Dozens of residents of Kingsville, Joppa and Upper Falls told the Harford County Council on Oct. 7 that they strongly oppose the Brandon Shores Retirement Mitigation project — an application before the Maryland Public Service Commission filed as Case No. 9748 — which would add a second set of transmission lines within an existing corridor.

The opponents said the proposal would erect new 170-foot monopoles, threaten aviation safety, damage historic landscapes and expose homes and playing fields to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Rachel Harkins Allman, who said she grew up and now raises a family along the Little Gunpowder River, told the council, “I’m speaking here tonight to express my strong opposition to the Brandon Shores retirement mitigation project, case number 9748 that’s coming before the public service commission.”

Why it matters: Speakers said the project would place very large transmission structures through narrow, historic and residential areas and that local review and outreach have been inadequate. Many urged the county to back undergrounding or to ask the PSC to require BGE to limit visual and health impacts.

Public comments summarized

- Safety and aviation: Multiple speakers said monopoles would exceed Federal Aviation Administration and Maryland Aviation Administration height standards near a small airport. Bill Zink told the council that “11 historical properties sit within 1 mile of the power lines,” and said the lines run about a half-mile from Jerusalem Mill Village, a major historic site.

- Historic and scenic resources: Speakers said more than 200 properties on the Maryland state register and 11 on the National Register lie within about a mile of the proposed lines and that the transmission structures would “scar” the county’s rural and historic landscapes.

- Health and EMF concerns: Several speakers cited studies linking long-term EMF exposure and childhood leukemia. John Von Paris told the council that pooled epidemiological analyses show an elevated risk and that “the safe distance away from harmful EMF exposure from high voltage power lines is 700 feet,” while noting homes and play areas in the corridor lie far closer.

- Property rights and legal claims: Dr. Mark Kokuka argued that older easements incorporated by reference from a 1931 deed (and a later 1978 easement) constrain the corridor’s permitted use and said BGE’s current build-out may have exceeded those rights. “That’s called the incorporation by reference doctrine. It’s not optional,” he said, and urged legal scrutiny of easement scope and BGE’s use of eminent-domain powers.

- Outreach and notice: Patty Vaughn Paris and others described a sequence of BGE mailings they characterized as unclear or delayed; they said a clear notice that BGE had filed for a certificate of public convenience and necessity did not arrive until March 2025, more than a year after initial letters.

Procedural notes and next steps

- Hearing and intervener status: Speakers referenced upcoming PSC hearings next week and said some residents had been granted intervener status. Rachel Allman said the PSC hearing “goes to October 17.”

- County response: Council President Vincente (as read into the record) told speakers the council could consider a resolution but that “for us to do a resolution, we won't be able to do it until next Tuesday night. It has to be done in open session. So we would not have anything ready till the fifteenth.”

Ending: Speakers asked county officials and neighbors to attend PSC proceedings and submit comments. Several asked the council to formally urge undergrounding of new circuits or to press BGE and the PSC for stronger mitigation and transparency.