Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Transmission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects amendment that would have given counties veto over overhead transmission lines
Summary
Delegates debated an amendment to House Bill 829 to bar the Public Service Commission from issuing CPCNs for overhead transmission lines until every affected county's governing body approved construction; the House rejected the amendment after extensive floor debate about local control, statewide energy needs and legal precedent.
An amendment to House Bill 829 that would have required the governing body of each county (including Baltimore City) to approve construction of any portion of an overhead transmission line before the Public Service Commission (PSC) could issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) was rejected after lengthy floor debate.
The amendmentsponsor framed it as a local-control measure intended to protect landowners and preserved farmland from having major transmission infrastructure imposed on them without their approval. Supporters described the amendment as a necessary check after projects such as the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project and TransSource proposals prompted intense local opposition.
Opponents, including the floor leader, said the amendment would give counties veto power over infrastructure and disrupt a CPCN balance that considers statewide and regional needs as well as local impacts, a balance the floor leader said has been supported by Maryland case law. The floor leader urged rejection, arguing the bill as written increases transparency and public participation while preserving the PSCs ability to balance interests.
Why it matters: Delegates said the amendment posed a trade-off between increased local approval power and the risk of undermining regional planning for electric transmission. Several delegates described the anticipated local political backlash if lines were proposed through their districts; others warned that granting veto authority could increase electricity costs and complicate projects under FERC and PJM reliability planning.
Key floor actions - The amendment (described on the floor as limiting the PSC from issuing a CPCN until each affected county governing body gave approval) was offered by the maker of the motion and debated at length. - The House adopted the previous question to cut debate; the previous question passed on a roll call (recorded as 99 affirmative votes in the transcript). - After roll-call voting on the amendment, the clerk reported the amendment failed (the floor transcript records "The amendment fails").
Noted arguments - Supporters: local residents have been blindsided by projects; allowing local approval would protect farmland, parks and property values and could be used as leverage to require burying lines or other mitigations. - Opponents: giving localities veto authority would threaten statewide/regional electricity planning, could raise rates, and conflict with past court rulings addressing the scope of local authority; PJM/FERC and PSC roles were described as part of the technical route-setting process.
Formal action (summary) - Motion: Amend HB 829 to require county governing body approval before PSC may issue a CPCN for overhead transmission lines. - Mover: Delegate (maker of amendment) - Outcome: failed (clerk recorded: "The amendment fails") - Notes: the floor also adopted the previous question prior to the roll call.
Ending The bill as reported will proceed without the county-approval amendment; delegates on both sides signaled continued concern about proposed transmission projects and urged public engagement and negotiation on specific routes.
