West Virginia’s attorney general warned legislative leaders a lawsuit could be filed if a bill aiming to tax coal transports through Maryland passes the General Assembly this session.

The bill seeks to implement an additional $13 per short ton of coal transported through Maryland, which could generate up to $300 million annually, according to a fiscal analysis of the proposal.

Sen. Jim Roapepe, a Democrat representing Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties, sponsored the bill in the Senate. During a committee hearing, he described the plan as “a very simple bill” that would raise revenue at a time when Maryland needs it.

Opponents of the plan argue the additional tax could threaten exports from the Port of Baltimore, which is the second-largest coal export in the country. In 2023, 28 million short tons of coal went through the port.

John McCuskey, the attorney general for West Virginia, sent a letter to Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Adrienne Jones urging them to not let the bill move forward.

“The issues here are far too important to be playing politics,” McCuskey said during an interview with FOX45 News.

Citing constitutionality concerns surrounding the Commerce Clause — which regulates trade — McCuskey said the plan, if passed, would not see success during litigation.

But the issues are beyond constitutional concerns, McCuskey said; coal exports could be shipped elsewhere.

“I think the answer to that question is probably,” he said. “So, if what you really want is to slow the growth and slow the economic impact that West Virginia coal has on the Port of Baltimore,” McCuskey said. “Go ahead and tax it as much as you want.”

“There are other places where coal can be exported from. While second is a good place to be, it is not first,” McCuskey said.

Reducing coal exports from the Port of Baltimore could be devastating to the workers, Scott Cowan said. Cowan is the president of the ILA Local 333 and told lawmakers he has worked at the port since 1994.

“They call the Port of Baltimore the economic engine of the state and every engine needs maintenance and that’s dredging. It needs fuel. That’s cargo,” Cowen told lawmakers. “If we don’t have those things, the economic engine won’t run.”

Rosapepe said he has also heard concerns that federal funding the port receives for dredging may be at risk, “but that’s all theory,” he told lawmakers.

In the House, sponsor Del. Dana Stein, D-Baltimore County, told lawmakers the additional revenue would help the state meet its climate goals, and said he had an opinion from the attorney general indicating the bill was on sound legal grounds.

When asked for a copy of the opinion, Attorney General Anthony Brown’s Office told FOX45 News “we don’t have any publicly available advice.”

West Virginia has already filed a lawsuit against the state of New York over a pollution law that requires additional fees for environmental damage.

McCuskey argues New York’s law is an overstep, “based on their perception” that the environmental concerns of New York are other state’s problem.

“Which is interesting as the politicians in New York literally look down on us from the skyscrapers that we built,” McCuskey said.

With one lawsuit already underway, McCuskey said he’s hopeful lawmakers in Annapolis will be willing to work with him about putting the brakes on the proposal. But if not, McCuskey said he will take legal action.

“We don’t think it’s right and we don’t quite frankly think it’s constitutional for Maryland to be using this vehicle to balance their own budget,” he added.

The bill’s alternative name also deals with potential health impacts that uncovered coal can have on surrounding neighborhoods and communities.

As it stands now however, 2% of the total tax generated would go toward asthma remediation programs, which sparked some questions from lawmakers during hearings. Supporters of the plan argue though, other funding goes toward other programs that could help, like better insulation for windows.

Senate President Bill Ferguson said he’s personally supporting of the bill, “with the caveat that we are trying to evaluate the constitution issues”

“We’re considering it; it’s very much on the table,” Sen. Ferguson said Friday when asked. “We have to get some more guidance from our attorney general before I know for sure.”

He said he had no comment when asked to directly respond to McCuskey’s notion that he would sue the state if the legislation passed. Currently, both the House and Senate versions of the bill have yet to make it out of committee.

Have a news tip? Contact Mikenzie Frost at mbfrost@sbgtv.com.