Galien amendment to require transmission owners to mail certified notices fails after committee debate and roll call
Loading...
Summary
A proposed amendment from Senator Galien that would have required transmission-line owners to send plain-language certified-mail notices to affected and adjacent landowners and made notice failures potentially invalidate approvals failed on a roll-call vote after PSC witnesses described current notice practices and members debated the 'invalidate' penalty.
The Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee debated but ultimately defeated an amendment from Senator Galien that would have shifted the duty to notify landowners of proposed transmission lines from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to the transmission-owner and required plain-language certified-mail notices, with failure to provide notice potentially invalidating the approval process.
Senator Galien said constituents of District 7 reported the current process did not work for them and that the amendment would require transmission owners to notify directly, in plain language, adjacent and affected landowners about the process, their right to intervene and relevant deadlines. "It's about transparency. It's about public participation," he said, arguing that varying notice practices left some landowners unaware of intervention rights.
PSC witness Vanessa Ben Baker said the commission generally requires applicants to notify adjacent landowners at the time of filing and that public meetings and additional notices occur later in the process. Legislative director Nikki Wigan told the committee that formal hearing notices must be sent by certified mail but that there is not a general statutory requirement for how an early 'work' notice must be delivered. Baker also cited existing COMAR notice provisions and agency practices that already require notice to certain officials and adjacent landowners.
Committee members objected to a proposed clause that would automatically invalidate a hearing or approval because one or a few landowners did not receive notice, calling that language a blunt instrument that could indefinitely delay projects. Members discussed alternatives, including restoring an earlier subsection that preserved consequences only for willful failures to notify or crafting language that would permit a new hearing rather than automatic invalidation.
Senator Galien moved to accept a revised version of his amendment that would reinsert a prior subsection and strike the invalidation clause, but the committee took a roll-call vote and the revised motion failed. The transcript’s roll-call record shows recorded yes votes from Senators Galien, Carrozza, Washington and Simonare and no votes from Senators Kagan, Hester, Watson, Atar, Harris, Brooks and Powell; the chair announced the motion failed.
PSC testimony and committee debate highlighted uncertainty about the appropriate scope of required notice (adjacent only or a broader impacted area) and whether the PSC’s existing authority and regulation is sufficient. Members asked counsel and staff about drafting options and indicated a willingness to revisit the topic with a written amendment that precisely defines notice requirements and consequences.
