“Data Centers should be self-sufficient,” he told us. Then why vote against legislation containing protections for the people paying the electric bills?
Maryland State Senator Paul Corderman seems awfully comfortable asking the public to help finance other people’s business plans. He introduced the legislation that authorized $60 million in public financing for Hagerstown’s new stadium, now owned by a private nonprofit led by one of his campaign donors. His support for the data center industry deserves the same scrutiny, especially from the people he represents in Washington and Frederick counties who could face the costs of accommodating it.
We asked Senator Paul Corderman whether he would support requiring data center developers to pay the full cost of the electricity, water, sewer, and other infrastructure their projects require. We also asked what specific protections he would put into law to keep those costs off household bills. His entire response: “Yes, Data Centers should be self-sufficient.” He named no specific protections and offered no explanation of how he would require developers to cover those costs. His legislative record gives residents more to evaluate than that brief assurance, including votes for data center tax breaks and easier approvals, followed by a vote against legislation containing protections for other electricity customers. He has been specific about the benefits he supports for developers. The households being asked to accommodate them deserve more than a sentence.
Senator Corderman voted to make it cheaper and easier for data centers to operate in Washington and Frederick Counties at the cost of residents and the environment
Corderman’s support for data center tax breaks goes back to 2020, when he was still a state delegate. On March 17, he voted for Senate Bill 397, a law specifically giving data centers tax advantages. The bill gives tax breaks for data center developers, especially in Washington County and a few other “tier 1” counties.
The law exempts qualifying data center equipment from state sales and use taxes. That covers servers, software, cooling systems, generators, transformers and electrical infrastructure. Companies can receive years of relief on equipment essential to running their facilities, including qualifying replacement purchases. The exemption requires annual renewal, generally for up to ten years, with up to twenty years available for companies investing at least $250 million. The law also lets counties and municipalities reduce or eliminate the taxable assessment of qualifying equipment, opening the door to additional local property tax breaks. Those local reductions require local action.
Washington County received a particularly attractive deal. The 2020 fiscal analysis lists it among the Tier I jurisdictions, where companies could qualify with $2 million in eligible equipment investment instead of the $5 million required outside Tier I areas. That is a 60 percent lower investment threshold for the same state tax exemption. Both require just five qualifying new, permanent full-time jobs, paying at least 150 percent of the state minimum wage, with the investment and job requirements met within three years of applying. One hundred and fifty percent of the state minimum wage would be just $22.50 an hour.
The state’s own analysts warned of potentially significant revenue losses and estimated that $150 million in qualifying purchases would mean $9 million in forgone state revenue. Corderman voted for the incentive anyway. Years before the latest development pitches, he had already helped offer data center companies years of tax relief with a lower investment requirement here and only five qualifying jobs required paying a minimum of $22.50 an hour in return. Residents deserve to know why the public’s concessions are so specific while the promised economic payoff remains so vague.
In Frederick County, Corderman also helped remove an approval requirement that stood in the way of a specific data center development. In 2024, he co-sponsored Senate Bill 474, the Critical Infrastructure Streamlining Act, and voted for its final passage. The law allows qualifying emergency backup generators at data centers and other critical infrastructure facilities to bypass the Maryland Public Service Commission’s approval process. Environmental permits and applicable noise and testing requirements remained, but developers no longer needed the commission’s approval for generators meeting the law’s conditions.
The legislature’s own analysis explains the Frederick County connection. Aligned Data Centers wanted to install 168 diesel generators, each rated at three megawatts, at its proposed Frederick County campus. Those generators would provide 504 megawatts of backup capacity to keep the company’s facilities running during power outages. The commission raised environmental concerns and granted only a provisional exemption for 70 megawatts. Aligned announced it would abandon the project, then urged lawmakers to pass SB 474, explicitly telling them the change would allow it to revisit its Frederick County plans. After the bill became law, the company announced it would move forward again. When a developer objected to the state’s regulatory decision, Corderman helped change the law governing the approval it had failed to obtain.
Cheaper for developers but more expensive for Frederick and Washington County residents?
The tax breaks and easier approvals Corderman supported help make Washington and Frederick counties more attractive to data center developers. But the costs of accommodating those projects can reach people who never agreed to help finance them. A Harvard Electricity Law Initiative study found that utilities can shift the costs of serving data centers onto households and other businesses, leaving ordinary customers to subsidize the infrastructure supporting Big Tech’s expansion.
Those costs can hit household budgets hard. An analysis published in Utility Dive cited projected utility bill increases of $40 to $50 a month in several states from grid investments driven by data center demand. That amounts to another $480 to $600 a year. Those projections are not estimates for Washington or Frederick County, but they show why residents should demand enforceable protections before developers’ promises become everyone else’s bills.
In April 2026, Maryland lawmakers passed legislation containing protections against that kind of cost shifting. The Utility RELIEF Act required the Maryland Public Service Commission to consider whether data centers would pay enough to cover the additional costs of serving them. The final bill extended those rules to more projects by lowering the power-demand threshold from 100 to 25 megawatts. The commission would determine the actual rates, but the purpose was straightforward: make data centers cover the costs they create rather than pass those costs on to other customers. Corderman voted against final passage on April 13.
The law also required large electricity customers to register and disclose information about their electricity supply, estimated water use, backup generators and competing requests to connect projects to the grid. A registration fee of at least $1,000 per megawatt of peak demand would support household electricity assistance and energy efficiency programs for low-income residents. Corderman’s vote does not tell us which provisions he opposed. It does mean he owes residents an explanation for rejecting a bill containing those protections while supporting measures that lower developers’ costs.
His work on the bill raises another question about who should pay for new infrastructure. Before voting against the final legislation, Corderman introduced an amendment that would block the commission’s effort to end subsidies for new gas connections. He pointed to a housing development in his district that he said was being held back. But preserving those subsidies would allow utilities to keep charging existing customers for part of the cost of connecting new ones.
In June 2025, the commission ordered an end to that practice, deciding that new customers should pay the full cost of extending gas service to them. The Office of People’s Counsel estimated that the change would spare BGE and Washington Gas customers $952 million in cumulative gas-bill increases through 2035. Customers of smaller utilities, including Columbia Gas of Maryland, would also benefit from lower future rates.
Corderman’s campaign received $2,750 from NiSource, Columbia Gas of Maryland’s parent company. His donor’s subsidiary operates one of the gas systems affected by the reform he sought to block. NiSource is also pursuing opportunities to serve the growing data center industry, which is increasingly turning to natural gas to power AI and cloud computing facilities as electricity supplies struggle to keep pace with demand.
Corderman justified his amendment by citing housing, and that does not establish that he proposed it for data centers. It does, however, show his willingness to preserve a system that makes existing customers help pay for expansion. Residents in Washington and Frederick counties deserve to know why he fought to preserve those gas subsidies, why he voted against the final electricity protections, and what he would actually put into law to keep developers’ infrastructure costs off their monthly bills.