[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6603628,"mediaKeyId","2999877-8c0f2255b4ae6afade1a297b0553605a","parentId",2999877,"title","County council creates 20‑member data‑center task force, widens scope of study","audioSeconds",3322,"startMs",993000,"endMs",4315000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2999877-8c0f2255b4ae6afade1a297b0553605a&start=993&end=4315","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2999877-8c0f2255b4ae6afade1a297b0553605a/thumbnail_993000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6603628/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/County-council-creates-20member-datacenter-task-force-widens-scope-of-study","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6603628-e3daf7afeeb01d8b2daa8fc480152d93/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141832&Signature=fNxf3fhXrj52wGrPC-f8ABibZIOpizYmJRjKscSMe8SDk8FJGRAlVaFHIHcRngnxHkFFFIv59sEEUfPRmg2~bKA2UcWXXSlO-bOpZIc3fqp-xrXeXYM2~vrcB4HFeT-kPn0rb0hoeLzK5MKoT0TWVIty6uyJDdjdwTWb8R8Il2wFXvZkxM3vngblWegAMeXBrhrZk-HgBmzquoPI1dpMw1zfxhqWnik-FB3UuuM5cHzeU8-OUFLYsuE5sAKgB~BUy22zIO8VJ0Fw5HsoCJRr-Q9uS3LsgfJoLgFpj0x~0lTFGe~LGFu76rtllmXwlMeybvkZlF~Px3LU2pp0Pfac-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George","date","2025-04-15T00:00:00Z","article","The County Council of Prince George’s County on April 15 adopted CR 16‑20‑25, creating a 20‑member Qualified Data Center Task Force and directing the Planning Department to deliver a report with recommendations by Nov. 30, 2025. The motion to substitute the committee draft and move draft 1 passed on a recorded vote; the council later approved an amendment that broadened the study’s scope and increased membership to 20. Both votes carried unanimously on recorded roll calls.

Why it matters: the county has seen rapid interest in data‑center development and council members and public speakers raised concerns about effects on the electric grid, ratepayers, emissions, groundwater and neighborhood quality. The motion sets a deadline and specific study topics and names two electric‑provider seats to ensure utility input in the analysis.

The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommended combining earlier related resolutions into CR 16 and delivered a revised draft to the full council. Council staff reported the task force will be staffed by the Planning Department and must file recommendations by Nov. 30, 2025. Council counsel and a sponsor described a package of amendments adopted on the floor that: (1) expanded the study’s required analyses to include impacts on local energy demand and county ratepayers, air/water/woodland quality and mitigation measures; (2) added quality‑of‑life measures such as viewscapes and open space impacts; (3) increased membership from 17 to 20; (4) specified one representative from Exelon and one from Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (SMECO) among the utility seats; (5) added two representatives from the labor community and one representative from the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel; and (6) moved appointment authority to the council chair, with the two designated co‑chairs to be selected from the appointees.

Public commenters who had spoken earlier in the meeting appeared in the council record and urged a broad and representative study. Dan Smith, introducing himself as “Dan Smith from Chevrolet,” told the council to consider the long‑term technology strategy and distinguish different kinds of data centers from nascent technologies such as quantum computing: “We could become the hub. The Silicon Valley of quantum computing,” he said, while also warning of near‑term pressures on electricity and forested land from some hyperscale centers. Educator Teresa Mitchell Dudley urged inclusion of Prince George’s County Public Schools and labor on the task force so the county’s career and technical programs would be part of any workforce planning; teacher Michelle Clark described classroom staffing shortages and said representatives of schools should be part of planning conversations. Another commenter, Greg Smith, recommended adding environmental, public‑health and ratepayer advocates and specifically urged representation from the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel. Council staff and the sponsor said those kinds of additions were reflected in the adopted amendments.

Council members debated whether the chair should appoint all members and whether two council‑appointed seats needed to be members of the council; the language adopted allows the chair to appoint members and designates the two council‑selected representatives as co‑chairs for the task force. The Planning Department will staff the group and prepare the report with recommendations back to the council by Nov. 30, 2025.

Action and next steps: the council substituted draft 2 for draft 1 and approved amendment 1 on the floor; recorded roll calls show the motions carried unanimously. The task force will proceed under the Planning Department and the council chair will appoint members, including named utility representatives and seats for labor and the Office of People’s Counsel. The council did not adopt any siting rules in this resolution; instead the task force will study siting criteria and recommend policies to the council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George - County Council - Public Hearing - WSSC Budget - Apr 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The County Council of Prince George’s County on April 15 adopted CR 16‑20‑25, creating a 20‑member Qualified Data Center Task Force and directing the Planning Department to deliver a report with recommendations by Nov. 30, 2025.","taxTitle","Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",3378,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6603619,"Council delays vote on $395.9M in multi‑year contracts, refers package to GOFP for review",193,4843000,5036000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2999877-8c0f2255b4ae6afade1a297b0553605a&start=4843&end=5036","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2999877-8c0f2255b4ae6afade1a297b0553605a/thumbnail_4843000.jpg","/articles/6603619/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-delays-vote-on-3959M-in-multiyear-contracts-refers-package-to-GOFP-for-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6603619-11b9f3dd375a946cb1a04138af6fa00c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141832&Signature=nsBx8mXZe3SJ53a-G5Ab48PZc-7yFhlWOxMETe3IoNsMdTqrzrfifx7fIciNmAzFIxLVd7TOzPBl0bXXjMu6BXB0nYqsFugv39Tfdl5cQpVFTdkIKx74fD~WpCKVCqY3uq8lBLFm47VVYLJqqOvtWF0SUH3qiqdQOhfjBB3XVeUXPBU47D0nDDBwxv62mf-uDiC4totVbUpvSPVSQ3qzjg2oLmZ6SpSSq694wSmBIOM2nQXtvZ83JJzV~4Oz6zgMh0jRe21XenyK5EshTrXm18QlsF1m4397KEUKrt09TFdGyLzGFCILr~B0FAFBz2a72ua1NA1Nbjr2p2VY1LN2CA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Facing questions about scale, term length and procurement details, the County Council on April 15 moved CR 44 — a contract‑approval resolution — out of Committee of the Whole and referred it to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy (GOFP) committee for further review. Budget and policy staff told the council the package lists 52 contracts with an estimated aggregate value of approximately $395,967,906 and an FY26 impact of roughly $101,700,000; one contract category (Department of Environment recycling contracts) lacked a completed total in the analysis presented to the council.

Councilmembers and staff pressed for answers about procurement process compliance, minority‑business (MBE) and local‑hiring subcontracting goals, waiver usage, and why the number and dollar value of this year’s contract package were markedly larger than prior years (the staff summary noted 9–10 multi‑year contracts in recent prior years). Budget staff reported that many contracts have long terms: 25 of the contracts run through 2030, one through 2031, two through 2032, and another through 2035; several others expire between 2026 and 2028. Staff warned that the terms could obligate future administrations.

Councilmembers asked whether attachments showed named vendors and whether those vendors were county‑based. The budget analysis included supplier names for many items (examples cited in committee included Acclaim, Community Bridge, Integrity National and Motorola). Staff did not confirm county location for those vendors in the committee discussion. Council members said they were concerned that large multi‑year obligations could lock in spending priorities and miss opportunities to direct work to county‑based or minority‑owned firms.

Budget and policy staff had submitted targeted procurement questions to the administration — including whether waivers to procurement rules had been or would be sought for procurements above $500,000; whether business‑preference rules were applied; whether disparity‑study MBE goals and subcontracting subgoals would apply; and whether local‑hiring provisions under section 10A‑169 were complied with. Staff reported that it had not yet received answers to those questions and recommended the council refer the package to GOFP for a deeper review. Council members in floor debate described the lack of timely procurement detail as problematic and said GOFP should examine subcontracting, MBE compliance and the fiscal exposure to future administrations. One council member described the pattern — approving large contract packages without sufficient local‑hiring or MBE clarity — as unlawful or worse, and urged a close review; others said the referral was necessary to give staff time to gather the missing information.

Action: the council discharged CR 44 from Committee of the Whole and referred the package to GOFP for detailed review. The referral passed on a recorded roll call. GOFP will receive the materials and is expected to request additional procurement and vendor information from the administration before bringing the matter back to the full council.","Council members on April 15 discharged CR 44 from Committee of the Whole and referred the multi‑year contract approval package to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy (GOFP) committee after staff identified 52 contracts with an estimated aggregate value of about $395,967,906 and a FY26 fiscal impact of roughly $101,700,000. Members raised",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":46,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6603623,"Council asks Maryland PSC to review rates, seeks moratorium on utility increases",363,4678000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2999877-8c0f2255b4ae6afade1a297b0553605a&start=4315&end=4678","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2999877-8c0f2255b4ae6afade1a297b0553605a/thumbnail_4315000.jpg","/articles/6603623/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-asks-Maryland-PSC-to-review-rates-seeks-moratorium-on-utility-increases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6603623-2c53cc6cf64e171a4441ec7b027885ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141832&Signature=c2mIvew05y29K054wKWrDAruPnt-GoS6MmhXgilGx2W62XRDa81d6E15hD6grsRX5qRruNBIej4YIz0ZbRqXUzvOF8EiHuQ98eigA0jKdpxLQg28JaV3LI~68t7EtR-S4gSOr5vr~u1cB~xstZkLD~QYOnyG4VJ1q6rzzjC7ZrYxLV2q2g57OiIzA1YEAVgJxKOnYcx-k9~SxeyhbRSlvcwXb40if7bfn1UZL7iMDUeJbnhyCXPkop7tfj8PILAyNpLA~8Lg5~lLws7eshtLzNb4FtL3vSTXLMlBaaAJ4fUBwM1dVnrb05jVj4EAfsXF73C8uGPTf8TWoeTzW-FdBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The County Council of Prince George’s County on April 15 adopted CR 17‑20‑25 requesting the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) to impose a moratorium on utility rate increases and to partner with the PJM Interconnection to review policy mechanisms that could reduce rates. The Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy (TIE) Committee voted 5‑0 to report the resolution as amended before the full council approved it on a recorded roll call.

Members said the resolution is intended to give voice to residents experiencing steep utility bills and to press state regulators and regional transmission operators for review and possible remedies. Committee staff summarized several factors cited in the policy analysis as drivers of higher utility bills, including inflation and regional wholesale‑market dynamics under PJM.

The committee report noted that the PSC chair, Fred Hoover, extended an invitation to meet with the council to discuss local concerns. Council members cited existing state and nonprofit assistance programs and requested a broader review of how wholesale market and transmission decisions affect county ratepayers. One council member described a recent case brought to their attention in which a customer received an apparent $10,000 bill; members said such incidents underscore the need to review billing, assistance and protections for vulnerable customers.

The amended resolution asks the PSC to partner with PJM to conduct a comprehensive review of factors contributing to increases and to examine policy mechanisms and relief for low‑income ratepayers. The TIE committee made the amendment to add the PJM partnership request and voted 5‑0 to report the resolution favorably. On the floor, the council substituted draft 2, adopted the amendment and approved the resolution on a recorded vote (roll call recorded in the transcript). Council members stressed that the resolution requests action by state and regional entities — it does not itself freeze rates but signals the council’s request for regulatory intervention.

Actions and next steps: CR 17‑20‑25 was adopted as amended and will be transmitted to the Maryland Public Service Commission and related state entities for their consideration. The PSC has been invited to meet with the council as part of the information‑gathering process.","Prince George’s County Council adopted CR 17‑20‑25 on April 15 requesting the Maryland Public Service Commission, working with PJM, to impose a moratorium on utility rate increases and undertake a comprehensive review of factors driving price increases. The measure passed on a unanimous roll call and was accompanied by council comments about the","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County council creates 20‑member data‑center task force, widens scope of study

Council delays vote on $395.9M in multi‑year contracts, refers package to GOFP for review

Council asks Maryland PSC to review rates, seeks moratorium on utility increases