Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor says Property Rights Protection Act would bar condemnation for transmission lines and require local consent
Summary
Sen. Fulton presented SB 737 to prohibit condemnation of private property for overhead transmission lines and generators, repeal CPCN condemnation authority for transmission lines, and require local government consent; sponsor framed the bill in opposition to the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP).
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Fulton presented Senate Bill 737, the Property Rights Protection Act of 2025, describing the measure as a response to large‑scale transmission projects such as the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP).
The sponsor said SB 737 would prohibit electric companies from using condemnation to acquire private property for construction of power lines or generating stations and would repeal the authority for holders of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to exercise condemnation for overhead transmission lines. The bill would also prohibit condemnation on properties subject to conservation easements and require electric companies to obtain consent from local governing bodies before constructing new power lines.
Fulton said the MPRP, as presented by opponents, is a proposed 70‑mile, 500,000‑volt transmission line with an estimated project cost of $424,000,000. She said the project would require permanent easements, installation of roughly 140‑foot towers, threaten about 1,300 acres of farmland per Farm Bureau estimates (and up to 4,000 acres of impacted land overall), and would deliver an estimated under 3% of its transmitted power to Frederick County while imposing local impacts. The sponsor described the project as primarily serving out‑of‑state interests and said Maryland residents would bear costs through end‑user rate adjustments.
The sponsor framed the bill as preserving property rights, protecting farmland and conservation areas, and preserving local control. The hearing concluded after the sponsor’s presentation; no committee questions were recorded in the transcript and no formal action was taken at this session.
Opposition and technical comments were noted in the sponsor’s remarks, including references to the Maryland Farm Bureau’s concerns and local community forums that the sponsor said were insufficiently inclusive.

