necessary step in a broader strategy to pave way for more clean energy projects in Maryland.

Many land-intensive renewable energy developments, like solar farms, have gotten blocked in recent years by local governments. Legislation Wilson plans to introduce would allow the state to override those local decisions for the state’s highest tier of renewable energy sources, such as wind, but he said that approach becomes problematic if the ranking includes incinerators.

Though Wilson noted that Ferguson seems to be advocating for stripping incinerators of their green classification altogether, he said he and House colleagues have so far only discussed removing the facilities from that top tier in the renewable energy rankings.

Under that designation, incinerator operators have been reaping millions of dollars a year. According to one recent study backed by the group Clean Water Action, incinerators netted close to $100 million through the state program between 2012 and 2022.

Gov. Wes Moore has so far remained mostly quiet about whether he plans to support the policy change this session. A spokesperson for the governor said that the administration is “looking forward to working with the State Legislature, local leaders, and advocates on behalf of all Marylanders this upcoming session.”

Maryland imports much more energy in that it produces on its own, and WIN Waste argued this week that excluding its business from the clean energy program “requires Marylanders to subsidize out-of-state businesses” while ignoring the benefits its facility provides for diverting waste from landfills and cutting overall greenhouse gas emissions.

But to Del. Vaughn Stewart, the Montgomery County representative who has carried the unsuccessful incinerator legislation in recent sessions, the arrangement is a total “boondoggle.” For one, these companies don’t actually need the subsidies to survive.

“Even if you are not a tree-hugger like me, you should oppose this subsidy because it’s Marylanders handing over large sums of cash — millions of dollars — to companies that don’t need the cash,” Stewart said. “And the only thing that Marylanders get in return is toxic air.”

Stewart’s district, which runsfrom Four Corners to Laytonsville, includes Maryland’s other trash incinerator, and he called it “transformational” to have Ferguson in his camp.

Baltimore leaders have said for years that they want to transition the city away from its dependence on burning trash.

Though Mayor Brandon Scott promised before his 2020 mayoral election to end incineration at the WIN Waste facility, he supported a 10-year extension between the city and incinerator after securing the Democratic nomination for mayor. Under that agreement, the city is contracted to send trash to the incinerator until 2031.

Baltimore advocates escalated their push this summer to shutter the WIN Waste incinerator anyway, filing a complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency arguing that the city has violated federal civil rights law by failing to develop an adequate plan to end its reliance on the massive facility.

Federal environmental regulators have since agreed to investigate that complaint further, and advocates have celebrated the new show of support for their demands in recent days.

Among them is Shashawnda Campbell with the South Baltimore Community Land Trust. Campbell was part of a coalition of young advocates who successfully blocked the new incinerator project slated for her neighborhood more than a decade ago — the same facility that prompted lawmakers to shell out incentives for incinerators in the first place.

While South Baltimore communities defeated that development, Campbell said they’ve been stuck with a “toxic policy” that rewards the city’s biggest polluter, even as her family and friends in the area suffer from asthma.

“Thankfully, this will be the last legislative session we have to spend on this issue, which literally comes down to paying incinerators to cut our lives short,” she said. “I just wish it didn’t take almost 15 years for Maryland officials to correct this terrible mistake.”

Still, the elimination of green subsidies for trash incineration won’t necessarily mean an end to burning trash in South Baltimore.

While Ferguson said Maryland needs to to find a way to transition away from burning its waste, phasing out these incineration facilities is a more complex problem.

“That’s not something we’re going to be able to answer tomorrow,” he said.