Maryland’s Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) recommended the Public Service Commission (PSC) set a new October deadline for the developer of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP) to finish its application.
The MPRP is a controversial 67-mile powerline which could cut a 150 foot wide swath across Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick Counties. The Public Service Enterprise Group, or PSEG, argues the powerline is needed to strengthen the backbone of the local power grid.
Without it, PSEG says Maryland could face rolling black and brown outs in the coming years. Opponents rebut those claims, alleging there are other alternatives not being looked at. They believe the MPRP will only act as an extension cable for Northern Virginia data centers.
PSEG missed a March deadline to turn in all relevant geological information on land surveys needed to complete the powerline’s application. This is in part because of an ongoing legal battle between the developer and hundreds of landowners.
Last year, PSEG took approximately 300 Marylanders to court for access to their private properties to perform the surveys. Residents across the state banded together to, “just say no.” Multiple grassroots organizations, such as StopMPRP and the Tri County Coalition, formed to oppose the powerline.
April marks the one year anniversary of the first of these lawsuits, and still, many surveys have not been completed. Many residents have even filed appeals against the constitutionality of an out of state developer claiming eminent domain to build on their land.
The Update
The PPRP has requested the PSC file a new October deadline for PSEG to turn in its remaining survey data. If this can be done, the organization said the earliest it could complete their review of the developer’s data would be March of next year.
PSEG originally requested the PSC set March 2027 as the expected date for their final decision on the MPRP’s application. This is in line with their contractually obligated June 2027 in-service date for the power line.
Having missed the deadline last month, the PPRP has stated the developers proposed timeline, “makes it impossible for PPRP and the reviewing State agencies to complete the necessary assessments, undertake a coordinated review, and provide their recommendation to the Commission by September 2, 2026.”
September is when the PPRP, residents and others who wish to intervene in the case were scheduled to testify on the MPRP. However, the PPRP will need at least nine months to review the data before anything else can be done.
The remaining wetland and forest surveys were turned in by the March deadline. However, rare species habitat assessments and archeological field surveys are only 24% and 33.5% complete respectively. These studies will be continued across 2026.
The PPRP argues the possible impact of the MPRP is great, urging careful consideration and review of all data submitted by PSEG. In their filing, the PPRP stated, “The sheer 67-mile length of this greenfield transmission Project through a region with significant State resources creates the potential for significant impacts.”
Impacts of the MPRP listed by the PPRP
- Clearing 479.1 acres of forest, 19.2 acres of which are within stream buffers.
- Potentially impacting 1,245 specimen trees and four State Champion trees.
- Permanently impacting 41.14 acres of wetland buffers
- Impacts to 398.9 acres of Forest Interior Dwelling Species habitat.
- Visual impacts to 17 Maryland historic properties within the proposed ROW
The PPRP noted the developers' use of remote survey data, meaning information not gathered on-site, would not serve as a substitute for the in-person surveys. Only after the data is collected can the required state agencies determine how to best determine how to mitigate these issues.
Legal and Accurate
Brandon Hill, member of the Tri County Coalition, doesn’t want any date set other than when PSEG is expected to turn in the remaining data. “After PSEG does everything that they need to do, there needs to be a six month pause for the PPRP to look at the data, as well as the individual intervenors,” Hill explained. “So setting a scheduling date, after PSEG has already broken the first scheduling date, I think is completely immature.”
He said no one wants the developer on their property, but if the courts are going to allow PSEG access, they ought to complete the surveys properly. During the winter, Hill explained he had representatives from several organizations on his property. He alleges PSEG’s surveyors chose not to work, rather than operate in front of witnesses. “If they aren’t willing to do these surveys in front of experts and lawyers, then can we really definitively say they are doing them properly,” Hill asked.
Further, Hill claimed the surveyors were there to perform a wetlands delineation study, which he pointed out is supposed to be done during the growing season after the snow has melted. “It’s taking them time and energy and they don’t seem to want to do them properly, but there are places that shouldn’t be destroyed because [of] different vegetation, different wetlands that are unique in Maryland,” Hill said. “So unless we do these surveys properly, we won't be able to protect those sensitive species if this project does make it through.”
Impact on Landowners
For Hill, this has been a three year battle. As he says he has been dragged through court with his property on the line, he hasn’t had much time to focus on what he wants. He explained property owners may want to work on and improve their land, but finds himself looking over his shoulder. “You constantly have this in the back of your head,” Hill said. “Is someone else going to come in here and sue me to get access to my land and build something else? …It’s very psychologically draining.”
Whether PSEG even has the legal right to access the private properties of hundreds of Maryland landowners is currently being appealed in court. Arguments are scheduled to be heard next month, and Hill would like to see the whole project tossed out if the appeals succeed.
