For years, Maryland has depended on importing vast amounts of electricity generated over state lines.

But as residents’ utility bills have skyrocketed and as the region faces forecasts for ballooning electricity demand in the years ahead, Maryland lawmakers have questioned the sustainability of this arrangement.

In a General Assembly session consumed by budget problems and federal cutbacks, state leaders also have obsessed over how to address mounting energy challenges. A package of bills pushed by the legislature’s Democratic leaders dealing with energy is expected to be considered before the session closes April 7.

The issues are myriad.

Residents of central and western Maryland are locked in a heated fight over plans for a new transmission line, which the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, has said is necessary to buttress a system facing increasing strain from data centers and rising electrification.

After a controversial delay, the huge Brandon Shores coal-fired power plant in Pasadena will go offline before the end of the decade, part of a wave of fossil fuel retirements in Maryland that PJM says risks causing blackouts as soon as 2027. In recent years, retirements of power plants have far outpaced new generation sources in Maryland.

“The bottom line is that the energy outlook in the state of Maryland is dire,” PJM director Jason Stanek, a former Maryland utility regulator, told lawmakers at a January briefing.

Democrats in the statehouse, though, have at points clashed with PJM, pointing the finger at the grid operator for a yearslong backlog of power sources waiting to get online.

“PJM generally is running around saying the sky is falling and suggesting we build new gas plants,” said Del. Lorig Charkoudian, one of the leading voices on climate and energy policy in Annapolis.

The grid operator might be playing Chicken Little in public hearings, but Charkoudian said PJM’s models don’t back up the panic.

There’s plenty of angst about the spikes Maryland households have seen on their utility bills, the Montgomery County Democrat said. But, she said, “utilities and fossil fuel interests have tried to harness that legitimate concern to say we need to fast-track gas plants.”

In a statement, PJM said it doesn’t have a position on any Annapolis legislation but doubled down on its warnings.

“The situation is real,” PJM spokesman Dan Lockwood said. “For the first time in recent history, we are faced with a real threat to maintaining a reliable grid as we move toward the end of this decade.”

According to PJM estimates, electricity demand across the grid, which stretches from New Jersey to Illinois, will grow by about 30,000 megawatts in the next five years even as 40,000 megawatts retire — leaving a huge gap in the power supply.

After years of criticism over the backlog of generation sources waiting to get online, PJM has taken steps recently to reform the queue, and Lockwood said 50,000 megawatts worth of power is approved and ready for construction.

Other state Democrats have decided that the times call for extraordinary measures.

Legislation introduced by Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Adrienne Jones in February, part of a package of energy bills backed by top Democrats, would roll back regulations and permitting steps to pave way for new power plants.

“We have to provide a path towards more Maryland-made energy, we need it cleaner that the energy we produce today and we need it now,” Ferguson said at a news conference announcing the bills.

The plan, though, has drawn criticism from environmental advocates who argue creating a fast-track for “dispatchable” power – energy that can be cranked on or off to meet demand – facilitates plants that burn natural gas, a fossil fuel that contributes to climate change.

The permitting reforms that survived negotiations and committee votes — and which will go before the full legislative body this week — were pared back significantly. If passed, the leadership bill would not speed approvals for natural gas and other “dispatchable” sources as quickly as first proposed but still includes curtailments to permitting steps.

Del. C.T. Wilson, chair of the House Economic Matters committee, argued at a February hearing that building new sources of power is important for making Maryland more energy independent, and also to give the state more leverage in dealings with the grid operator.

“Right now we are at their mercy,” Wilson said.

The Charles County Democrat argued that as dirtier fuel sources like coal and oil retire, the state needs to replace that output, even if it means facilitating a different fossil fuel.

The legislation would set up an expedited permitting process for up to 10 projects, though it requires regulators to approve four zero emissions sources for every one that contributes to climate change.

Casey Baker, a transmission industry analyst with the policy group GridLab, cautioned that trying to lure natural gas plants might not offer the quick-fix leaders are betting on. Supply chain crunches have created backlogs for key natural gas turbine components stretching five to seven years out, Baker said.

While climate hawks in the General Assembly don’t like the bill’s natural gas-friendly measures, they’re pleased about other elements added to the mix in recent weeks.

Among them, the energy plan would direct Maryland utility regulators to solicit a whopping 1,700 megawatts of battery storage for the grid — more than the output of Brandon Shores — provisions pulled from a bill introduced by Charkoudian and backed by climate advocates.

While today’s batteries can only bank electricity for a short time — typically a few hours — they increase the grid’s capacity at peak hours.

The leadership’s energy package also grants new nuclear reactors a ratepayer subsidy similar to one the state has used for offshore wind farms — part of a realignment among Maryland leaders on the role of nuclear power in the future grid.

Many of the energy sources Maryland leaders hope to add to the grid are likely years away, and lawmakers will consider several steps to rein in utility costs. Among them, lawmakers will consider $200 million in household energy rebates and reforms to two laws governing utility rate cases and their spending on natural gas pipelines.

Like Charkoudian, some climate and ratepayer advocates in Annapolis have questioned claims that the lights will go out if the state doesn’t build now.

They point to recent analysis by the Maryland Office of the People’s Counsel, a state-appointed ratepayer advocate, to support their skepticism.

Baltimore Gas and Electric is building new transmission lines, at a cost of $1.5 billion to ratepayers, to fill in gaps caused by the retirement of the Brandon Shores coal plant. According to the Office of the People’s Counsel, those new lines will allow the areas served by BGE and Pepco, which serves Washington, D.C., and its Maryland suburbs, to comfortably meet power demands on the hottest days of the year through at least 2029 “and beyond.”

Maryland has been a net importer of electricity for at least three decades, said People’s Counsel David Lapp, and state residents shouldn’t have to shoulder the costs and risks of new power plants to respond to new strain from data centers. The biggest data center hubs on the PJM grid are outside of Maryland in Northern Virginia and in Ohio.

Lockwood, the PJM spokesman, said the people’s counsel report applies to a confined area, but the whole grid needs new sources of electricity, not just new methods of transporting it.

Baker, the transmission researcher, said he understands Maryland leaders’s desire to take more control over energy needs. But he added that other states with aggressive climate goals have found ways to prioritize renewable energy while relying on imported electricity.

“Plenty of states, Maryland included, have been able to operate for decades by importing power most of the time,” Baker said.