Lots of heat across a transmission line

Listen to this article

I must admit that I did not pay attention to the matter of a proposed new high-voltage electric transmission line through three counties in central Maryland until a colleague brought the matter to my attention.

The Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project is certainly a regional issue with so many competing issues. These range from the reliability of our electricity supply in the face of increasing demand, to local control of land use decisions, to the rights of private property owners, the potential use of eminent domain, and who exactly has responsibility when it comes to expanding and fortifying the energy grid.

Given the increasing coverage of the MPRP, I have attempted to provide a brief overview of the project and the issues surrounding it. Many of you may now be familiar with the proposed 70-mile high-voltage (500 kW) transmission line that runs from a substation in the northeast corner of Baltimore County through Carroll County and terminates at a substation in Frederick County near the Potomac River southeast of Brunswick.

We are told that the project is needed due to declining supply – as a result of the retirement of coal and gas power plants – and increasing demand due to the shift to more electric vehicles, greater use of HVAC systems and heat pumps, etc. Expanded requirements of data centers, accelerated by applications of artificial intelligence.

To respond to this widening gap between supply and demand, PJM, a regional transmission organization that coordinates wholesale electricity distribution in the Mid-Atlantic and as far west as Illinois, has enlisted the services of a major energy consulting firm, PSEG, to lay out the route for new transmission lines and develop a plan to meet projected electricity demand.

As of December 2023, PSEG examined various solutions and presented its planned 70-mile line in October with a price tag of $424 million. That’s when a lot of people (who weren’t sleeping like me) started to take notice.

Since then, PSEG has had the unenviable task of presenting its proposal to groups in the three directly affected counties. These groups clearly do not welcome what they see and hear about MPRP.

I took the opportunity to watch a video of the proposed route and the information session held in Carroll County on November 13th. After a brief description of the proposal by PSEG Project Manager Jason Kalwa, the presentation was cut short due to disruptions from attendees. including those standing in front of the stage with posters and signs with clear messages like NO! or STOP MPRP!

After some order had been established, those who wanted to ask questions of PSEG were asked to stand at a microphone and given two minutes each to voice their concerns. Questions were asked, the answers to which were generally not well received by the audience.

Comments rather than questions were more common as participants expressed concerns about damage to farms, environmental damage, loss of property values ​​and even potential health hazards due to proximity to the transmission lines and the towers that support the lines.

Some railed against the “green energy agenda” and questioned the closure of coal-fired power plants if there was a risk of blackouts or rolling blackouts. They invoked the name of Governor Wes Moore and deplored his silence on MPRP.

Some went even further, citing their “right to bear arms” to defend their property. Several urged property owners not to sign anything and not get involved at all when PSEG hired real estate agents who might contact them to secure easements for the needed right-of-way.

Another recurring theme was heard. Why should we in Maryland sacrifice to meet the energy needs of Northern Virginia’s data centers?

Maryland’s Office of People’s Council supported this cause. In a press release issued in August, this agency, which advocates for the general public, said: “Because electricity knows no boundaries, it can be challenging to determine a cause of a violation of a reliability standard that must be remedied.” In the case “The Piedmont Project will see most of its demand driven by data center growth, particularly in Northern Virginia.”

The uproar in Carroll County and elsewhere has had its impact. Moore issued his statement raising questions about MPRP. Outgoing U.S. Senator Ben Cardin and the Office of People’s Counsel, among others, have raised concerns about the process that led to the proposal now on the table.

With so many voices sounding the alarm about the project, it’s hard to believe that the MPRP won’t come back on the scene.

Joe Nathanson is the retired principal of Urban Information Associates, a Baltimore-based economic and community development consulting firm. He has written a monthly column for The Daily Record since 2001 and can be contacted at (email protected)