Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear multiple bills after public uproar over proposed 70-mile Piedmont transmission line
Summary
A suite of bills introduced after public opposition to the proposed Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project would force regulators to examine grid-enhancing technologies, reconductoring and routing alternatives before approving new overhead high-voltage transmission lines and would restrict eminent domain for conserved lands.
Several senators and community groups urged the Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee to consider legislation tightening review of new high-voltage transmission proposals after intense public opposition to the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP), a 70-mile, 500 kV line that critics say would primarily serve data centers in Loudoun County, Va.
Senator Charles West described the public backlash at community meetings and said an earlier award and contract (he cited a $424 million contract with PSEG) left Maryland communities with little chance to influence routing, technology choices, or alternatives. West introduced bills requiring the Public Service Commission to consider grid-enhancing technologies (GEDs), reconductoring, longitudinal/long-haul siting in existing rights-of-way, and undergrounding before approving new overhead transmissions.
West's package includes a bill to prohibit the use of eminent domain against land encumbered by permanent conservation easements, and a companion provision to allow owners of property within 500 feet of a condemned transmission right-of-way to sue for diminished property value and recover attorney and expert witness fees if a court later finds the landowner was undercompensated.
Joanne Frederick of StopNPRP said the MPRP would cut wetlands and forests, threaten farmland and conserved lands, and that reconductoring and GEDs were underused alternatives. Patrick Welch, an energy-market adviser based in Ellicott City, and other witnesses said transmission can be avoided, delayed or reduced by non-wires alternatives, demand flexibility and by using existing lines.
Sponsor amendments and a nearly identical House companion were discussed; several witnesses urged the committee to act to ensure PSC and PJM consider alternatives before new construction goes forward. No votes were taken at the hearing; witnesses said enactment would apply to impending applications including the PSEG filing.
