The Maryland Public Service Commission on Dec. 31 received an application from PSEG Renewable Transmission for the company’s Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, a 67-mile, 500-kV transmission line that could be vital to power reliability in the state but has already sparked opposition. 

The proposed line would run from a connection with a Baltimore Gas and Electric transmission line in northern Baltimore County, through Carroll County and end at a substation in Frederick County, near the state’s border with Pennsylvania. With a 150-foot-wide right of way, the project would cover approximately 1,221 acres, according to details in the application. 

The 500-kV line would be built on “303 H-frame structures, consisting of two vertical tubular poles with an average height of 145 feet (varying from 85 to 195 feet) and an anticipated foundation diameter of 6 to 14 feet,” the application says. The distance between the pylons would vary from 800 to 1,400 feet, with an average of 1,200 feet.  

PJM has warned the state repeatedly that new transmission is needed to meet growing demand from data centers and avoid potential power loss as existing fossil fuel plants are closed. 

But Joanne Frederick, board president of Stop MPRP, a grassroots, nonpartisan group opposing the project, isn’t buying that argument. 

“They have maintained all along that this was the only solution that would work, and we don’t believe them,” Frederick said in a Jan. 2 interview with RTO Insider. “This project, as proposed, is catastrophic to farmlands. It’s catastrophic to property values. It’s catastrophic to farming businesses. It’s catastrophic to several agri-tourism businesses. … We plan to argue against this project; against each of those broad negative impacts it would bring.” 

Frederick is one of several individuals and groups that have raised concerns about the project, from individual farmers to Gov. Wes Moore (D), who has questioned how the new transmission line would benefit the state and its residents. 

Opponents argue that MPRP was designed to bring power from Pennsylvania to data centers in Northern Virginia, but Maryland residents could end up paying a major part of the project’s $424 million price tag. 

PSEG has laid out a schedule for MPRP that includes PSC approval of a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the end of 2025, with construction beginning in 2026 and the project going online in 2027. 

The PSC soon will announce the date for a pre-hearing conference to set an administrative schedule and consider petitions from individuals and groups seeking to intervene in the case, according to Communications Director Tori Leonard. The commission also will schedule public hearings on the project in Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties, she said. 

Reliability and Economic Benefits

The MPRP was approved by PJM as part of its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan in December 2023. (See PJM Board Approves $5 Billion Transmission Expansion.) 

“PJM has determined that the bulk 500-kV electric transmission system serving large parts of Maryland is forecasted to experience serious reliability violations including thermal overloads and voltage collapse violations (blackout) in 2027,” PSEG said in its application. “If these serious reliability violations are not addressed, it could compromise overall system reliability in the PJM region, including for Maryland customers, and could lead to widespread and extreme conditions, including system collapse and blackouts.” 

Maryland imports about 40% of its power from the regional grid, and PJM has said the threats to reliability are so severe that upgrades to increase capacity on existing lines, by installing advanced conductors or other grid-enhancing technologies, would not be sufficient, the company said. 

PSEG also has said its proposed route was chosen out of 10 alternatives because it “impacted fewer conservation easements, had fewer residences and community facilities in close proximity to the right of way, and it was shorter and had fewer hard turns, which reduces cost and complexity.” 

The route also avoids Civil War battlefields and state parks, PSEG said in the application. 

Responding to community requests that the line be run along existing rights of ways, PSEG said doing so “would require removing over 90 residential homes and community buildings.” However, the proposed route would require easements on private land. 

According to PSEG’s website for the project, the company has started reaching out to landowners on the proposed route to talk with them about the project and answer questions. The company will seek temporary right-of-entry agreements “to conduct surveys and other studies needed to assess the suitability of the property for the MPRP and to gather information needed for the CPCN evaluation.” 

PSEG counters concerns about who will pay for MPRP by noting that as a PJM project, the cost will be allocated to customers across the RTO’s service territory, which includes 13 states and D.C. It also estimates $306 million in project benefits for Maryland, including “direct, indirect and induced positive economic impacts over an assumed 30 years of operations” and 1,709 full-time jobs during construction. 

Possible Legislation

The company first released a map of its 10 alternative routes in July 2024, followed by the announcement of the preferred route in October. PSEG held three public meetings, one in each of the affected counties, in November. 

Project opponents argue the rollout schedule did not leave enough time for individuals and communities to study the proposed route and provide informed feedback. 

PSEG’s public meetings were a step in the right direction but not sufficient, said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. 

“There needs to be more conversations,” Coble said in a Jan. 2 interview with RTO Insider. “You can fill a room with a bunch of people and a PowerPoint [presentation], and that does not equate into meaningful engagement of the communities that are impacted. There’re conversations; there’s listening; there’s [asking], ‘What are your concerns, and how can we help address them?’” 

In a Nov. 22 statement, Gov. Moore laid out his own “grave concerns about how the study area for this project was determined, the lack of community involvement in the planning process and the lack of effective communication about the impacts of this project.” 

Maryland lawmakers plan to introduce legislation that could slow the approval process for PSEG and the MPRP.

Del. Jesse Pippy (R), minority whip in the House of Delegates, is working on a bill that could require PSEG to provide more documentation of the alternative routes the company considered.  

PSEG “kept their cards very close to their chest,” Pippy told WBAL. “So, what we want to ensure is that when the Maryland Public Service Commission is making decisions, they are requiring these applicants to consider alternative routes.” 

Senate Minority Leader Justin Ready (R) may propose a bill to ensure that farmers displaced by the project receive a 350% premium for any of their land taken by eminent domain, according to WBAL. 

Stop MPRP’s Frederick also wants further study of alternatives to the project, such as combining system upgrades with grid-enhancing technologies and a new natural gas plant. 

“What’s the [difference] between … the negative environmental impact of a new, clean natural gas power plant versus the negative environmental impact of wiping out 473 acres of old-growth forest, of doing that kind of environmental damage to wetlands, woodlands across Maryland?” she said. “We owe it to ourselves to understand the facts; to clearly articulate the choices we should be making and not just ignore them.”