[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6336853,"mediaKeyId","2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2","parentId",2277499,"title","House rejects amendment to require private funding for data-center impact study","audioSeconds",687,"startMs",2953000,"endMs",3640000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2&start=2953&end=3640","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2/thumbnail_2953000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6336853/Maryland/House-rejects-amendment-to-require-private-funding-for-data-center-impact-study","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6336853-35f48d7cb1844129712971404b62030b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197834&Signature=Zy11EFXu-M9cNy2nUicxlJ5kKe3Pi910Lvll3Nnt6-F2QRs-MYzD9f2IFi6ks9gqiP3Ls9cKYXeYHcjCn3pLEnq3umDhva1EuO9KXyzkMX0EoTHk88Bbt9nmtpLqYLVZXzi4knAR68VQxDexeWrXfniP4syAqxtQwaZD9pJr60fLFe-fbn8DFKlfvdVTlfsCsfLC8w2g-jfq-xvikLcroxtmUIx~7wIC0HCywqS-3rkjauXCwyjuzjk1khecePr74WIqPgFUNGK251nWnz1K8YSy-5MhPK6XRKcC2itb-jGSYIEEYYfoNoGQc6oxBgHiqEPByonbIoBZtHjg5kGlAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland Legislature","date","2025-02-12T00:00:00Z","article","House members considered a proposal to make the state's planned data-center impact analysis contingent on funding from private industry. The study, referenced in the floor language as having an estimated fiscal note of more than $500,000, would examine energy, water and other impacts from data centers.

A delegate who offered the amendment said taxpayers should not shoulder planning costs for private industry and asked that the study and report be funded by the data-center companies. \"We shouldn't put this on the backs of taxpayers,\" the sponsor said, asking the House to make the study contingent on private funding.

The bill sponsor and committee chair urged rejection of the amendment. Opponents argued a privately funded study would be biased in favor of industry and that the legislature could not constitutionally force private entities to pay for a state study. The committee chair also emphasized the state's need to assess energy and water-demand impacts neutrally, noting concerns about transmission capacity, cooling water, and long-range forecasting for chip energy use.

Another delegate pressed the point that developers typically pay for traffic or infrastructure studies, saying local governments often require such studies as part of development review; that speaker urged industry funding to avoid exposing taxpayers to potential bad investments.

After floor debate, the clerk recorded a roll-call on the amendment with the clerk reporting \"There being 92 votes in the negative, the amendment fails.\" The underlying bill (Council Bill 270) as amended retained state funding for the study and was ordered printed for third reading.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session, 2/12/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Delegates debated whether a legislatively-mandated study of data-center impacts should be contingent on private industry funding. An amendment making the study contingent on industry payment was defeated after members raised concerns about bias, constitutional authority and the study's fiscal note.","taxTitle","HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15055,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6336854,"House amends consumer-protection bill to remove criminal penalties, clarifies return/shipping rules",341,2459000,2800000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2&start=2459&end=2800","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2/thumbnail_2459000.jpg","/articles/6336854/Maryland/House-amends-consumer-protection-bill-to-remove-criminal-penalties-clarifies-returnshipping-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6336854-9579582324f335286090f51307500ed3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197834&Signature=WxUBsc7rmAUKcZwK9vYmiPc78PMYhDEkaZRKJTkxIHKgUhosqgDwRE6wkb5qur3WFKoQ2tuV8PNxbHiL05nGf02T5h~QNyMkeqcgbnfaMtMZORCapxJxqik2oSGrYfdu-5VxiuRpb-jVkNAa2gwki8K~sawI8hmEAlEv8nVf7JYjB9LymviFCz8Vc1hO7PsuEP9RGLNaD6SrMJ-ZUJzPwuWq6zEjsFDBIbV2~bnfFg50y6YlzZGEVUqQzABIP3tE~MGIYofJjoW3LrXm4o-wVGjA5lwpfdEkFXAc-BW2Y1aN6Ca7iBzkYc2dSm7YO4gr0pPXFhNqFyWTWqQ1Beav6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House members considered House Bill 194, described on the floor as concerning consumer protections for veil sales and reimbursement of shipping costs. During floor consideration, delegates debated penalty provisions and the mechanics of reimbursement for returned goods.

The sponsor and other members raised concerns that the bill's original penalties were too severe. The floor leader offered and moved an amendment to strike criminal penalties from the bill and to revise the text to remove criminal sanction language; that amendment was adopted after a voice vote, with the chair explaining the change would remove criminal penalties from the legislation.

A separate amendment offered by another delegate was described as a friendly amendment that clarified the process by which a retail establishment or shipper effectuate return shipping and reimbursement. The amendment tightened language to require that reimbursement apply when the return was due to fault or mistake by the retailer or shipper and refined timeframes for returns. The floor accepted the amendment as friendly and it was adopted.

Sponsors said the combined changes reflect committee discussions about proportional penalties and the need for clearer standards when retailers or shippers are responsible for returns. With the criminal-penalty provision removed and the clarified fault/timeframe language added, the bill was ordered printed for third reading as amended.","Delegates amended House Bill 194 (consumer protection: veil sales and reimbursement) to remove criminal penalties and to clarify when retailers or shippers must reimburse shipping costs. The floor adopted an amendment striking criminal penalties and later accepted a friendly amendment tightening retailer-fault language.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6336859,"House declines amendments to clarify court awards of late fees in residential leases bill",681,1774000,2455000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2&start=1774&end=2455","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2/thumbnail_1774000.jpg","/articles/6336859/Maryland/House-declines-amendments-to-clarify-court-awards-of-late-fees-in-residential-leases-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6336859-43d34dcc96013a982ae636bac294bcc0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197834&Signature=Yej3DmAxPVJvvZeBwZ~07ZsYlvusx-Cx1ud8tVQEERYtfN6Y9LMQqS4oJX9n6p-R5jircXQM6hiYyv1ub3Tm4DcmiRTgz4xG~mlbACAUKQeNxbFIckPyRkY7PbSTjMq38OcPPXOOaDAiz-x3bmLfv2WGqlQoIcDZkCYC98Pscw4iblmjDBGtb9MqR3DadwpZE3ubUS77glx7Zp4zhlExtOKXpx6dv-vJk3fgBfjrns5uB7mrHwG35FyO--0gQoq~~WFJs7BnUW8bPc2XUNhwvFR~kbAhJbT2GAUWT57UaZa9dl77rdoL5v3PFRF06THWwm05ICBdELxvLgyV2Bgw0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members discussed House Bill 273, a bill described on the floor as clarifying how late payment penalties for residential leases are calculated and enforced. Debate concentrated on whether courts should be required to award contractually agreed late fees and on the statutory language in Real Property Article \u00167-401.

A delegate offered an amendment arguing judges should not be allowed to award contract late fees in specified circumstances and read portions of Real Property Article \u00167-401 into the record, saying that courts currently \"may\" give judgment for late fees and that the amendment would change judicial discretion to ensure consistency with legislative intent. The sponsor summarized the tenant-landlord timeline: notice, 10-day cure period, filing, and the potential for a judgment weeks later.

The committee chair opposed the amendment, calling the bill a clarifying measure about \"unpaid\" rent and warning the amendment would inappropriately involve judicial procedures and remove discretion from courts. The chair noted that current court forms already allow judges to consider late fees and that discretion rests with the judiciary.

The sponsor replied that when courts do not award late fees, tenants sometimes refuse to pay late fees going forward, complicating landlord-tenant relations. After floor debate, the clerk recorded a roll-call: \"There being 92 votes in the negative, the amendment fails.\" A subsequent one-word insertion amendment to add the word \"tenant\" to the bill likewise failed on roll call.

With no additional amendments adopted, the bill was ordered printed for third reading. The transcript records the legal reference to Real Property Article \u00167-401 and multiple floor explanations of courtroom timing (a 10-day notice and multi-week court process) as context for the proposed changes.","Delegates debated amendments to House Bill 273, which clarifies calculation of late-payment penalties in residential leases and references Real Property Article 8-401. Two floor amendments seeking to restrict judicial awards or add tenant-specific language were rejected; the bill was ordered printed for third reading.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6336864,"House rejects amendment to expand parental opt-outs from health curriculum topics",1433,302000,1735000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2&start=302&end=1735","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2277499-b8f0196a6bf41abf3a3df923ef940bb2/thumbnail_302000.jpg","/articles/6336864/Maryland/House-rejects-amendment-to-expand-parental-opt-outs-from-health-curriculum-topics","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6336864-68cebf63a82e8883c9c809c5bc60a5d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197834&Signature=KGdNya2fdFNVPmQhvo8oD3-3VPxuXj0Lj6drQTsmX-TmA2Frf4SAy3ivARKfqJUhZ9iyNA2wD5bfCBtW9LyAVL-BC5tiQh1z7Se4ftyLCT~YKh3Zx88FkfYm73sgYLsHxBOyARe0uzjF66NpoEGqsx5gVmaQ8yoNfYmssntkqmLgITe2P2fal-YjQNVTMA85PCZfoLzjwGhFQ1sI5DFRQkUaAi3AmbgCFX7hiyJhAjFuNnclFeOqIFHShgf8VpTmncA3PdTqD97c-1AW52kFwtgtN-21cXjkbOF3UcdZwYrI8nL7XGrMJlkehTCAHxSbq9Ip-sKotS63GUZl5QBhAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A delegate from Carroll County offered an amendment to House Bill 161, which implements the Maryland Comprehensive Health Education Framework, to allow parents to opt their children out of both family life and lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation. The amendment was rejected by the House after extended floor debate and a roll-call vote that left the amendment defeated.

The amendment sponsor, identified in the record as the gentlewoman from Carroll County (amendment sponsor), said the change would let jurisdictions follow local family-life advisory council policies and avoid forcing students to miss other classes: \"rather than parsing out both sections of the bill, we would like to be able to continue to follow what we have decided in Carroll County.\" She cited local opt-in rates that, she said, showed most parents stayed with the state curriculum in her district: \"In elementary school it was 50/50. In middle school, 59% stayed with the state curriculum, and in high school, 65%.\"

The chair of the committee that handled the bill urged colleagues to reject the amendment, saying the Maryland State Department of Education and representatives from every jurisdiction developed the framework to ensure inclusion and student safety: \"We keep kids safe by teaching them what is medically and scientifically correct,\" the committee chair said, arguing that removing instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity would amount to erasing students.

A delegate from Frederick spoke in opposition to the amendment and described personal experiences of harassment and safety concerns, saying, \"To say that we can opt out of sexual orientation and gender identity would inherently frustrate the entirety of the health education curriculum... How would we ever teach anything?\" Several other delegates spoke both for and against the amendment, raising questions about which lessons allow opt-outs (for example, the record shows certain HIV/AIDS instruction cannot be opted out of) and citing differing local practices.

A member of the floor asked the sponsor about the availability of statewide data on LGBTQ youth safety; the sponsor did not have the numbers on hand during questioning. Another delegate noted recent litigation, saying a 2023 federal district court decision in Montgomery County and a Fourth Circuit ruling addressed parental opt-out rights; according to remarks on the floor, that matter is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Speakers on both sides referenced court precedent when arguing about parental rights and school obligations.

After debate, the House proceeded to a roll-call on the adoption of the amendment. The clerk recorded that \"There being 92 votes in the negative, the amendment fails.\" With no further successful amendments, the bill was ordered printed for third reading.

The record shows this debate occurred during consideration of House Bill 161 (primary and secondary education: comprehensive health education framework). The transcript records substantive exchanges about local control, parental opt-outs, court precedent, and student safety; it does not record a final vote on the underlying bill at this session.

Looking ahead, the bill will appear for third reading on a future floor calendar, and any further amendments or votes will be reflected in later session records.","Delegates debated an amendment to allow parents to opt students out of lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation in Maryland's comprehensive health education framework. The amendment, offered by a delegate from Carroll County, failed on a roll call after extended debate about student safety, parental rights and court precedent.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House rejects amendment to require private funding for data-center impact study

House amends consumer-protection bill to remove criminal penalties, clarifies return/shipping rules

House declines amendments to clarify court awards of late fees in residential leases bill

House rejects amendment to expand parental opt-outs from health curriculum topics