By MDBayNews Staff
Annapolis, MD — A heated hearing in Annapolis on House Bill 120 (HB 120) revealed something unusual in Maryland politics: a growing two-party consensus on how to power the state’s booming data-center economy — and rising public concern about who pays the price.
While Republicans and Democrats continue to spar over climate rhetoric and regulation, testimony Tuesday showed both parties increasingly converging on the same practical solution for artificial-intelligence data centers: co-locating them with new natural-gas power plants or other large-scale energy facilities.
That overlap, critics argue, is fueling distrust among communities already wary of rapid data-center expansion.
A Moratorium Bill With a Catch
HB 120, sponsored by members of the House Freedom Caucus, proposes a pause on new data-center construction until the General Assembly adopts rules governing co-location with new gas plants, nuclear facilities, or small modular reactors.
Supporters describe the bill as a way to address grid reliability and energy demand. Opponents see it differently — not as a pause, but as a green light for new fossil-fuel infrastructure tied directly to AI growth.
The co-location concept mirrors policies already advanced by Democratic leadership. In 2024, Gov. Wes Moore signed legislation streamlining approval for large infrastructure projects, including data centers. In late 2025, Moore joined other Mid-Atlantic governors in urging PJM, the regional grid operator, to allow data-center developers to “bring their own power” — language widely interpreted as favoring on-site gas generation.
Different parties, different messaging — but increasingly similar outcomes.
Health, Equity, and Local Pushback
Environmental and community groups testifying at the hearing warned that co-location risks repeating patterns seen elsewhere in the region, where large data-center clusters have driven demand for nearby gas plants.
Researchers affiliated with Johns Hopkins University cited studies projecting thousands of additional asthma cases and premature deaths in communities located near dense data-center and power-generation corridors, particularly in Northern Virginia. Organizers from Prince George’s County, Baltimore County, Frederick, and Southern Maryland echoed those concerns, saying residents are mobilizing to stop data-center projects outright — not negotiate how they are powered.
The common theme: skepticism that economic benefits will outweigh environmental and public-health costs at the local level.
A Political Opening Outside the Two Parties
Green Party gubernatorial candidates Andy Ellis and Owen Silverman Andrews used the hearing to argue that HB 120 exposes what they call a “corporate consensus” between Republicans and Democrats — one that prioritizes AI growth and utility interests over community control and public health.
Their critique resonates with a broader strain of voter frustration in Maryland: that debates often focus on how to build infrastructure, not whether it should be built at all, or who bears its external costs.
From a center-right perspective, the tension is less about partisan ideology and more about accountability. Republicans emphasize energy reliability and market demand; Democrats emphasize regulation and climate goals. Yet both sides appear comfortable relying on the same utility-driven framework — leaving residents skeptical that anyone is truly representing local interests.
Why This Matters for Maryland Counties
For counties across Maryland, the data-center debate isn’t abstract — it directly affects land use, infrastructure costs, public health, and local control.
Land-Use Authority at Risk
Large data centers often require zoning changes, tax incentives, and expedited approvals. When paired with co-located power plants, counties may face pressure from the state to approve projects that conflict with local comprehensive plans or community opposition.
Infrastructure Costs Shift Downward
While developers promise jobs and tax revenue, counties frequently shoulder the burden of:
- Road expansions and heavy-truck damage
- Water and sewer upgrades
- Emergency services and fire suppression capacity
Those costs are rarely fully offset by developer contributions.
Public Health Becomes a Local Issue
Gas-powered generation tied to data centers concentrates emissions in specific areas. Counties — not the state — bear responsibility for asthma rates, hospital strain, and long-term health impacts, particularly in already overburdened communities.
Tax Base vs. Quality of Life Tradeoffs
Data centers generate property tax revenue but employ relatively few people. Counties must weigh whether short-term fiscal gains justify:
- Increased noise and heat output
- Visual and environmental impacts
- Reduced flexibility for future residential or mixed-use development
Uneven Distribution of Impact
Rural and exurban counties with available land — Frederick, Washington, Western Maryland counties, and parts of Southern Maryland — are especially vulnerable to becoming default locations for energy-intensive infrastructure serving regional or national tech demand.
Bottom Line
The fight over HB 120 highlights a core tension for counties: economic growth driven from Annapolis versus local decision-making on land, health, and long-term development. Regardless of party labels, county leaders may soon be forced to choose between accepting state-backed projects or pushing back against a system that limits their say.
A Larger Question for Maryland
The data-center fight is becoming a proxy for deeper questions about governance in Maryland:
- Who controls land-use decisions when statewide economic priorities clash with local health concerns?
- Can the state meet rising AI energy demand without locking itself into decades of new gas infrastructure?
- And why does meaningful debate so often happen only at the margins, rather than between the major parties?
As data-center proposals continue to multiply, those questions are unlikely to fade. For now, HB 120 has done something rare in Annapolis — it has exposed just how narrow the distance between Maryland’s two dominant parties can be when powerful economic interests are involved.
Whether voters accept that consensus, or look elsewhere for alternatives, may shape the 2026 campaign more than either side expects.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Need background research, policy analysis, or legislative clarity?
MDBayNews offers independent research and legislative analysis services, including bill summaries, issue memos, district-level context, and fact-checked opposition research. This work is informational and non-advocacy in nature.
Independent · Confidential · Non-coordinated
Candidate Services | Legislative Services | Sponsored Profiles
Want more?
For deeper analysis, strategies, playbooks, deep dives, and more, subscribe to our premium newsletter, The Blue Heron.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.