Getty Images photo by fhm.
For the past several months, most of the controversy over proposed high-voltage power lines in three Maryland counties has centered on property rights and the potential disruption of many residents’ carefully cultivated rural lifestyle.
But now a leading environmental organization is out with a study warning that the proposed power lines, which would run from a nuclear power plant in southern Pennsylvania through Baltimore and Carroll counties to a transmission station in Frederick County, could imperil valuable forest land and waterways in the region.
The report, by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), concluded that under the proposed route for the transmission line, more than 500 acres of protected land, including vulnerable forests and high-quality watersheds, would be threatened by the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project. The CBF, a regional environmental group, used geospatial data to analyze the transmission lines’ potential impact on wetlands, forests and habitat.
“If done thoughtlessly, this project would be a huge backslide on Maryland’s robust environmental investments,” Gussie Maguire, a Maryland staff scientist at CBF, said in a statement. “But we are not powerless. Maryland can and must enforce strict regulations to minimize and mitigate the environmental losses from this project, and ensure support for affected communities.”
The 70-mile power line project, which was sought by PJM, the operator of the regional electric grid, has triggered outrage and fears throughout the region, and a range of community leaders and elected officials have mobilized in an attempt to defeat it. But there is still no formal proposal yet: The project developer, PSEG, a New Jersey-based utility company, is expected to submit an application with the Maryland Public Service Commission, the state’s utility regulator, by the end of the year.
PJM, which controls the electric grid in Maryland and a dozen other states, plus the District of Columbia, is seeking the higher-powered transmission line to compensate for an anticipated shortage of electric transmission into the region, due to the scheduled closures of coal-burning plants and the growing demand for power from data centers and other sources — especially in Northern Virginia, which is already a data center hub. The energy deficit in Maryland is projected to grow exponentially unless additional infrastructure like the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project is built, PJM has asserted.
Numerous property owners in Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties have expressed fears that the project could wind up in a government-sanctioned taking of part or all of their land, and have also fretted that the transmission lines could disrupt local agricultural operations and the area’s rural character.
The CBF study may add more fuel to the opponents’ fire. Among its findings:
- The proposed route runs through 514 acres of protected area, including Maryland agricultural preservation foundation easements (a vast majority at 374 acres), Forest Conservation Act acres, and a portion of Gunpowder Falls State Park;
- It would run through 483 acres of Tier II watershed — a classification of high-quality watershed acres that, according to CBF, represent the cleanest water and most valuable habitat in Maryland;
- It would impact 377 acres of forest cover, at a time when state climate goals call for expanding forest lands;
- It would interrupt 47 acres of wetlands; and,
- It could threaten 125 acres of riparian buffer, the vegetation surrounding streams and other bodies of water.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation said its survey data was derived from information released by PSEG, and assumes a 150-foot-wide easement around the length of the transmission line. The proposed 500,000-volt transmission line’s area of impact would be roughly 70 miles long and 550 feet wide.
PSEG still needs to submit a permit application to the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) before the project can proceed. That application is expected before the end of 2024.
One question is whether the project will be classified as necessary utility infrastructure, which would make it exempt from Maryland’s Forest Conservation Act, including conservation and reforestation requirements. However, the Public Service Commission’s permit could include conditions that effectively minimize the line’s environmental harm wherever possible and enforce mitigation requirements where avoidance is not possible.
Prince George’s County Council votes against data centers — for now
Even before a proposal is formally submitted to the PSC, executives at PSEG are defending the proposed alignment, arguing that they’ve paid careful attention to the environmental, public health and community impacts.
“The proposed solution is community-informed, reliable and mitigates impact to individuals, communities, and wildlife as much as possible while delivering a cost-effective solution for Maryland and PJM electric customers,” Jason R. Kalwa, project director at PSEG, said recently.
In a related development, Gov. Wes Moore (D) last week joined the legion of politicians who have weighed in on the project. Moore, who has no direct say over the fate of the proposal, said he has asked leaders of PSEG and PJM to discuss the transmission line with him.
“I appreciate and respect the many Marylanders who have voiced strong opposition — especially the farmers, small business owners, and residents whose livelihoods stand to suffer impact,” Moore said in a statement. “As I have said from the start, I share grave concerns about how the study area for this project was determined, the lack of community involvement in the planning process, and the lack of effective communication about the impacts of this project. The single most important factor remains wholly unclear: the project’s comprehensive benefit to Marylanders.”
Earlier this fall, Moore, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Delaware Gov. John Carney, and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy — Democratic leaders of other PJM states — calling on the grid operator to work collaboratively with them on transmission planning.
“Together, we recognize that energy and economic development goals are not mutually exclusive and that progress depends upon true partnership to achieve growth,” Moore said. “To be clear: We need sustainable and cost-effective infrastructure to ensure the reliability of our grid and build the economy of the future in our state. But the approach must be one that puts people first.”