Maryland PSC pauses on schedule for PSEG 500 kV line as agencies demand field surveys

The Maryland Public Service Commission on June (date not specified) took the application for PSEG Renewable Transmission LLC's proposed 500‑kilovolt transmission line under advisement after a contested prehearing conference in which the applicant pressed for an expedited procedural schedule while state reviewers and local intervenors said the application is incomplete without site‑specific field surveys.

PSEG Renewable Transmission counsel Joseph Curran asked the commission to adopt a full procedural schedule that would allow parts of the review to proceed while the company pursues field surveys and landowner access, saying a full schedule is needed so the developer and PJM can plan to meet an in‑service date of June 1, 2027. "We should not delay the development of a procedural schedule that allows two things to go on concurrently," Curran said.

The Power Plant Research Program (PPRP), which reviews environmental and natural‑resource impacts for CPCN applications, opposed moving forward before it receives field‑level survey data. Sandra McLemore, assistant attorney general representing PPRP, told the commission that the agency cannot complete its statutory review without those surveys and that the application is not yet suitable for a full procedural schedule. "Field level surveys are required for CPCN in Maryland, particularly for a 67‑mile greenfield project," McLemore said, citing PPRP's statutory responsibilities and COMAR requirements for topographic and natural‑resource mapping.

Why it matters: The dispute combines two core issues for transmission siting: the developer's urgency to address projected grid reliability problems identified by PJM, and state regulators' need for on‑the‑ground environmental and cultural‑resources information to assess impacts and recommended permit conditions. Dozens of intervenors representing counties, farms, environmental groups and private landowners told the commission an expedited timeline would prejudice reviewers and the public and that a pending federal access dispute is already delaying field work.

Key facts and positions

- Project and schedule: PJM planning identified reliability violations that PJM modeling shows could occur as soon as summer 2027; PJM witness Dr. Sami Abusalam said the June 2027 date "was stemming from observing violations in the PJM system" and explained PJM set the required in‑service timeframe. The applicant asked the PSC to adopt a procedural schedule that could lead to a final order by March 2026, or otherwise to a schedule that would enable construction to meet June 1, 2027.

- Applicant's view: Joseph Curran, counsel for PSEG Renewable Transmission, told the commission the company has provided voluminous information since its December filing, has answered "over 300" discovery items, and plans to supply field surveys when landowner access is granted. Curran said COMAR does not expressly require field surveys to deem an application complete and urged the PSC to allow discovery and hearings to proceed concurrently with efforts to obtain site access.

- PPRP and state reviewers: PPRP disputed the applicant's interpretation of the regulations and said specific field surveys and any route revisions based on them are necessary before PPRP can complete its review under the Natural Resources Article and COMAR. McLemore told the commission PPRP can provide its assessment within six months after receiving the field data but cannot set a schedule until the applicant commits to when it will provide that information.

- Landowner access and litigation: The applicant said it has been denied access by many landowners and has filed petitions in federal district court seeking rights of entry; those proceedings are fully briefed and awaiting a decision. Several intervenors said the developer delayed seeking access and filed late supplemental materials, and they urged the commission not to adopt a schedule until the court ruling and the field surveys are available.

- Intervenor and local government concerns: County counsel and intervenors including Baltimore County, Carroll County, Frederick County, the Office of People's Counsel, Maryland Farm Bureau and environmental groups opposed bifurcating the record to decide "need" or grid reliability separately from siting and environmental matters. They argued bifurcation would create inefficiencies, force multiple rounds of hearings, and risk short notice for voluminous filings. Several intervenors also said many local parties only recently obtained intervenor status and do not have resources to meet compressed deadlines.

Proceedings and next steps

- Admissions and records: The commission admitted the applicant's certificates of publication filed in February and June (marked applicant exhibits 1 and 2) into the record.

- Commission action: After hearing argument from the applicant, PPRP, staff counsel and numerous intervenors, Chair Fred Hoover said the commission would take the matter "under advisement" and issue a written order addressing both whether the application is complete in its current form and the appropriate scheduling approach. "We are going to ... issue an order on the way forward, either adopting a schedule or creating a process for creating a schedule," Hoover said.

What remains unsettled

- Whether the PSC will deem the application complete without field surveys or require the PSEG applicant to provide on‑the‑ground survey data and any route changes before the commission adopts a procedural schedule.

- If field surveys are required, when the company will be authorized to obtain them (pending federal court action) and the timeline PPRP and other state agencies will need to complete their reviews once they receive those data.

- Whether the PSC will permit any bifurcation of issues (for example, deciding need first) or require a single, consolidated record.

The commission did not set further dates at the hearing. It said it would issue a scheduling and completeness order after internal deliberations and consultation with commission staff.