2024 Legislative Report

LEGISLATIVE REPORT 2024

INTRODUCTION

Dear Members,

As we reflect on Maryland’s 2024 legislative session, we can take pride in the impact achieved when Maryland’s business community speaks with one voice. Despite facing challenges such as burdensome regulations, increased costs and state budget deficits, our advocacy efforts ensured that policymakers heard the concerns and priorities of businesses loud and clear. Through our collective voice, we prevailed on many fronts vital to making Maryland more competitive and better for business.

I am pleased to present the Chamber’s 2024 Legislative Report, detailing each bill and position for which the Chamber advocated. As a member-driven advocacy organization, our priorities and critical issues are shaped by your input and support. Our top five priorities this session included:

• Supporting responsible government spending alongside targeted cuts to maintain key government programs while avoiding new cost burdens on businesses, along with urging a balanced fiscal strategy to promote economic stability.

• Advocating for equitable and sustainable transportation funding solutions and a first-class, competitive transportation network.

• Supporting a comprehensive approach to data privacy, enforced by Maryland’s Attorney General, keeping in mind policies already adopted by neighboring states.

• Supporting the elimination of the state income tax on military retirement, ensuring that Maryland prioritizes the recruiting and retaining of military retirees while becoming more competitive in veteran retention.

• Supporting legislation and budget initiatives aimed at incentivizing the opening of new childcare facilities and the expansion of existing ones to allow Marylanders to return to work, addressing this critical piece of the workforce shortage.

Through the collective strength of our members, the Maryland Chamber Federation and our dedicated team, we emerged victorious on many of the key issues facing our coalition of more than 7,000 businesses and job creators from every corner of Maryland.

We supported 18 pieces of legislation during the 2024 session, including the Governor’s Critical Infrastructure Streamlining Act, the Transparent Government Act, the Keep Our Heroes Home Act, the Economic Competitiveness Act and the Clean Slate Act. Simultaneously, we fought against proposals that would push Maryland further down the ladder of economic competitiveness, successfully opposing 42 bills, with only a few receiving final passage.

While the legislative session has concluded, our advocacy for a thriving business climate continues. In the months ahead, we will release additional data from our 2024 Competitiveness Redbook, focusing on metrics like employment growth, population trends and taxation, essential for assessing Maryland’s economic standing. Additionally, I will continue advocating for the business community’s interests through my roles on the Maryland Economic Council and ongoing dialogue with policymakers and leaders.

Furthermore, we remain steadfast in our support for the business community through initiatives like the Building Bridges to Recovery Coalition, which aims to ensure businesses statewide receive the resources and advocacy they need to navigate the aftermath of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse and to emerge stronger.

The successes we achieved during the 2024 legislative session would not have been possible without your contributions to our advocacy efforts. I urge you to continue working together to maintain our momentum and ensure that Maryland becomes even more competitive and better for business.

Sincerely,

Mary D. Kane President & CEO

Maryland Chamber of Commerce 2024 Legislative Report

2024 Vetoed Bills

Due to the advocacy of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and the outpouring of opposition from Maryland’s business community on bills such as the Sales and Use Tax Expansion and Noneconomic Damages for Personal Injury and Wrongful Death, the Chamber did not submit any veto requests to the Governor for the 2024 session.

1,193

1,535

3

Letters of information submitted

Maryland Chamber of Commerce 2024 Legislative Report

Business Regulations & Operations

This policy committee looks at issues that benefit the employer-employee relationship and allow businesses to be competitive with their workforce. They address regulatory issues affecting daily operational activities and support legislation that allows market force principles to work in the state’s economy.

House Bill 487/Senate Bill 510

Corporations and Associations – Electric Cooperatives – Nonescheat Capital Credits

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Business Regulations & Operations

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 487/Senate Bill 510 would have provided that certain unclaimed money held by an electric cooperative and due to a past member is not considered abandoned property. It would have authorized an electric cooperative to use this money only to assist members of the cooperative or donate to nonprofit, charitable organizations.

HB 487/SB 510 would have allowed for the unclaimed funds to even further serve the community through investing in education and workforce development programs, creating infrastructure and incentives that benefit the environment, and implement pilot programs. In addition, it would have aligned Maryland electric cooperatives with those in currently 37 other states.

HB 487 was heard in the House Economic Matters Committee and was not voted on. SB 510 passed out of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and crossed over to the House but a hearing was not scheduled.

House Bill 827/Senate Bill 821

Maryland Insurance Administration – Professional Employer Organizations – Study

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Business Regulations & Operations

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 796 & 797

House Bill 827/Senate Bill 821 requires the Maryland Insurance Administration to study professional employer organizations (PEOs) in Maryland and review regulations, history, health plans, requirements, and regulatory structures in other states, along with addressing any potential impacts of proposed statutory changes in the state relating to the offering of health coverage by PEOs to the small group market. The report is due by December 31, 2024.

PEOs offer a suite of services such as payroll, HR, workers compensation benefits, healthcare and more. They act as an administrative and strategic partner to businesses, especially small and medium sized businesses who sometimes do not have the resources to administer employee benefits themselves. We believe that data and research on the potential effects of allowing PEOs greater flexibility in offering health coverage for businesses is a helpful and important step for the state and General Assembly to make informed decisions, ultimately resulting in businesses being able to stay competitive and attract employees, creating a positive work environment to work in.

HB 827 and SB 821 passed out of their respective chambers and were signed into law by Governor Moore on May 16.

Business Regulations & Operations (cont.)

House Bill 697/Senate Bill 1169

Real Estate Brokers – Commercial Transactions – Buyer’s Rights

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Business Regulations & Operations

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 198 & 199

House Bill 697/Senate Bill 1169 establishes certain requirements and prohibitions for commercial real estate transactions related to a buyer’s right to make title, settlement, and escrow selections.

HB 697/SB 1169 grants a buyer the right to select their own title, settlement or escrow company, or title lawyer promotes transparency and alignment of interests, and enables a more customized and efficient transaction process. This change also matches current standards for buyer’s rights in residential real estate transactions, ultimately contributing to a more competitive market for title services in Maryland.

This legislation unanimously passed in the Senate and the House and was signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25.

Civil Liability

We believe the civil law system should not punish lawful commerce. Issues related to tort reform and civil liability are of interest, including opposing efforts to expand exposure to liability and damages that weaken businesses’ defenses.

House Bill 83/Senate Bill 538

Civil Actions – Noneconomic Damages – Personal Injury and Wrongful Death

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Civil Liability

Final Status: Failed

HB 83/SB 538 would have repealed certain limitations on noneconomic damages in civil actions for personal injury or wrongful death.

As introduced, this legislation sought to remove Maryland’s cap on noneconomic damages. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee amended SB 538; the amendments would have nearly doubled the current cap and raised the annual escalator. For employers, this legislation would have caused property and casualty insurance rates and premiums to increase due to the greater liability exposure this higher limit on noneconomic damages would bring. This would have been especially problematic for small businesses with razor-thin revenue margins. Higher caps on noneconomic damages would also mean larger payouts in lawsuits, which increases the risk for insurance companies, making the entire insurance pool riskier.

HB 83 was heard in the House Judiciary Committee and did not get voted on. SB 583 was heard in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee; the committee voted it out and it crossed over to the House. SB 538 was heard in the House but did not receive a vote.

Senate Bill 889

Civil Actions – Enforcement Actions by the Attorney General – Statutes of Limitations

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Civil Liability

Final Status: Failed

Senate Bill 889 aimed to repeal the 1-year statute of limitations for a civil enforcement action brought by the Attorney General for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture and repeal the 4-year statute of limitations for a civil enforcement action brought by the Attorney General to enforce antitrust laws.

This bill stood to open companies up to potential liability going back years to a point that an employer may no longer have the necessary records or institutional knowledge to defend against. The liability concerns this legislation brought forward were immense.

SB 889 did not progress out of the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.

Civil Liability (cont.)

House Bill 595

Civil Enforcement Actions Brought by the Attorney General – Statute of Limitations

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Civil Liability

Final Status: Failed

This bill would have provided that certain civil enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General may be instituted at any time.

HB 595 sought to create an exception to the statute of limitations in which the Attorney General can enforce a civil antitrust action. This bill was also not prospective, so could have allowed the Attorney General to enforce a civil action a previous Attorney General chose not to enforce. HB 595 would have moved Maryland’s statute out of accordance with federal law.

HB595 was heard in the House Judiciary Committee and was not voted on.

House Bill 922/Senate Bill 680

State Government – Attorney General – Determinations and Settlements

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Civil Liability

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 137

House Bill 922/Senate Bill 680 requires the judge or jury in a certain actions to make a certain determination and assign responsibility and liability in a certain manner. It also authorizes the State to continue to pursue certain actions if it does not obtain complete relief from certain responsible persons, along with establishes that certain provisions of law requiring uniform contribution among joint tort-feasors do not apply to certain actions and establishes the impact of a certain settlement on the liability of certain responsible persons.

HB 922/SB 680 introduces enterprise liability, which could result in businesses being held collectively responsible for harm without individual causation being established. The enterprise liability approach undermines fundamental principles of tort law and could lead to unjust outcomes for businesses across various industries. In essence, it broadens liability without requiring specific proof of causation for each business involved, potentially leading to unfair outcomes and increased legal risks for businesses. This legislation represents a substantial departure from current policies and poses significant risks for Maryland businesses, residents, and insurers.

HB 922 did not pass and was not voted on in the House Judiciary Committee. SB 680 was amended in the Senate and passed. Governor More signed SB 680 into law on April 25.

Civil Liability (cont.)

House Bill 162/Senate Bill 452

Courts – Prohibited Liability Agreements – Recreational Facilities

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Civil Liability

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 941

House Bill 162/Senate Bill 452 establishes that a provision in a contract or agreement relating to the use of a recreational facility that purports to limit the recreational facility’s liability, or release the recreational facility from or indemnify or hold harmless the recreational facility against liability, for injury caused by or resulting from the negligence or other wrongful acts of the recreational facility or its agents or employees is void and unenforceable under certain circumstances.

This legislation would prohibit “commercial recreational facilities,” including many Maryland small businesses, from protecting themselves from negligent claims through the use of contracts/agreements/waivers, which a business would have their customers sign to hold them harmless from liability for bodily injury. Although this bill intends to focus on injuries arising from a business’s actions or negligence, it will also result in additional disputes, claims and litigation.

Alongside additional disputes and litigation, it is also undeniable SB 452 will cause premiums for commercial liability insurance to rise.

House Bill 162 crossed over to the opposite chamber and did not receive a hearing. Senate Bill 452 passed and was signed into law by Governor Moore on May 16.

Maryland Chamber of Commerce 2024 Legislative Report

Cyber & Technology

This policy committee works to promote the development of policies that encourage and facilitate growth, entrepreneurship and innovation within the cyber and technology sectors, an important and growing industry area of Maryland’s economy.

Senate Bill 247

Information Technology – Modernize Maryland Oversight Commission – Membership, Responsibilities and Staffing

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Cyber & Technology

Final Status: Failed

Senate Bill 247 would have altered the membership and responsibilities of the Modernize Maryland Oversight Commission and required the Department of Information Technology to provide staff for the Commission.

Senate Bill 247 would have added more individuals from private industries on the board, adding new and unique perspectives. Furthermore, the addition of a second member from the Maryland Chamber of Commerce with knowledge of information technology issues would have allowed the board to better advise the Secretary and State Chief Information Security Officer.

Senate Bill 247 was heard in the Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee and was not voted on.

House Bill 567/Senate Bill 541

Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Cyber & Technology

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 454 & 455

House Bill 567/Senate Bill 541 establishes a framework for regulating how consumer’s personal data is controlled and processed. It also authorizes a consumer to exercise certain rights in regards to their personal data. Additionally, it requires a controller of personal data to establish a method for a consumer to exercise certain rights in regards to the consumer’s personal data, and makes a violation of the Act an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice that is subject to enforcement and penalties under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce and its members place a high priority on consumer privacy and believe that privacy laws should provide strong safeguards for consumers but also balance the need for industry to innovate. While some of our concerns were addressed through amendments, there are still existing concerns that we will continue to advocate for, like ensuring it is as consistent as possible with similar data privacy laws already in place in other states to avoid a patchwork approach and provide uniformity for businesses and consumers operating across state lines.

HB 567/SB 541 each passed out of their respective chambers and was signed into law by the Governor on May 9.

Cyber & Technology (cont.)

House Bill 603/Senate Bill 571

Consumer Protection – Online Products and Services – Data of Children (Maryland Kids Code)

MD Chamber Position: Letter of Information

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Cyber & Technology

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 460 & 461

House Bill 603/Senate Bill 571 requires a covered entity that offers an online product reasonably likely to be accessed by children to complete a certain data protection impact assessment by April 1, 2026, under certain circumstances. It also requires privacy protections for certain online products and prohibits certain data collection and sharing practices.

This legislation creates a new framework for safeguarding the online privacy of children. As Maryland proceeds with legislation and new laws addressing the important issue of ensuring a safe environment for children while they are online, elected officials should consider the ongoing litigation over the constitutionality of similar legislation that has been introduced in California.

HB603 and SB571 both passed their respective chambers and were signed into law on May 9.

House Bill 905

Sales and Use Tax Exemption – Qualified Data Center Personal Property – Eligibility

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Cyber & Technology

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 905 aimed to alter the eligibility for an exemption from the sales and use tax for qualified data center personal property. It would have changed the definition of “qualified data center” so as to require the payment of certain prevailing wages, employment of certain apprentices, installation of certain battery storage, incorporation of on-site solar energy generation to the extent practicable, and purchase of a certain percentage of energy demanded by the data center from certain wind-based generators or solar renewable energy credits.

As the data center and technology industry begins to invest in Maryland because of SB 397 of 2020, HB 905 threatened to move the goal posts by layering on new and significant requirements to qualify for the sales and use tax exemption. At a time when Maryland needs to focus on policies encouraging economic investment and job creation, HB 905 would have upended that potential and made realized investment difficult and potentially not possible.

House Bill 905 was heard in the House Ways and Means Committee and was not voted out of committee.

Maryland Chamber of Commerce

Cyber & Technology (cont.)

House Bill 1372

Health and Taxation – Digital Social Media Services and Mental Health Care Fund for Children and Youth

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Cyber & Technology

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1372 sought to impose a digital social media gross revenues tax on annual revenues derived from digital social media services and require the Comptroller to distribute revenue from the tax in a certain manner. It would have also established the Mental Health Care Fund for Children and Youth. HB 1372 represented a discriminatory tax policy. The greatest concern to the Chamber is that the economic burden of the legislation would have been placed on Maryland businesses and consumers.

HB 1372 would have been difficult to implement for both taxpayers and governments. In addition, there are sourcing, privacy, and data storage capacity concerns, as well as conflicting laws regarding other state privacy rules. The greatest concern to the Chamber is that the economic burden of the legislation would be borne by Maryland businesses and consumers, along with the ongoing legal issues that continue to play out following the passage of the Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax.

House Bill 1372 was heard in the House Ways and Means Committee and was not voted out of committee.

Education & Workforce Development

The Education and Workforce Development policy committee promotes policies that foster an educational and vocational system focused on developing, retaining and attracting a more globally competitive workforce.

House Bill 650/Senate Bill 511

Maryland Department of Labor – Report on Apprenticeship Mentoring Ratios

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Education & Workforce Development

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 307 & 308

House Bill 650/Senate Bill 511 requires the Maryland Department of Labor to submit a report by October 1, 2024 that analyzes the apprenticeship mentoring ratio for all nontraditional apprenticeable occupations in the State. The Department must also submit recommendations for strategies to streamline the expansion of apprenticeship ratios for all newly registered nontraditional apprenticeship occupations for purposes of meeting the goals of the Apprenticeship 2030 Commission.

The Apprenticeship 2030 Commission set ambitious targets for the expansion of registered apprenticeships in Maryland, aiming for 60,000 registered apprenticeships by 2030 and 45% of high school graduates to complete a registered apprenticeship by 2031. However, the current apprenticeship landscape in Maryland falls short of meeting those goals. As introduced, this legislation would have required the Maryland Department of Labor to adopt regulations establishing an expanded ratio of three apprentices to one journeyperson for each nontraditional trade occupation and newly registered occupation – allowing employers to take on more apprentices, resulting in enhanced accessibility and flexibility. The legislation was amended to become a study, but we will continue to support expanded apprenticeship opportunities to help address Maryland’s workforce development challenges.

HB 650 and SB 511 were both signed into law on April 25 by Governor Moore.

House Bill 831

Common Ownership Communities and Zoning Authorities – Operation of Family Child Care

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Education & Workforce Development

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 831 aimed to prohibit a provision in certain documents of a cooperative housing corporation from prohibiting or restricting the establishment or operation of certain family child care homes; prohibiting a provision in certain documents of a cooperative housing corporation from limiting the number of children for which certain family child care homes provide family child care below a certain number; repealing the authority of condominium and homeowners associations to prohibit the establishment or operation of certain family child care homes.

This bill would have acted as a necessary step to increase access to childcare facilities that promote the wellbeing and effectiveness of Maryland’s workforce and their employers. The lack of availability and affordability in childcare is a major factor keeping Marylanders out of the workforce, which shrinks an already scarce labor pool and further contributes to the structural inflation that our business and consumers are currently facing.

HB 831 was heard in the House Environment and Transportation Committee and was not voted out of committee. CHAMBER

Education & Workforce Development (cont.)

House Bill 658/Senate Bill 602

Criminal Procedure – Automated Expungement, Waiting Periods and Adverse Actions (Clean Slate Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Education & Workforce Development

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 658/Senate Bill 602 would have altered certain provisions of law relating to waiting periods for the filing of certain petitions for expungement to authorize the filing of a petition a certain amount of time after the completion of the sentence. It would have established procedures for the automated expungement of certain clean slate eligible charges and required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to submit a report semiannually detailing the progress and outcomes of the automated expungement process during the preceding 6 months.

HB 658/SB 602 aimed to improve access to criminal record sealing, a common-sense measure that will grow our workforce and strengthen our businesses. With only 33 available workers for every 100 open jobs1, Maryland’s labor market is ranked as one of the worst in the country. Employers urgently need new talent that is ready and able to work. By automatically clearing old criminal records for individuals who remain crime-free, HB 658 would give employers access to a diverse and underutilized workforce almost immediately. Additionally, it is estimated that excluding formerly incarcerated job seekers from the workforce has cost the United States at least $78 billion in lost gross domestic product.2 Both bills were heard in their respective committees, but neither received a vote.

Energy & Environment

This policy committee promotes policies to sustain, enhance, protect and conserve Maryland’s natural resources for present and future generations while working to maintain the balance between economic need and environmental concern.

House Bill 24/Senate Bill 96

Department of the Environment – Environmental Justice Evaluation of Environmental Permit Applications

MD Chamber Position: Letter of Information

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 24/Senate Bill 96 would have required the Department of the Environment to perform a certain environmental justice evaluation of certain environmental permit applications under certain circumstances; authorizing the Department to take certain actions on certain environmental permit applications based on certain findings to address environmental concerns; requiring the Department to maintain a publicly accessible website, part of a website, or application that identifies pending permit applications with specific census tracts.

HB 24/SB 96 would have required additional reviews, which could have led to delays in permitting decisions. Businesses rely on timely permitting decisions to plan and execute projects, and prolonged delays could hinder economic growth and development in Maryland. Changes to the regulatory and permitting process must prioritize efficiency and reliability.

HB 24 crossed over to the Senate but did not receive a hearing. SB 96 did not receive a vote in the Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee.

House Bill 210

Maryland Building Performance Standards – Fossil Fuel Use and Electric-Ready Standards

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 210 would have required the Maryland Department of Labor to adopt, on or before January 1, 2025, and as part of the Maryland Building Performance Standards, a requirement that new buildings meet all energy demands of the building without the use of fossil fuels and an electric-ready standard for certain buildings.

This legislation would have severely restricted the availability of affordable energy options for all new buildings in the state. It would have also placed Maryland at a significant regional economic competitiveness disadvantage by ultimately phasing out the use of other affordable energy sources for commercial buildings that are critical to every jurisdiction in our state. Additionally, it brought forward legal concerns. In April of 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts state and local building codes concerning the energy use of natural gas appliances, including Berkeley’s building code which prohibits natural gas piping into new buildings, preventing the use of natural gas. In January 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied Berkeley’s request for review and the panel’s decision, which struck down Berkeley’s ordinance, was reaffirmed.

This bill was heard in the House Environment and Transportation Committee and was not voted out of committee.

Energy & Environment (cont.)

House Bill 516

Climate Crisis and Environmental Justice Act of 2024

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 516 aimed to establish the Climate Crisis Initiative in the Maryland Department of the Environment to provide for the assessment of greenhouse gas pollution fees, the provision of certain benefits to households and employers, and the funding of certain climate-related activities; providing for the collection and use of certain greenhouse gas pollution fees; establishing the Household and Employer Benefit Fund and the Climate Crisis Infrastructure Fund as special, nonlapsing funds.

HB 516 would have imposed a significant tax burden on Marylanders and businesses relying on natural gas and other fuels for essential daily activities, including cooking, heating, and powering businesses. This legislation also penalizes the role of natural gas in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring energy reliability in Maryland.

This bill was heard in the House Economic Matters Committee and did not receive a vote.

Senate Bill 861

Public Utilities – High-Energy-Use Facilities – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

SB 861 sought to a require a person that owns, operates, or controls a high energy use facility to ensure greenhouse gas emissions associated with the electricity used by the facility are reduced by certain amounts by certain years, and prohibit a person from using certain methods to meet the emissions reduction targets established under the Act. It would have also required the Public Service Commission to review and verify a certain report submitted by each person that owns, operates, or controls a high energy use facility and make a certain determination.

If this legislation passed, it would have required someone who owns, operates, or controls a data center, processes cryptocurrency or cultivates cannabis to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of the facility by 100% by 2040. SB 861 makes it more difficult for important industries to locate in Maryland by placing stringent requirements on owners and operators of these facilities. It also singles out data centers, cryptocurrency processing and cannabis production facilities.

Senate Bill 861 was heard in the Senate Education, Energy and Environment Committee and did not receive a vote.

Energy & Environment (cont.)

House Bill 1008

Fossil Fuel Transportation Fee and Mitigation Fund (Climate Pollution Reduction Fund Act)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1008 sought to impose a fossil fuel transportation fee on a person that transports a fossil fuel in the State; providing that the rate of the fossil fuel transportation fee is 30 cents per million British thermal units of fossil fuels transported; providing the fee does not apply to the transportation of a fossil fuel that is solely for use on a farm and the carrier does not otherwise use or sell the fossil fuel; establishing the Fossil Fuel Mitigation Fund to support activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the State.

This new tax would have led to increased operating costs for businesses involved in transporting fossil fuels, which ultimately will be passed down to consumers, leading to higher prices for goods and services. It would have also increased the cost of energy to end users, leading to higher prices at the gas pump. Additionally, the bill would have allowed the tax to be imposed on a subsequent carrier of the fossil fuel if the previous carrier failed to pay the pee, placing the cost burden on a carrier that had nothing to do with the initial carrier or carrier before them failing to pay. While this proposed tax aimed to disincentivize the use of fossil fuels, which serves as reliable and affordable energy options for many Marylanders, there are many concerns about the effectiveness of such measures in achieving environmental goals.

House Bill 1008 received a hearing in the House Environment and Transportation Committee and was not brought up for a vote.

House Bill 1279/Senate Bill 1023

Maryland Building Performance Standards – Fossil Fuel Use, Energy Conservation and Electric- and Solar-Ready Standards (Better Buildings Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1279/Senate Bill 1023 would have required the Maryland Department of Labor to adopt, as part of the Maryland Building Performance Standards, a requirement that new buildings and significant improvements of buildings and structures meet all water and space heating demands of the building or structure without the use of fossil fuels, meet energy conservation requirements, and meet an electric- and solar-ready standard for certain buildings.

This bill would have severely restricted the availability of affordable energy options for all new buildings in the state. It also places Maryland at a significant regional economic competitiveness disadvantage by ultimately phasing out the use of other affordable energy sources for buildings that are critical to every jurisdiction in our state. This bill set Energy Use Intensity standards that lacked clarity, as it remains uncertain how these standards would be applied on a building-bybuilding basis or whether they are realistically achievable. Along with legal concerns, it failed to account for customer choice and could have led to affordability and reliability issues. We believe that legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be comprehensive, inclusive of innovative technologies, and mindful of federal regulations to ensure a sustainable and prosperous energy future for Maryland.

HB 1279 and SB 1023 received hearings in their respective committees and were not brought up for a vote.

Energy & Environment (cont.)

House Bill 1101/Senate Bill 653

Standing – Environmental and Natural Resources Protection Proceedings (Clean Water Justice Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 535 & 536

House Bill 1101/Senate Bill 653 provides certain persons standing in environmental and natural resources protection proceedings and authorizes persons that meet standing requirements to bring certain civil actions under certain circumstances. It also requires a plaintiff, under certain circumstances, to give certain notice and provide certain documentation to the Department of the Maryland Environment and the Attorney General and to file a certain affidavit, and authorizes a court to grant certain relief, award certain costs, and impose certain civil penalties.

This legislation results in an increase in legal standing for environmental and natural resources related suits, including a private right of action. This can impact building operations, land use and development, manufacturing, product development, local government, and more. It will also lead to increased litigation and costs for businesses, as this new cause of action will result in more individuals and associations independently suing based on perceived negative impacts.

HB 1101 was heard in the House Environment and Transportation Committee and SB 653 was heard in the Senate Education, Energy, and Environment Committee. They both passed and were signed into law on May 9.

House Bill 1272

Department of the Environment – Cap-and-Invest Program – Establishment

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1272 aimed to require the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), in collaboration with the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, to develop a cap-and-invest program that reduces climate-altering emissions in the State on or before December 31, 2024.

While HB 1272 lacked structure, guardrails, and did not include any specifics of what a cap-and-invest program would look like, several concerns arose from the proposed legislation. In June 2023, MDE released their Climate Pathway Report, which modeled policies like a cap-and-invest program. However, the modeling lacked details and did not include scenarios with emission cap levels, how revenue from allowances would be allocated and used, or how the program would be designed. Notably, the report estimates that implementing a cap-and-invest program would entail an annual cost of at least $1 billion from certain fossil fuel sources1, ultimately borne by energy users in Maryland. Additionally, it would be costly for businesses to purchase credits or invest in expensive emissions reduction technologies to comply with caps. As noted in the fiscal note, it was unclear if the intent was to develop a cap-and-invest program or if the intent was to also implement the program once developed.

House Bill 1272 was heard in the House Economic Matters Committee and did not receive a vote.

1 Maryland Department of Environment: Maryland’s Climate Pathway Report

Energy & Environment (cont.)

House Bill 1153/Senate Bill 956

Environment - Water Pollution Control - Protecting State Waters From PFAS Pollution (Protecting State Waters From PFAS Pollution Act)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 556 & 557

House Bill 1153/Senate Bill 956 requires the Department of the Environment to identify significant industrial users that currently and intentionally use PFAS chemicals by October 1, 2024. It also requires the Department to develop certain PFAS monitoring and testing criteria for significant industrial users by January 1, 2025. The Department must develop PFAS action levels for addressing PFAS contamination from industrial discharge for pretreatment permits by June 1, 2025, along with develop certain mitigation plans by September 1, 2025.

As introduced, HB 1153/SB 956 would have established the discharge limit for PFAS chemicals in any water, including stormwater, discharged from a significant industrial user to be 4 parts per trillion. Significant industrial users would also be required to reduce PFAS chemicals from the water it discharges. This proposed standard was well below those proposed by the EPA, creating a substantial technical and economic burden for businesses. We are also concerned that this legislation may unfairly target manufacturers without considering the complexity of PFAS contamination. However, this legislation was amended removing the discharge limit and instead focuses on identifying testing criteria, mitigation plans and action levels. As a result of the amendments, we withdrew our opposition. Both bills passed as amended and were signed into law by Governor Moore on May 9.

House Bill 1438/Senate Bill 958

Responding to Emergency Needs From Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act of 2024

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1438/Senate Bill 958 would have established the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Payment Program in the Department of the Environment to secure payments from certain businesses that extract fossil fuels or refine petroleum products in order to provide a source of revenue for State efforts to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change and to address the health impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations.

The RENEW Act would have applied retroactively, applying to businesses engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil beginning Jan. 1, 2000. Reaching back 24 years is extremely harsh and excessive, along with imposing potential liability of up to $9 billion on prior activities that were legal. Businesses should not be held liable because fossil fuels they extracted or refined were placed into the marketplace and used by a third party. The Maryland Chamber had serious concerns over the strict liability outlined in this legislation, among many other factors.

HB 1438 and SB 958 both received hearings in their respective committees and were not brought up for a vote.

Energy & Environment (cont.)

House Bill 350/Senate Bill 360

Budget Bill (Fiscal Year 2025)

MD Chamber Position: No Position

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 71

The Governor’s operating budget is introduced each legislative session, which includes all planned expenditures for the fiscal year and sets the revenue estimates that establish the basis for state spending. The Governor must submit a balanced budget proposal to the General Assembly on or by the third Wednesday in January, or in the first year of a new term, by the 10th day of the Legislative Session.

The House and Senate gave final approval to the $63 billion budget on April 5, and Governor Moore signed it into law on May 16. While the Chamber does not take a position on the budget bill, there was an amendment added by the General Assembly that makes changes to the state’s proposed building energy performance standards regulations.

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) published draft regulations in December 2023 which requires owners of covered buildings over 35,000 square feet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-site use of fossil fuels. The draft regulations would also require owners to meet very stringent energy use intensity standards. The amendment added to the budget bill forbids MDE from expending funds to adopt, establish or enforce site EUI standards until they comply with a list of specific requirements. This amendment promotes a more deliberative, thorough and transparent regulatory process to ensure accurate and effective regulations that follow the intent of the Climate Solutions Now Act.

Health Care & Biopharma

We believe in meaningful health care reform that allows employers to best meet the needs of their employees. We oppose mandated health benefit demands, as well as regulatory oversight and requirements. We also address issues in legislative interaction in the pharmacological discovery and development processes. Maryland Chamber of Commerce 2024 Legislative Report

House Bill 726/Senate Bill 626

Pharmacy Benefits Managers – Definition of Purchaser and Alteration of Application of Law

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Health Care & Biopharma

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 726/Senate Bill 626 aimed to alter the definition of “purchaser” for the purpose of certain provisions of State insurance law governing pharmacy benefits managers to exclude certain nonprofit health maintenance organizations and repeal certain provisions that restrict applicability of certain provisions of law to pharmacy benefits managers that provide pharmacy benefits management services on behalf of a carrier.

By amending current state law government pharmacy benefit managers by repealing previous definitions of “carrier” and “ERISA” and changing the definition of “purchaser,” the bill sought to broadly expand the state regulations government pharmacy benefit managers to additional entities providing prescription drug coverage or benefits in the state, including programs subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

HB 726/SB 626 would have had major impacts on both employers and employees throughout the state. With the majority of private sector employees participating in healthcare plans that are covered under ERISA protections, the Chamber urged the committee to avoid any legislative action that could increase healthcare costs for Marylanders and negatively impact the ability of employers and health plan providers to design affordable products for the Maryland healthcare market. SB 626 was heard in the Senate Finance Committee and was not brought up for vote.

HB 726 passed out of the House and crossed over to the Senate but did not receive a hearing.

Health Care & Biopharma (cont.)

House Bill 340/Senate Bill 388

Prescription Drug Affordability Board – Authority for Upper Payment Limits and Funding

(The Lowering Prescription Drug Costs For All Marylanders Now Act)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Health Care & Biopharma

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 340/Senate Bill 388 would have required the Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) to establish a process for setting upper payment limits for all purchases and payor reimbursements of prescription drug products in the state that the Board determines have led or will lead to affordability challenges. It also requires the Governor to include an appropriation of at least $1,000,000 in the annual budget bill beginning in fiscal year 2025 for the Prescription Drug Affordability Fund.

While the Maryland Chamber supports policies that enhance medicine accessibility and affordability, we do not support government-imposed upper payment limits as a means of price setting. This stance is rooted in our concern that such measures will have a chilling effect, stifling innovation and hampering Maryland’s capacity to attract new investments, businesses, and talent. Additionally, it may impede the ability of life sciences companies to secure capital to support research and development. Interfering with the free market through a price control scheme would likely negatively impact the future of critical medicines. To sustain economic competitiveness, it is imperative that our universities, research institutions, and enterprises continue to work together and maintain collaborative efforts to bring new products and technologies to the market faster.

Neither bill was voted on in their respective committees.

House Bill 570/Senate Bill 487

Health Maintenance Organizations – Payments to Nonparticipating Providers – Reimbursement Rate

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Health Care & Biopharma

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 570/Senate Bill 487 sought to alter the reimbursement rate at which health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are required to pay nonparticipating health care providers for services.

This legislation would have reduced the rate at which providers can charge for their services. It would substantially raise the rates nonparticipating emergency service providers could bill HMOs, without offering any corresponding benefits to consumers. Additionally, there is already a formula for what an HMO must pay out of network, and patients are protected under federal law from unexpected costs of emergency services. This bill would have led to increased health care costs to employers and their employees without any increase in the quality of health care services.

HB 570 and SB 487 received hearings in their respective committees and were not brought up for a vote.

Health Care & Biopharma (cont.)

House Bill 827/Senate Bill 821

Maryland Insurance Administration – Professional Employer Organizations – Study

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Health Care & Biopharma

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 796 & 797

House Bill 827/Senate Bill 821 requires the Maryland Insurance Administration to study professional employer organizations (PEOs) in the State to review certain regulations, history, health plans, requirements and regulatory structures in other states and to address any potential impacts of proposed statutory changes in the State relating to the offering of health coverage by professional employer organizations on the small group market. The report is due by December 31, 2024.

PEOs offer a suite of services such as payroll, HR, workers compensation benefits, healthcare and more. They act as an administrative and strategic partner to businesses, especially small and medium sized businesses who sometimes do not have the resources to administer employee benefits themselves. Maryland is one of three states that do not allow PEOs to offer aggregated healthcare plans to their clients. We believe that data and research on the potential effects of allowing PEOs greater flexibility in offering health coverage for businesses is a helpful and important step for the state and General Assembly to make informed decisions, ultimately resulting in businesses’ ability to attract employees.

Both bills passed and were signed into law by the Governor on May 16.

Labor & Employment

This policy committee focuses on all issues pertaining to the relationship between employees and employers within the state. This committee promotes policies ensuring fairness and reducing excessive mandates.

House Bill 385/Senate Bill 38

Wage Payment and Collection – Pay Stubs and Pay Statements – Required Information

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 305 & 306

House Bill 385/Senate Bill 38 requires that a notice of the pay rate, regular paydays, and leave benefits provided to an employee at the time of hiring be written; requiring that pay stubs and pay statements be written on the physical pay stub or online pay statement and include certain information; requiring the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to create and make available to an employer at no charge a pay stub template that may be used by an employer to meet the requirements of the Act.

As introduced, we were concerned of adverse impacts and unnecessary burdens that could be placed on small businesses who do not have nor need the capabilities that larger companies have when handling pay stubs and pay statements, like a third-party payroll provider to handle the processing of payroll. Many small businesses process and complete payroll by hand. The legislation was amended to provide more flexibility and resources for businesses to comply, along with lowering the penalty to $500 for each employee who was not provided a pay stub or online statement in accordance with the Act.

House Bill 385 and Senate Bill 38 were signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25.

House Bill 136/Senate Bill 233

Employment Standards, Prevailing Wage and Living Wage – Employer Adverse Actions and Enforcement

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 207

House Bill 136/Senate Bill 233 prohibit employers from taking or threatening to take adverse action against an employee because the employee takes certain actions regarding rights and responsibilities, complaints, investigations, proceedings, or hearings. It authorizes the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, within 90 days after receipt of a written complaint, to investigate a violation and attempt to resolve the issue informally through mediation.

The Chamber condemns companies that knowingly discriminate against or threaten employees. However, the bill allows an employee to bring forward a civil action against their employer. It would also allow the Commissioner to bring forward an action to enforce the order for a civil penalty. Moreover, there is no set cap on punitive damages, resulting in employers facing financial uncertainty when it comes to potential liabilities, leaving employers more risk adverse. HB 136 will cause additional legal burdens and further open Maryland’s businesses to increased liability.

HB 136 passed both chambers and was signed into law by the Governor on April 25.

Labor & Employment (cont.)

Senate Bill 160

Labor and Employment – Payment of Minimum Wage – Tipped Employees

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Failed

Senate Bill 160 specified a certain tip credit amount that is in effect for certain time periods; prohibiting certain employers of tipped employees, beginning July 1, 2027, from including a tip credit amount as part of the employees’ wages and requiring the employer to pay an employee at least the State minimum wage; and requiring the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to establish the High Road Kitchen Program as a recognition program for restaurants that do not include the tip credit as part of certain employees’ wages.

Senate Bill 160 would have reduced and ultimately eliminated the tip credit for tipped employees. Maryland law allows employers to pay tipped employees a tip wage (cash wage) of at least $3.63 per hour but under federal, state and local minimum wage laws, employers are required to make up any differences if a tipped employee does not make enough in combined tip wages plus tips to make at least the full applicable minimum wage per hour for the workweek. Like all Maryland workers, tipped employees must earn at least the full applicable minimum wage per hour. If Maryland’s tip credit was eliminated, Maryland’s full-service restaurants would incur significant increases in labor costs and tipped employees would earn less in wages.

SB 160 was heard in the Senate Finance Committee and was not voted on.

House Bill 467

Food Service Facilities and Tipped Workers – Service Fees and Tip Credits (One Fair Wage Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 467 would have established consumer protections related to service fees charged by restaurants; specifying a certain tip credit amount that is in effect for certain time periods and prohibiting employers of tipped employees, beginning January 1, 2027, from including a tip credit amount as part of the employees’ wages.

HB 467 was withdrawn by the Sponsor before receiving a hearing.

Labor & Employment (cont.)

House Bill 465/Senate Bill 436

Workplace Fraud and Prevailing Wage – Violations – Civil Penalty and Referrals

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 309

House Bill 465/Senate Bill 436 increases, from $5,000 to $10,000, the maximum civil penalty for the knowing failure of an employer to properly classify an individual as an employee; and requires the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, on a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a violation has occurred, to refer to the Comptroller, certain State’s Attorneys, the U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury complaints that allege a violation of certain tax laws.

During the 2009 Legislative Session, members of the business community worked alongside the Maryland Department of Labor (MDOL) to pass the Workplace Fraud Act of 2009, which gave MDOL the authority to address intentional misclassification of employees and levy substantial fines on bad actors. The original version of this legislation would have imposed new penalties that would potentially send managers and business owners to jail over employee misclassification. The legislation was amended to remove jail time.

HB 465 passed both chambers and was signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25.

House Bill 571/Senate Bill 485

Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program – Modifications

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 266 & 267

House Bill 571/Senate Bill 485 modifies provisions of law governing application, administration, and enforcement of the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) Program, including provisions related to the payment of contributions, the calculation of the average weekly wage, the submission of claims for benefits, the application of the Program to selfemployed individuals, the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund, the satisfaction of Program requirements through private employer plans or insurance, and the use of contributions or other funding.

This legislation makes several modifications to the Maryland FAMLI program. Some modifications are advantageous to employers like changing the wage reporting requirements from weekly to quarterly and changing the definition of wages to mirror the definition outlined in the unemployment insurance program. The effective date was also pushed back. Employees and employers with 15 or more employees will now begin contributing to the fund beginning July 1, 2025. A covered individual may submit a claim for benefits beginning July 1, 2026.

However, a few changes were made that raise concerns that could be problematic in the future, like allowing the Department of Labor (MDOL) to award uncapped grants using the FAMLI fund that employees and employers contribute to and removing the ability for an employer to meet the benefit provisions outside of the state plan through a combination of commercial and self-insured coverage, which reduces employer options and may be unnecessarily costly. The legislation also gives MDOL authority to file written complaints if they believe an employer has violated the requirements of the FAMLI law, which is concerning as the adjudication process falls under the same roof within MDOL, providing no oversight to ensure a fair process.

This legislation passed with amendments and was signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25.

Labor & Employment (cont.)

House Bill 525/Senate Bill 513

Employment Discrimination – Use of Cannabis Products

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 525/Senate Bill 513 aimed to prohibit an employer from discriminating against an individual because of the individual’s use of cannabis products under certain circumstances; establishing that certain provisions prohibiting employment discrimination do not prohibit an employer from taking certain actions against an employee under certain circumstances or authorize certain behaviors by an employee; and requiring certain employers to issue a drug policy under certain circumstances.

HB 525/SB 513 had two distinct parts: first, the bill would have prevented an employer from discriminating against someone in the hiring process because of their legal use of cannabis outside of work. This bill aimed to eliminate the use of drug testing for cannabis as a part of employment screening but makes limited exceptions for violation of federal law, leading to the loss of a federal contract or funding, or circumventing required federal drug testing for employment. Second, this bill prevented, or intended to prevent, an employer from determining if someone is under the influence while on the job by using existing drug tests. Instead, the bill replaced the use of drug tests to determine current intoxication with subjective measures of observable behavior on the part of the employer.

HB 525 and SB 513 did not get voted on in their respective committees.

House Bill 649/Senate Bill 525

Labor and Employment – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Wage Range Transparency

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 271 & 272

House Bill 649/Senate Bill 525 alters the requirement that an employer disclose certain wage information to an applicant for employment; requiring an employer to disclose certain wage information in certain postings and to certain employees at certain times; requiring an employer to set the wage range disclosed in good faith; requiring the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to develop and make available to employers a form that an employer may use to comply with certain wage disclosure requirements; and prohibiting certain retaliatory action by an employer.

HB 649/SB 525 places new requirements on employers to publish certain wage information when posting for a new job, promotion, transfer, or other employment opportunity. If an employer knowingly violates provisions of the bill, the Commissioner can, for a second violation, assess a civil penalty of up to $300 for each employee or applicant for whom the employer is not in compliance, and assess a $600 penalty for each subsequent violation. This legislation was amended which allows more flexibility and guidance for employers to comply with the Act.

Senate Bill 525 and House Bill 649 passed and were signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25.

Labor & Employment (cont.)

House Bill 602

Employment Discrimination – Sexual Orientation

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 131

House Bill 602 alters certain provisions of law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity to also prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Currently, Maryland law provides protections from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation only. The passage HB 602 aligns Maryland with 15 other states and Washington D.C. that have implemented protections against both sexual orientation and gender identity employment discrimination. HB 602 enhances Maryland’s workforce and fosters inclusive environments amongst Maryland businesses.

House Bill 602 was signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25.

House Bill 802

Labor and Employment - Mandatory Meetings on Religious or Political Matters - Employee Attendance and Participation (Protecting Workers From Captive Audience Meetings Act)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 802 sought to prohibit employers from taking certain actions against an employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant declines to attend or participate in employer-sponsored meetings during which the employer communicates the opinion of the employer regarding religious or political matters.

HB 802 would have, among other things, prohibited a Maryland employer from exercising its constitutional and statutory right to speak to its employees about “political issues,” which the bill defines to include “the decision to join or support any labor union.” HB 802 presented significant constitutional, statutory and economic concerns.

This bill was heard in the House Economic Matters Committee and was not brought to a vote.

Labor & Employment (cont.)

House Bill 1226/Senate Bill 994

Maryland Predictable Scheduling Act

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1226/Senate Bill 994 aimed to establish certain requirements on food service establishments, hospitality establishments, and retail establishments regarding work schedules for employees, including requirements related to the provision of work schedules to employees, notifications regarding changes to the schedules, and payment of wages to employees whose work schedules are changed by the employer; authorizing certain employees to request an adjustment in a work schedule before beginning a shift.

While scheduling laws are intended to create more predictable schedules for workers in targeted industries, they almost always result in unnecessary burdens for both employers and employees. Evidence from San Francisco, which has a similar scheduling mandate, has shown that a significant number of impacted businesses reduced the number of part-time hires they made and reduced the overall number of employees scheduled per shift.

House Bill 1226 was withdrawn by the sponsor and Senate Bill 994 was heard in the Senate Finance Committee and was not voted on.

House Bill 1255/Senate Bill 957

Labor and Employment – Automated Employment Decision Tools – Prohibition

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1255/Senate Bill 957 would have prohibited, subject to a certain exception, an employer from using an automated employment decision tool to make certain employment decisions; and require an employer, under certain circumstances, to notify an applicant for employment of the employer’s use of an automated employment decision tool within 30 days after the use; and providing certain penalties per violation for an employer that violates the notification requirement of the Act.

HB1255/SB 957 intended to prohibit an employer from using an automated employment decision tool unless the tool was subject to an impact assessment each year that determines that using the tool would not involve a high-risk action. Similar legislation was passed in New York City. Researchers at Cornell University concluded that the law has very limited value for job seekers1. The city then modified the law by narrowing the scope to only cover automated employment decision tools that are being used without any human oversight, however they are still struggling with implementation and this law has not been proven to elicit compliance.

The use of Artificial Intelligence in the hiring and promoting process has been essential in helping streamline the review, outreach, vetting, and onboarding process of potential employees, but this legislation would impede the ability of businesses to find and hire qualified candidates.

Both HB 1255 and SB 957 were heard in their respective committees, neither being held for a vote.

1 Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)

Labor & Employment (cont.)

House Bill 1084/Senate Bill 1061

Employee Autoimmune Disorder Protection Act

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Failed

This bill aimed to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to work on-site at the employer’s workplace if the employee provides documentation from a physician or other licensed health care practitioner that the employee has been diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder or other qualifying illness and that on-site work, or travel to and from the workplace, would be unsafe for the employee and the duties of the employee may reasonably be fulfilled at the home of the employee.

HB 1084/SB 1061 failed to consider the wide spectrum of autoimmune conditions and their varying impacts on individuals. This would have created ambiguity and subjectivity in determining which conditions warrant remote work accommodations. Additionally, this issue is already covered by state disability laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment against a qualified individual with a disability, including an autoimmune disease. This legislation required work from home as opposed to other feasible working options that an employee and employer may prefer, like a hybrid schedule, an employee choosing their own flexible hours, staggering shifts, or job-sharing arrangements. This legislation dictates what the accommodation should be, however under the ADA there are multiple options to provide an employee with accommodation.

House Bill 1084 did not get voted on in the House Economic Matters Committee. SB 1061 was withdrawn by the Sponsor.

House Bill 1388/Senate Bill 1182

Labor and Employment – Noncompete and Conflict of Interest Clauses for Veterinary and Health Care Professionals and Study of the Health Care Market

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Labor & Employment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 378

House Bill 1388/Senate Bill 1182 applies to certain veterinary and health care professionals certain provisions of law stating that certain noncompete and conflict of interest provisions in certain employment contracts are null and void as being against the public policy of the State; establishing certain prohibitions regarding noncompete and conflict of interest provisions for certain health care employment contracts and similar documents and agreements; and requiring the Maryland Health Care Commission to study certain issues related to the health care market in the State.

This legislation eliminates the use of noncompete agreements for the healthcare and veterinary industries. Noncompete agreements are an important tool used for staff recruitment and they are critical to fostering innovation and preserving competition. A ban on noncompete agreements will likely create fewer workforce opportunities and reduce investment in employee education, training, and development. Additionally, noncompete agreements protect trade secrets and client lists from being used against an employer to unfairly advance the interests of a competitor.

Governor Moore signed HB 1388 into law on April 25.

Taxation

This policy committee evaluates all policies relating to business tax. They support tax policy reform that reduces the cost of doing business. It is our goal to strengthen the state’s competitive tax climate to help attract and retain businesses, talent and investment.

Senate Bill 346

Income Tax – Subtraction Modification – Military Retirement Income (Keep Our Heroes Home Act)

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Failed

Senate Bill 346 would have phased in, over three years, an increase in a subtraction modification under the Maryland income tax to allow for a subtraction modification of all military retirement income beginning in taxable year 2026.

Maryland should join the other 38 states that do not tax military retirement income. To be economically competitive with our neighboring states, we should align with West Virginia and Pennsylvania who fully exempt military retirement income from their state tax. Eliminating the age restriction and phasing in a 100% exemption of military retirement income over the next three years recognizes the value of the contributions military retirees will make to Maryland’s future economic growth. SB 346 would have allowed the State of Maryland to not only reward military retirees for their sacrifices but allow them to continue their legacy of service at home in Maryland. By providing incentives for our military retirees to stay in Maryland, they will continue to provide sales tax revenue, volunteer, make charitable contributions and contribute to the state’s economy.

SB 346 was heard in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee and did not receive a vote.

House Bill 952

Income Tax – Subtraction Modification – Military Retirement Income (Keep Our Heroes Home Act)

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Failed

While not a direct crossfile of SB 346, HB 952 would have accomplished the same goal — to fully exempt military retirement income in the state beginning in taxable year 2026.

HB 952 was heard in the House Ways and Means Committee and did not receive a vote.

Taxation (cont.)

House Bill 713

Income Tax – Subtraction Modification for Military Retirement Income – Individuals Under the Age of 55

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 713 sought to increase the amount of a subtraction modification from $12,500 to $20,000 under the Maryland income tax for military retirement income for individuals who are under the age of 55 years; and applying the Act to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Similar to SB 346 and HB 952, HB 713 would have allowed Maryland to incentivize military retirees to stay in Maryland after they retire, contributing to the state’s revenue and economy.

House Bill 713 did not get voted out of the House Ways and Means Committee.

House Bill 454/Senate Bill 679

Disclosure of Tax Information – Tax Compliance Activity and Binding Data Use Agreements

MD Chamber Position: Support with Amendments

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 728

House Bill 454/Senate Bill 679 alters the definition of “tax information” for purposes of law governing the confidentiality and disclosure of tax information; authorizing, subject to certain limitations, the disclosure of certain tax information to certain tax compliance organizations and governmental entities to assist the Comptroller in tax compliance activity; and requiring the Comptroller to require the party to whom the information is to be disclosed to enter into a written, binding agreement regarding the use and security of the tax information

HB 454/SB 679 will allow the Comptroller’s office to engage outside entities to assist in their audit work while ensuring that taxpayer data remains secure and free of fraud. The Maryland Chamber worked alongside the Comptroller’s team and other members of the business community to further strengthen this legislation through friendly amendments adding definitions, referencing federal Internal Revenue Code for clarity, and specifying that all third-party auditors must be under the responsibility and operate under the direction of the Comptroller.

However, there were additional amendments that were not incorporated which we would have liked to see. First, we suggested a new section that specifies third-party entities should not be paid on a contingency basis. This would have prevented the unfortunate scenarios that have played out in other states where third parties have produced inflated and inaccurate audits to receive greater compensation. Second, we strongly urged the Committee to consider increasing the penalties in the instance of a violation to help deter bad actors from releasing taxpayers’ personal data. Neither amendment was included in the final bill language.

HB 454 passed and was signed into law on May 16.

Taxation (cont.)

House Bill 1007/Senate Bill 766

Fair Share for Maryland Act of 2024

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1007/Senate Bill 766 would have altered a certain limit on the unified credit used for determining the estate tax for decedents dying on or after a certain date; altered a certain limitation on the amount of the estate tax for decedents dying on or after a certain date; requiring that certain sales of tangible personal property be included in the numerator of the sales factor used for apportioning a corporation’s income to the State under certain circumstances; and altered the State income tax rate on Maryland taxable income of certain individuals.

This legislation would have, among other things, mandated that certain corporations compute their Maryland income tax using the worldwide combined reporting method — a highly complex system of determining taxable income among all countries in which a company does business. HB 1007/SB 766 would have also mandated adoption of the throwback rule where sales that are not taxed in the destination state are “thrown back” into the state where the sale originated, despite the income not being earned there. Additionally, this legislation would have imposed a potential additional 2.75% tax on Maryland pass-through entities (PTEs), our state’s smallest businesses. This change would force Maryland PTEs to pay income at the corporate rate instead of the current personal rate. Among other changes in the legislation, it would have increased Maryland’s personal tax rate for those making more than $250,000.

Both HB 1007 and SB 766 were heard in their respective committees and did not receive votes.

House Bill 1067

Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax – Assessments – Appeals and Corrections

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1067 aimed to establish a certain appeal process for persons who are subject to the digital advertising gross revenues tax (DAGR tax) and receive a notice of assessment from the Comptroller; authorizing the Comptroller or the Comptroller’s designee to issue an order to correct an erroneous assessment of the digital advertising gross revenues tax, subject to certain conditions; and applying the Act to assessments of the digital advertising gross revenues tax made after June 30, 2024.

This bill would have added the DAGR tax to the list of tax assessments eligible for an application for the revision of the assessment, a claim for refund, and an informal hearing within the Comptroller’s Office pertaining to either a revision application or refund claim. HB 1067 was a process bill creating parity between the DAGR tax and nine other types of common taxes as it pertains to the refund claims appeals process.

HB 1067 did not get voted out of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Taxation (cont.)

House Bill 1282/Senate Bill 923

Corporate Income Tax – Rate Reduction (Economic Competitiveness Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Failed

This bill would have decreased, over 5 taxable years, the State corporate income tax rate from 8.25% to 6.25%.

HB 1282/SB 923 would have put the state in far greater footing in terms of business climate and national economic competitiveness. It is well documented, most notably by the Augustine Commission, that Maryland’s corporate income tax rate stifles the state’s business climate. The Commission concluded that a reduction in the rate would allow businesses to establish new or expand existing operations, while preventing the continued outmigration of businesses and workers to more competitive states. The language of this bill is identical to that proposed by the Commission.

Both HB 1282 and SB 923 were heard in their respective committees and did not receive a vote.

House Bill 1515

Sales and Use Tax – Rate Reduction and Services

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Taxation

Final Status: Failed

This bill aimed to alter the definitions of “taxable price” and “taxable service” for the purposes of certain provisions of law governing the sales and use tax to impose the tax on certain labors and services; altering the rate of the sales and use tax; altering the percentage of gross receipts from vending machine sales and from certain sales of dyed diesel fuel to which the sales and use tax is applied; and alters the rate of the sales and use tax applied to certain charges made in connection with sales of alcoholic beverages.

While HB 1515 would have lowered the sales tax from 6% to 5%, it would have greatly expanded it to everyday services including legal services, realtor services, home improvement, auto services, etc. — just to name a few. This would have also applied to business-to-business services. A tax on services is discriminatory against small and fledgling businesses, leading to additional operating costs and tax pyramiding, placing Maryland businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to other states.

The fiscal note outlined that this change would have resulted in $2.6 billion in additional tax revenue for the State — a cost placed on the backs of all Marylanders and businesses. Additionally, an identical bill was introduced and received an unfavorable report by Ways and Means in 2020 (HB 1628).

HB 1515 was heard in the House Ways and Means Committee and did not receive a vote.

Transportation & Infrastructure

This policy committee supports improved state infrastructure that boosts economic opportunity. They work to advance short- and long-term answers to statewide transportation and transit needs.

House Bill 170/Senate Bill 79

State Finance – Prohibited Appropriations – Magnetic Levitation Transportation System

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Transportation

Final Status: Failed

This bill would have prohibited the State and certain units and instrumentalities of the State from using any appropriation for a magnetic levitation transportation system in the State; and providing that the prohibition does not apply to certain expenditures for salaries.

This legislation would have created significant barriers for public and private investment in the construction of a magnetic levitation (maglev) transportation system connecting Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. The legislation would have essentially render any maglev project impossible to construct and set a dangerous precedent for lawmakers to ban the use of funding for one project versus another. Mass transportation projects, such as maglev, create jobs, generate economic activity and transform Maryland into a leader in 21st-century transportation solutions.

Both bills were heard in their respective committees, and neither received a voting session.

House Bill 774

Motor Vehicles – Certificate of Title Fees – Zero-Emission Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicles

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Transportation

Final Status: Failed

HB 774 aimed to alter the fee charged by the Motor Vehicle Administration for the issuance of a certificate of title for zero-emission plug-in electric drive vehicles to $200.

The increased adoption of electric vehicles has resulted in a loss of revenue from the gas tax to the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), which helps maintain our state’s roads and infrastructure. Implementing a fee on electric vehicles helps ensure that electric vehicle owners contribute their fair share to fund road maintenance and infrastructure improvements.

House Bill 774 was heard in the House Environment and Transportation Committee and was not voted on.

Transportation & Infrastructure (cont.)

House Bill 1215

Transportation Financing – Retail Delivery Fee and Transportation Network Company Impact Fee

(Transportation Funding Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Letter of Information

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Transportation Final Status: Failed

HB 1215 sought to pledge certain revenues from a retail delivery fee and a transportation network company impact fee to paying the principal of and interest on consolidated transportation bonds issued by the Department of Transportation and establish a Retail Delivery Fee and Transportation Network Company Impact Fee Account in the Transportation Trust Fund. This would have required the Department to allocate the funds in the Retail Delivery Fee and Transportation Network Company Impact Fee Account for certain transportation purposes.

The proposed retail delivery tax would have been $.50 on each retail delivery transaction a vendor or marketplace facilitator makes in Maryland. The Chamber urged the committee to not proceed with legislation aimed at providing more funding to the TTF until the Maryland Commission on Transportation Revenue and Infrastructure Needs submitted their final report, due by January 1, 2025.

HB 1215 was not voted on in the House Environment and Transportation Committee.

House Bill 1446/Senate Bill 1060

Railroads – Safety Requirements (Maryland Railway Safety Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Transportation

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1446/Senate Bill 1060 would have established requirements and prohibitions related to the operation of railroads in the State, including provisions related to the size of the crew, the blocking of highway grade crossings, wayside detectors, and investigations by railroad labor union representatives. It also would have required the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to establish and maintain a database regarding the transportation of hazardous materials and waste by rail in the State.

This legislation would have imposed new burdensome requirements on freight railroads and greatly expand state regulatory oversight. Maryland’s freight rail industry is one of its most critical - helping to minimize transportation costs, manage our carbon emissions levels and strengthen our competitiveness. Our rail industry is responsible for thousands of direct jobs and contributes to hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs.

Both bills were heard in their respective committees and did not receive a vote.

Transportation & Infrastructure (cont.)

House Bill 836/Senate Bill 681

Major Highway Capacity Expansion Projects - Impact Assessments and Workgroup (Transportation and Climate Alignment Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Transportation

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 836/Senate Bill 681 would have required the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, to establish a process for performing major highway capacity expansion project impact assessments; requiring the Department and a metropolitan planning organization to perform an impact assessment under certain circumstances; establishing the Workgroup to Study Major Highway Capacity Expansion Projects to make certain recommendations to the General Assembly by December 1, 2024, related to certain assessments and mitigation plans. Imposing the mandates outlined in HB 836/SB 681 would have brought highway capacity expansion to a halt, effectively eliminating many expansion projects. Highway congestion would impose significant costs on businesses due to increased transportation time and delays in the delivery of goods and services. These delays could have disrupted supply chains, leading to increased operational costs and decreased efficiency. Maryland ranks in the bottom third nationally for per capita transportation infrastructure investment. As Maryland continues to grapple with persistent transportation infrastructure challenges that impact commute times and business operations, this legislation would have further negatively impacted our highway system.

SB 681 was reported Favorable with Amendments by the Senate Finance Committee. HB 836 crossed over to the Senate but did not make it past third reading.

Transportation & Infrastructure (cont.)

House Bill 352/Senate Bill 362

Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act

MD Chamber Position: No Position

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 717

The Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act (BRFA) is a bill that acts as a rider to the Governor’s budget bill, and generally includes provisions to change, alter or authorize the use of certain appropriations, change the distribution of certain revenue, allow the transfer of certain funds, and/or include a mandated appropriation in the annual Maryland state budget bill.

This year, the BRFA was introduced, and the House and Senate announced that they would add certain fees in the bill, mostly related to transportation funding. House and Senate leadership had about a week of meetings and briefings to come to an agreement on provisions to add. Of those changes, below is what was added that impact the state’s Transportation Trust Fund.

• Electric vehicle surcharge fee: $125 every two years when renewing registration, $100 for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles ($20M expected in revenue)

• Weight based registration fees: Adopting additional weight tiers and higher registration fees — additional $23 surcharge per year ($169M expected in revenue)

• Transportation network company fee: Ride-hail trips originating in the state will have a $.75 fee added ($45M expected in revenue)

• Safe work zone enforcement: Increasing fines for endangering road workers ranging from $60-$500 ($30M expected in revenue)

• Dealer processing charge: Increasing the current $500 dealer processing charge when purchasing a new car to $800 ($15M expected in revenue)

• Transportation Revenue and Infrastructure Needs Commission: Narrowed the Commission to mostly the elected and governmental appointments, and created an advisory committee which will now consist of appointed members of the public and businesses, like the Maryland Chamber.

While the Chamber did not take a formal position on the BRFA, the expected revenue from the new and increased fees will generate an estimated $320M-$350M, phased in over three years. The increased funding is great news for Maryland’s transportation infrastructure; however, these funds only address a small portion of the deficit the TTF faces.

Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance

This committee covers all workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance issues and supports policies that promote a fair and equitable balance between employee and employer concerns.

House Bill 205/Senate Bill 104

Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act of 2024

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance

Final Status: Failed

This legislation aimed to repeal and establish the methodology used to calculate the weekly benefit amount and alter the taxable wage base used to determine employer contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, the dependent allowance, and the amount of earned wages subtracted from a weekly benefit amount. Furthermore, this would have required the Secretary of Labor to set the taxable wage base and the maximum weekly benefit amount beginning in calendar year 2027 and each calendar year thereafter.

This legislation would have made serious changes to the state’s unemployment insurance program that could have imposed substantial costs on Maryland’s employers. To put some of the proposals in context, the required increase in employer contributions would roughly double the unemployment insurance tax burden on businesses, double the state’s weekly benefit amount and quadruple the minimum weekly benefit amount. Further, the maximum weekly benefit would be attached to an annual adjustment for inflation, which is more concerning as inflation remains stubbornly above the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%.

HB 205 was withdrawn by the sponsor. SB 104 did not get voted out of the Senate Finance Committee.

House Bill 339/Senate Bill 871

Unemployment Insurance – Disqualification – Stoppage of Work Caused by Labor Dispute

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 339/Senate Bill 871 would have allowed employees who are not working because of their voluntary participation in a strike, which results in a stoppage of work, to begin collecting unemployment insurance benefits 14 days after the stoppage of work began.

While an individual is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits when they’ve lost employment through no fault of their own, someone voluntarily walking away from their work because of an unresolved dispute between an employer and a labor union (which the employee is voluntarily participating in), does not constitute an appropriate use of unemployment insurance benefits. Further, workers are already entitled to benefits during a “lock-out” (employer caused work stoppage), allowing workers to claim benefits during an employee-caused work stoppage is double dipping of the unemployment insurance program.

HB 339 received an unfavorable report by the House Economic Matters Committee and SB 571 was not voted out of the Senate Finance Committee.

Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance (cont.)

House Bill 998/Senate Bill 846

Maryland Department of Labor – Unemployment Insurance – Study on Seeking Work Requirements

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 284 & 285

House Bill 998/Senate Bill 846 requires the Maryland Department of Labor, on or before December 1, 2024, to conduct a study on the actively seeking work requirement of the unemployment insurance system in the State and other states to evaluate the effects of ghosting on actively seeking work requirements and report on the study to the General Assembly.

Unfortunately, it is becoming more common for employers to contact potential employees about applications for open positions only to be met with no response. Known as ‘ghosting’, this issue is a loss of valuable time for the employer distracting from those potential candidates who are legitimately interested in the position or may be a better fit for the roll. The Maryland Chamber supports this effort as a means of identifying requirements which may result in a more engaged workforce pool, better connecting potential employees with open positions.

This legislation was signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25.

House Bill 1050/Senate Bill 919

Workers’ Compensation – Modification of Award – Extension

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance

Final Status: Failed

House Bill 1050/Senate Bill 919 aimed to extend, for 60 days, the period of time during which the Workers’ Compensation Commission may modify an award related to a workers’ compensation claim if an appeal is filed during the original 5-year period during which the Commission maintains authority to modify an appeal; and applying the Act prospectively.

Maryland already has one of the longest reopening statutes for workers’ compensation claims in the country. By extending the statute of limitations further, employers stood to bear even greater claims costs and the uncertainty of increased claim exposure. Greater claim costs and increased exposure to claims would lead to higher premiums for employers’ workers’ compensation insurance.

Both bills were heard in their respective committees and did not receive a vote.

Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance (cont.)

Senate Bill 750

Labor and Employment – Workers’ Compensation – Exception to Exclusivity of Liability

MD Chamber Position: Oppose

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Workers’ Compensation & Unemployment Insurance

Final Status: Failed

Senate Bill 750 aimed to alter the exception to the exclusivity of an employer’s liability under workers’ compensation law for covered employees who are injured or killed as the result of the deliberate intent of the employer to injure or kill the covered employee; deeming an employer to have acted with deliberate intent under certain circumstances. In addition, this bill would have established an exception to exclusivity of liability of an employer under workers’ compensation law for a covered employee who is killed by another employee and applied the Act retroactively.

Senate Bill 750 would have upended Maryland’s workers’ compensation system by allowing a covered employee, of the employee’s beneficiaries, to both file a claim for workers’ compensation and sue the employer for damages when the covered employee is injured or killed. Further, the bill would apply retroactively in nature, going back to claims filed on or after January 1, 2022. This would have opened employers up to additional workers’ compensations claims and costs that in some cases may have already been settled. Moreover, statute also already allows for civil suits against co-employees, as a third-party claim. SB 750 opened this up even further by allowing for civil suits against the employer for the acts of a co-employee.

SB 750 was heard in the Senate Finance Committee and did not receive a vote.

Governor Moore’s Legislative Priorities that We Supported

Governor Moore introduced 16 bills as part of his legislative package. Of the bills introduced, the Maryland Chamber supported the following:

House Bill 579/Senate Bill 474

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Approvals – Definition of Generating Station (Critical Infrastructure Streamlining Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Energy & Environment

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapter 411

Senate Bill 474 alters and establishes the definition of “generating station” for the purpose of exempting the construction of certain generating facilities used to produce electricity for onsite emergency backup and certain test and maintenance operations from the requirement to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN).

This legislation streamlines the regulatory process for industries reliant on backup power generators, particularly in critical sectors such as data centers and hospitals. The CPCN process will be kept in place for what it is intended to do, which is to permit electrical power generation facilities, like power plants, and high-voltage transmission lines. SB 474 represents a crucial step towards removing barriers to the growth of Maryland’s technology sector, and we believe it will have far-reaching positive impacts on our economy and resilience.

House Bill 579 was heard in the House Economic Matters and did not receive a vote. Senate Bill 474 passed and was signed into law on May 9.

Governor Moore’s Legislative Priorities that We Supported (cont.)

House Bill 581/Senate Bill 472

State Government – Permits, Licenses and Certificates – Processing (Transparent Government Act of 2024)

MD Chamber Position: Support

MD Chamber Policy Committee: Business Regulations & Operations

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 412 & 413

House Bill 581/Senate Bill 472 requires certain departments and independent units to create a catalog of information relating to permits, licenses, and certificates issued by the department and independent unit and to submit the catalog to the Governor on or before October 1, 2024. It also requires departments and independent units to post a completed update of information relating to permits, licenses, and certificates on their website by October 1, 2025. Additionally, it establishes the Government Efficiency Commission.

The Transparent Government Act is an important step in addressing and streamlining the state’s permitting review process, helping businesses stay competitive by bringing products and services to the market quicker. When businesses experience a predictable and smooth permitting or licensing process, they are more likely to invest in new projects and expand existing operations, ultimately leading to job creation and economic growth.

HB 581 and SB 472 each passed their respective chambers and were signed into law by Governor Moore on May 9.

Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse

On March 26, 2024, the Francis Scott Key Bridge that spanned the Patapsco River for 47 years collapsed following a container ship, named Dali, struck one of its piers. Six members of a maintenance crew working on the bridge were tragically killed, and two more were rescued.

The collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore has had significant repercussions on businesses across various sectors and geographic locations. This tragedy underscores the importance of transportation funding, infrastructure investment and support for critical transportation hubs like the Port of Baltimore.

Amidst the aftermath of the Key Bridge collapse, the Building Bridges to Recovery Coalition quickly emerged — uniting key stakeholders like the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Greater Baltimore Committee, World Trade Center Institute, Greater Washington Partnership and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others, with the shared purpose of business recovery. Through coordinated outreach efforts, we conducted a comprehensive survey to gauge the business impact from a diverse range of affected businesses and non-profits. We also quickly stood up a hub of resources and information to support businesses impacted.

Two pieces of legislation were introduced in the waning weeks of the 2024 legislative session:

House Bill 1526/Senate Bill 1188

Maryland Protecting Opportunities and Regional Trade (PORT) Act

Final Status: Approved by the Governor – Chapters 2 & 3

House Bill 1526/Senate Bill 1188 established the Fallen Transportation Workers Scholarship Program and the Fallen Transportation Workers Scholarship Fund to provide tuition assistance to a student who was a dependent or is the surviving spouse of a fallen transportation worker. It also requires the Maryland Department of Labor and the Department of Commerce to establish programs to assist individuals and certain entities impacted by the reduced operations of the Port of Baltimore. Moreover, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of Labor to alter certain unemployment eligibility requirements.

The PORT Act allows the Governor to use the state’s Rainy Day Fund to fund programs established by the state, suspends the unemployment insurance work requirement to support workers impacted by the collapse, increases the state’s bonding authority to rebuild the bridge, and provides financial support to families of the transportation workers who died on the job.

Both bipartisan pieces of emergency legislation were introduced on March 29, heard on April 2, and were signed into law by Governor Moore on April 9.

Key Bridge Collapse (cont.)

Senate Bill 1187

State of Emergency – Restoration, Repair, or Replacement of Critical Infrastructure – Suspension of State or Local Law

Final Status: Failed

Senate Bill 1187 would have authorized the Governor to suspend State or local law if necessary for the restoration, repair, or replacement of critical infrastructure related to a declared state of emergency for not more than 1 year after the state of emergency is declared. Additionally, it would have authorized the Governor, notwithstanding the termination of the state of emergency, to extend the suspension of State or local law under the Act until the restoration, repair, or replacement of the critical infrastructure is completed. The Act would have been applied retroactively to March 26, 2024.

SB 1187 was introduced on March 28 and had a hearing the next day in the Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee. The legislation failed to move out of the committee.

U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Alejandro Rivera. The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

Policy Committees

OVERVIEW

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce’s subject matter committees bring expertise and experience to the Chamber’s advocacy efforts. These committees help guide the Chamber’s agenda for policy areas including health care, civil liability and business law.

During Maryland’s legislative session, our government affairs team reviews recently introduced bills and resolutions and identifies specific pieces of legislation of particular interest to our members. Our team then compiles these bills and distributes them to the relevant policy committee chair(s) to review and approve for consideration. The list of bills for consideration is then sent to the full committee for review before the committee’s scheduled conference call. During this conference call, members weigh each issue and decide which position the Chamber should take, if any, and make recommendations to the larger Chamber’s Legislative Committee. The Chamber’s Legislative Committee will ultimately vote on and approve each of the Chamber’s positions. Chamber positions can include: Support, Support with Amendment, Letter of Information, Oppose, Hold/Monitor.

For more information or to join a committee, please visit mdchamber.org or email Director of Government Affairs Hannah Allen at hallen@mdchamber.org, for more information.

LEGISLATIVE

By invitation only

This committee develops the Chamber’s position on legislation affecting the business community.

BUSINESS REGULATION & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

This committee was first introduced for the 2018 session, and addresses legislative and regulatory issues affecting daily operational activities of businesses.

CIVIL LIABILITY COMMITTEE

This committee covers all issues related to tort reform and civil liability of businesses, including opposing efforts to expand exposure to liability and damages (including punitive and non-economic damages) and weaken defenses available to businesses.

CYBER & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

This committee covers issues related to growing and retaining biotechnology, cybersecurity, and other high-tech business innovators, including a focus on industry infrastructure needs.

EDUCATION & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

This committee covers issues addressing education and workforce development and the need for Maryland’s students to have affordable access to quality educational and skills-training systems that prepare them for college or a career, as well as the need for Maryland’s trades and businesses to hire and retain qualified workers.

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

This committee covers all energy and environmental issues. Interest areas include renewable energy sources, stormwater and waste management, pollution control and land use.

Maryland Chamber of Commerce 2024 Legislative Report

Policy Committees (cont.)

HEALTHCARE & BIOPHARMA COMMITTEE

This committee covers all healthcare issues, including cost factors, mandated health benefit demands, and regulatory oversights and requirements relative to improving Maryland’s current marketbased health care system to control costs and improve affordable access to coverage. Additionally, this committee will address issues regarding legislative interaction in the pharmacological discovery and development processes and related areas.

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

This committee covers all Maryland employment law and workplace regulation issues including mandatory paid leave, paid sick leave insurance, pre-emption of local laws on labor issues, public accommodation laws, noncompete agreements, minimum wage, predictive and restrictive scheduling and more.

YOUR VOICE MATTERS

TAXATION COMMITTEE

This committee covers all taxation issues impacting Maryland’s tax climate with the goal of strengthening that climate to help attract and retain businesses, workers, and investment.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

This committee covers all transportation issues, coordinating a broad-based coalition of businesses, trade groups, and associations to advance short- and longterm solutions to statewide transportation and transit needs.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION & UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMITTEE

This committee covers all workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance issues.

Lend your voice to shape the future of Maryland’s economy. As an advocate with the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, you join a 7,000+ member-strong grassroots collective of business thought leaders and a fulltime, dedicated government affairs team with strong relationships in Annapolis and on Capitol Hill. Through our 10 policy committees, you can have an active role in influencing the public policy that affects your business — with a partner that protects your interests. For more information about membership, contact Director of Member Engagement Theresa Montano at tmontano@mdchamber.org or 410-269-0642 x1111.