This bill replaces Maine’s previous percentage-based RGGI decline schedule with fixed annual base carbon-dioxide emissions budgets beginning in 2027 and establishes a long-term, low annual budget from 2037 onward. It also repeals several statutory provisions that required the Department of Environmental Protection to establish categories and develop project protocols for carbon dioxide offset projects.
Those two changes tighten the state’s cap trajectory while narrowing compliance pathways. The cap reductions will directly reduce the number of allowances Maine may put into the RGGI auction and shift the balance between allowance scarcity and offset availability — with implications for regulated entities, auction revenues and developers of offset projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
Replaces the prior annual-percentage decline with fixed, year-specific base CO2 emission budgets for 2027–2037 and sets a permanent annual budget level for 2037 and later. The bill also repeals statutory requirements to create and develop carbon dioxide offset project categories and related protocols.
Who It Affects
Regulated RGGI sources in Maine (regulated power generators and large stationary sources), the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), participants in RGGI auctions, and developers and investors in carbon-offset projects that would have relied on state-established categories or protocols.
Why It Matters
Fixing allowance budgets through 2037 materially tightens the state cap compared with the prior trajectory and reduces the supply of auctionable allowances—this affects compliance costs and auction revenue forecasts. Removing statutory offset-development duties reduces program flexibility and eliminates a planned pathway for certain local mitigation projects to monetize emissions reductions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Starting in 2027 the bill replaces the previous percent-based glidepath with a sequence of explicit annual base carbon-dioxide emissions budgets. Rather than continuing a 2.5% annual decrease of the 2014 base through 2030, the statute now lists a specific tonnage for each year from 2027 through 2036 and fixes a single, lower annual budget for 2037 and every year after.
Those base budgets function as the statutory cap that determines how many allowances the State may auction as a RGGI participant.
Alongside the new allowance quantities, the bill removes statutory language that had required the DEP to establish and develop categories for carbon dioxide offset projects and to create protocols for those categories. By repealing those duties, the bill eliminates a legislatively mandated route for offset project recognition under state law.
That tightens the compliance toolkit available to regulated entities: fewer allowances in circulation and no state-required offset categories to provide alternative compliance credits.The bill also amends and trims the statutory provisions concerning the State’s relationship to RGGI governance. It revises the section that addresses withdrawal by the State and repeals a companion subsection that previously set out related procedures.
The net effect is a more compact statutory footprint for Maine’s RGGI participation: a clear, lower numeric cap schedule and fewer statutory duties around offsets and withdrawal mechanics.Practically, regulated entities and compliance managers will need to re-run allowance procurement and emissions-control plans against the new, lower budgets. Auction revenue estimates used in state budgeting will change because fewer allowances are statutorily available to auction; however, allowance prices could move in either direction depending on market responses to scarcity.
Developers planning to generate offset credits under state-established categories will lose a predictable statutory pathway and may need to seek alternative voluntary markets or other programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lists fixed annual base CO2 emissions budgets for 2027–2036, replacing the prior percentage-decline rule.
For 2037 and every subsequent year the statute sets a constant base annual carbon dioxide budget rather than continuing annual declines.
It repeals the statutory mandate that the DEP establish and develop carbon dioxide offset project categories and related protocols.
Because the base budgets directly constrain the number of allowances the State may auction, the bill reduces the statutory supply of auctionable RGGI allowances after 2026.
The bill removes a statutory subsection on withdrawal procedures, narrowing the written statutory framework around Maine’s participation mechanics in RGGI.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New fixed annual allowance schedule through 2037 and beyond
This section replaces the prior rule that the annual budget decline by 2.5% of the 2014 base each year through 2030 with an explicit list of tons for each year starting in 2027 and a fixed annual budget from 2037 onward. By putting numbers in statute the State locks the cap trajectory into specific annual allowance quantities rather than a percentage formula. For compliance officers that means a concrete cap to plan against; for auction administrators it defines the statutory ceiling on allowances Maine may introduce to the RGGI auctions.
Removes a statutory offset-development requirement
This repeal eliminates a clause that previously imposed an obligation related to offsets under the statute. The practical consequence is that the DEP no longer has the specific legislative duty, in this paragraph, to develop or maintain whatever offset-related action had been required there. When paired with other repeals in the bill, this creates a clearer statutory endpoint for Maine’s obligation to create offset categories or protocols.
Further elimination of offset or administrative duties
This repeal removes another paragraph previously tied to the statute’s treatment of offsets or related administrative rules. Taken together with Section 2, it strips multiple cross-references and duties that had supported a statutory offset regime, narrowing the available compliance mechanisms under state law and reducing prescriptive rulemaking requirements for DEP.
Edits withdrawal language
The bill amends the provision heading and short text concerning the State’s ability to withdraw from RGGI. While the printout shows a concise phrasing — focusing on the ‘ability of this State to withdraw’ — the key effect is to pare back or reframe the statutory language around withdrawal. That should be examined against existing RGGI governance documents and any cross-referenced rulemaking duties to understand whether the change is purely stylistic or creates a change in authority or process.
Removes a companion withdrawal-related subsection
This repeal eliminates the second subsection that previously accompanied the withdrawal provision. Removing a companion subsection can excise procedural detail or contingencies that had governed how withdrawal or related actions would proceed. The upshot is a leaner statutory framework on the topic of withdrawal — potentially increasing reliance on DEP rulemaking, RGGI documents or executive action to fill any procedural gaps.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Renewable energy developers that compete with fossil generation: A tighter allowance cap increases scarcity and may raise the market value of zero-carbon generation, improving project economics relative to fossil-fired resources.
- Climate and public-health advocates: The explicit, lower statutory budgets create a clearer legal basis for deeper emissions reductions in Maine, aligning statute with aggressive decarbonization outcomes they seek.
- DEP (regulatory clarity): With fixed numeric budgets in statute and fewer required offset rulemakings, DEP’s statutory obligations are narrower, which can simplify the agency’s immediate rulewriting workload and regulatory priorities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Regulated generators and utilities: Fewer allowances available for auction will tighten supply, likely increasing compliance costs for fossil generators and potentially passing costs to electricity consumers through rates.
- Developers of carbon-offset projects: By removing statutory duties to create offset categories and protocols, the bill eliminates a predictable, state-backed pathway for projects to earn compliance credits, reducing demand for state-recognized offsets.
- State budget planners and recipients of auction revenue: Lower statutory allowance supply alters auction revenue projections and could shrink funds available for programs that rely on RGGI proceeds unless higher allowance prices offset the supply reduction.
- DEP implementation staff: Although some statutory requirements are repealed, DEP must still update rules, guidance and auction mechanics to align with the new numeric budgets and altered statutory text, requiring staff time and potentially new rulemaking.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between locking in an aggressive, certain emissions cap (which accelerates decarbonization and regulatory clarity) and preserving flexibility (through percentage formulas or offset categories) that smooths economic impacts and adapts to changing market or technical conditions; the bill chooses a firm numeric path at the expense of compliance and fiscal flexibility.
The bill creates several implementation and policy tensions. First, converting a percentage glidepath to fixed annual numbers removes a mechanically self-updating decline tied to a base year; that gives certainty but also risks locking in a trajectory that may outpace or lag technological and economic developments.
Second, repeal of offset-development duties removes a compliance flexibility tool and a potential source of local project funding, but it also avoids the administrative burden and measurement challenges that offset programs typically bring. Third, the revisions to withdrawal language and elimination of a companion subsection narrow the statute’s written withdrawal framework; unless rules or intergovernmental agreements explicitly fill the gap, the change could generate ambiguity about process and authority.
From a market perspective, fewer statutory allowances can raise prices and revenue per allowance, but they also reduce the total volume of auction proceeds. That makes fiscal planning harder: if prices rise enough, revenues could hold steady or increase; if demand destruction reduces auction participation, revenues could fall.
Finally, the statute’s numeric specificity forces near-term planning decisions now into law rather than leaving them to adaptive rulemaking—this helps certainty but can limit the State’s ability to respond quickly to unforeseen market or reliability conditions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.