[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6635374,"mediaKeyId","2640511-38cc73640e380be9ef0d79f092e524f7","parentId",2640511,"title","Votes at a glance: Economic Matters Committee advances multiple consumer, business and energy bills","audioSeconds",336,"startMs",143000,"endMs",479000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640511-38cc73640e380be9ef0d79f092e524f7&start=143&end=479","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640511-38cc73640e380be9ef0d79f092e524f7/thumbnail_143000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6635374/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Economic-Matters-Committee-advances-multiple-consumer-business-and-energy-bills","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635374-4eb53bd9b6ca948944352ddc97aa096d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171863&Signature=DNThzOwNlMyukUK9ki-7K0BEOhh89gCisJ08bLsiZ5X3ARkNE31YtACoS8L6C~GNZYbCr2sMj6rJLIio07h~tWLvEbA0L8sCvyk8gthaNTdjLtF55hOp18W0gCZ3pSXQ~7IqLfDS3aeoB5ssb3voCK25q9MRmTlkgPsHBwoTsCRmbHS-AyigN583YqRf7RWVinVqjwdPZyt5LLFojqNy9SlRfmISTG-rE6n1LM9DBi9mVN7KucIMm~KEZJNfy-RpsBrxotb1VUqAlvn~wqbEF1eBkZmb8NaGHjBhmI-XN4qhSnlPL3bl0nMnEXgmdKKcns~a9cmu45wFjkFCBb6r0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Economic Matters","date","2025-03-14T23:46:44.287Z","article","The Economic Matters Committee considered a slate of bills and moved multiple measures as amended. Several bills were discussed only briefly or passed after amendment votes; the committee adopted changes and voted to advance the measures listed below.

Key items moved by the committee (summary of action taken):

- House Bill 332 — Electronic Fund Transfer protections: Committee counsel clarified that the bill addresses unauthorized transfers under the EFTA framework, limiting consumer liability for unauthorized transfers to $50 if reported within two business days and up to $500 if reported within 60 days; after 60 days consumers may be fully liable. The bill, as framed in committee, aims to place state‑chartered banks on parity with federally regulated banks for specified transfers; the committee moved the bill as amended.

- House Bill 577 — Comptroller enforcement of certain business license laws and stakeholder study: The committee adopted an amendment that requires the comptroller to consult stakeholders and study enforcement processes for miscellaneous state business licenses and moved the bill as amended.

- House Bill 992 — Franchise registration and disclosure: The committee adopted sponsor amendments to alter registration timing, exemption indexing and to require a pilot to expedite franchise registration renewals; the bill was moved as amended.

- House Bill 1046 — Mechanical repair contract consumer protections: The committee amended the bill to prohibit contract provisions that preclude coverage and to bar denial of claims for issues identified in technical service bulletins; the measure was moved as amended following a roll call.

- House Bill 1106 — Registration of travel sellers: The committee adopted amendments to transfer certain responsibilities to the Department of Labor, set fee‑setting by regulation, require specified insurance, and remove criminal penalties; the committee moved the bill as amended.

- House Bill 1111 — Floating solar eligibility for Small Solar Incentive Program: The committee expanded eligibility to floating solar systems on non‑navigable waters between 20 kW and 5 MW and amended the bill to leave tax‑exemption decisions for floating systems to individual counties and Baltimore City; the bill was moved as amended.

- House Bill 1273 — Customer‑sited solar program and use of certain funds: The committee moved an amended bill that expands allowable uses of certain funds to include building and transportation electrification, clarifies low‑ and moderate‑income definitions and adjusts reporting requirements.

- House Bill 1419 — DRIVE Act technical amendments: The committee adopted three technical amendments to the Distributed Renewable Integration and Vehicle Electrification (DRIVE) Act pilot program and moved the bill as amended.

Roll‑call tallies where recorded in the transcript (committee reading):
- HB 332: recorded yeas and nays during the committee roll call; transcript lines show a series of “Aye/Yes” and “No” responses leading to the bill being moved as amended. (Transcript shows approximately 16 yeas and 4 nos on the committee roll call sequence.)

- HB 577: committee roll call recorded; transcript shows approximately 16 yeas and 4 nos and the measure was moved as amended.

Several other bills were moved as amended with no extended debate recorded in the transcript; where a recorded roll call took place, the committee’s clerk read member responses and the chair announced the motion carried.

Why it matters: Together the bills cover consumer protections, business‑license enforcement, energy program adjustments and technical fixes that affect permitting, incentive eligibility and regulatory processes. Several amendments were designed to narrow language, enable agency rulemaking or add consumer protections such as rescission periods and insurance requirements.

Next steps: Each bill moved from committee will proceed to the next stage of the Legislature’s process or to floor scheduling; members and staff noted follow‑up items for agencies (PSC, Department of Labor, Comptroller) to implement or interpret statutory changes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ECM Committee Session, 3/14/2025 #2","oneSentenceSummary","The Economic Matters Committee moved a package of consumer, business and energy bills as amended, advancing measures ranging from EFTA‑style unauthorized transfer protections to changes in CPCN transparency and modifications to state incentive and registry programs.","taxTitle","Economic Matters Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15059,"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},6635379,"Panel approves ban on in‑person solicitation of disaster victims for 48 hours; members debate impacts on genuine helpers",338,2580000,2918000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640511-38cc73640e380be9ef0d79f092e524f7&start=2580&end=2918","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640511-38cc73640e380be9ef0d79f092e524f7/thumbnail_2580000.jpg","/articles/6635379/Maryland/Panel-approves-ban-on-inperson-solicitation-of-disaster-victims-for-48-hours-members-debate-impacts-on-genuine-helpers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635379-443c2d395cfff6e4ba400ef22a209dac/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171863&Signature=XK9vco4PHqBgpixXShsInc2DlM-RRGulhPEbsq1rDHfkFRPfZGloLG7E7Mrnwo58DvZ1eh1hI7c39g6~NBjSXIOrj9dgNB3k9kXuKF-QX8crzgV4KJZDWcL0TnevMEPJNK6Cex2kjgboyf7uS~8XGV2ebouuc~q6utkeo2gbxGcxjSYKkYX0YynDXAICgHnTaXeMVTBnmp6hxofklHa7cWAqmVXff8STCjzoTzztOQ2c4CvQCAzdkt1Uwj7CnGk6OIKYoXFUgJzpBp-FVBTeJTH6bQt7mv5mjVJepkXhVwzWw0BAZ4UBUoISkBN90grv5EDeS3CieEjokSovwd0bZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Economic Matters Committee voted to move House Bill 1348 as amended, a measure that prohibits a contractor or a person acting on a contractor’s behalf from soliciting or attempting to solicit a disaster victim in person within 48 hours after the disaster and within 500 feet of the incident or the victim’s property. The packeted amendments add a five‑day right of rescission, require notice of the rescission right, limit penalties an owner might owe after rescission and alter definitions to align with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission.

Sponsor and supporters said the bill targets predatory actors who approach victims while they are vulnerable. “We don't want that. There's no reason you should be approaching someone while their house is on fire and they're holding their items to give them a card to try and sell them services,” one committee member said during debate, describing testimony that merchants and contractors had approached people at scenes of active fires or immediate disaster.

Committee members pressed on practical implications. Several members asked whether the prohibition would bar legitimate, good‑faith actors who might try to provide immediate help or services; legal counsel and a sponsor’s representative explained that the text distinguishes solicitation from provision of emergency services. Under the amendment, actions such as rescue or immediate life‑saving assistance are not considered solicitation; the prohibition targets in‑person sales pitches and pressure tactics. The sponsor also said contractors may still advertise by phone, email or leave flyers; the statute focuses on in‑person sales contact near an incident.

Members raised specific concerns about seniors and residents without telecommunications access: in some catastrophic disasters, phones and infrastructure are down and in‑person contacts may be the only way victims seek help. One delegate suggested making the measure enabling legislation for local governments rather than a statewide ban so counties and municipalities could tailor responses for local conditions.

Enforcement: Committee counsel said a violation would be an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act and subject to remedies available under that law. The amendment’s five‑day rescission period was described as a consumer‑protection tool to allow victims to undo rushed contracts entered under stress.

Outcome: The committee moved the bill as amended. Supporters said the measure protects vulnerable residents from high‑pressure, predatory sales after disasters; critics argued the 48‑hour, 500‑foot in‑person restriction could inadvertently prevent helpful, legitimate assistance in some settings.

Why it matters: The bill addresses recurring testimony about price‑gouging and high‑pressure repair contracts after fires, floods and storms. The balance between victim protection and access to legitimate emergency help was the central tension in committee comments.

Next steps: The measure was moved out of committee as amended and will proceed to the next legislative stage for consideration.","The Economic Matters Committee voted to move House Bill 1348 as amended; the bill bars in‑person solicitation of disaster victims within 48 hours and within 500 feet of the incident and creates a five‑day rescission right for certain contracts.",{"_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},6635384,"Committee advances transmission‑line permitting bill after debate over routes, local impacts and federal preemption",790,771000,1561000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2640511-38cc73640e380be9ef0d79f092e524f7&start=771&end=1561","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2640511-38cc73640e380be9ef0d79f092e524f7/thumbnail_771000.jpg","/articles/6635384/Maryland/Committee-advances-transmissionline-permitting-bill-after-debate-over-routes-local-impacts-and-federal-preemption","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635384-471cbe57bc44156635cfe4104514a399/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171863&Signature=THnL6N~IyxrmC4FqMDbvXL~YFqxLHvfuHhWN8wXYvvEGwXav2konkFQJ07JxYD9cQJlbT7Br2w7eQQfP2Zt0BIuakFJUuI3TvQaJExU8VOoEuAa9zbhVihR6Zek8ZOv~kUU63czFJWUOnM--nWm1YpesqhwzICCGFEBZXuohFqiujmNq-ObMPULXeR17hlOPekHAz-XagJaOg6NyaLWcYRE90lM2tzSJjBETND6osrchxBP-hxjKoRyHhtuYN4x6emHvtAp4CBrMsnxs5HJxnypnyqeF6Od7jrc9NVst0AbtASApePiOq6hto5YfQgZYoSk5DGvYoAwT1iCC-pwdLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Economic Matters Committee voted to move House Bill 829, as amended, after an extended debate over how the state should require applicants for certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to disclose alternatives, advanced technologies and potential impacts of proposed overhead transmission lines.

Supporters said the amended bill will force greater transparency in applicants’ planning by requiring evidence that alternatives were considered and by expanding items applicants must disclose, including advanced transmission technologies and whether technologies could delay or avoid future transmission or generation upgrades. “This forces transparency for the applicant to have to disclose the PJM process that led to the approval and all of the alternatives that were considered at PJM,” a committee member said during the hearing.

The debate centered on how prescriptive the statute should be and whether listing particular land‑use categories—historic resources, agricultural easements or planned growth areas—would be appropriate. “The goal of the transmission bill and the alternatives and the way that I have written it, is to consider alternatives in any number of, types of locations,” Delegate Duane Sarkodian, the bill sponsor, said. Sarkodian argued the bill was written with input from the Attorney General and the Public Service Commission (PSC) to avoid federal preemption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Delegate Pippe proposed an amendment to require explicit consideration of impacts on historical, environmental and agricultural preservation areas and on proximity to planned growth and residential zones. “In Frederick County, the proposed NPRP project runs through 27 historical resources and Maryland Environmental Trust easement and several agricultural land preservation areas,” Pippe said, arguing the PSC and transmission owners should explicitly consider those impacts.

Sarkodian resisted adding a list of protected categories, saying doing so could be “dangerous” because it might pick winners and exclude other legitimate concerns such as environmental‑justice communities. He also said some language in Pippe’s amendment could raise questions about state jurisdiction where FERC has primacy. Legal staff and PSC representatives repeatedly emphasized the need to write the bill to preserve state authority where it exists while avoiding provisions that could be preempted in court.

As amended, the bill removes a requirement that an applicant provide a formal “analysis of alternatives,” and instead requires the application to include evidence that the applicant considered alternatives as part of its internal planning process, including local, state and federal planning processes and the PJM Interconnection planning processes. The amendment also changed a reporting cadence from every two years to every four years and authorized the PSC to modify the schedule.

Committee members raised practical questions about what qualifies as “evidence” and whether an applicant could satisfy the requirement by internal notes. Legal staff replied that the PSC would determine whether submitted materials met the statutory threshold and that the amended language is intended to require applicants to disclose the PJM planning process and the alternatives considered there.

The committee adopted a verbal amendment to add Delegate Pippe as a cosponsor, and members voted to move the bill as amended to the next stage of the legislative process.

Why it matters: The bill sets state‑level transparency requirements for transmission projects that proponents say are needed as the grid is expanded for new generation and large loads such as data centers. Opponents warned that overly prescriptive language or a list of protected site types could inadvertently undermine the PSC’s discretion or trigger preemption issues with FERC.

Next steps: The bill was moved as amended and will proceed from committee to the next floor or cross‑chamber stage as determined by committee leadership.","The Economic Matters Committee voted to move House Bill 829 as amended; members debated whether the bill requires meaningful consideration of alternative routes, impacts to historic and agricultural lands, and the limits of state authority where FERC and PJM have jurisdiction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Economic Matters Committee advances multiple consumer, business and energy bills

Panel approves ban on in‑person solicitation of disaster victims for 48 hours; members debate impacts on genuine helpers

Committee advances transmission‑line permitting bill after debate over routes, local impacts and federal preemption