Transmission Newsletter # 7
October 28, 2024

Preferred Route: What Comes Next?

A week has passed since we learned of the preferred route for the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP). In a flurry of activity on-line and calls all around, PSEG announced that its preferred route would be across North Baltimore County, above Prettyboy reservoir and roughly paralleling an existing BGE power line, and then running SW to through Carroll and Frederick Counties, ending at the Doubs substation south of Frederick, across the Potomac River from Virginia. 

 

Almost four months ago, we were all surprised by the unfolding of a plan to build

 

the MPRP, a new “super highway” 500,000 V transmission line. PJM, the regional transmission operator (RTO) that awarded the contract to PSEG, a New Jersey utility, to build the MPRP, has stated the purpose is to supply additional power and redundancy to the grid in response to the enormous rise in demands created by the proliferation of data centers in Northern Virginia. There has been much speculation whether the proposed line will benefit consumers in Maryland.  Concurrent to this unprecedented and unanticipated rise in demand, Maryland has been off-lining coal and gas plants to reach its clean energy goals.

​

 

PSEG’s initial proposal outlined 10 possible pathways for the MPRP, two of which

included a southern route passing southwest through NE Baltimore County, through five miles of the Gunpowder State Park, into the Piney Run Rural Legacy area (PRRLA), through Upperco farms and the Trenton village and continuing to Carroll County. Included along that southern route were almost two dozen LPT conservation easements, all located within the Piney Run Rural Legacy Area, a 43,000 acre conservation zone which LPT facilitates and administers for the State.

​

 

The LPT board considered the proposal an existential threat to its easements and to the Piney Run Rural Legacy Area. One of our major responsibilities is to defend the conservation easements we hold: we did not anticipate that we would need to defend the easements and the PRRLA from an outside perpetrator at the behest of a governmental authority. As you know, we quickly gathered a team to analyze the threat and formulate a response. Our plan was targeted to four areas,

based on the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) evaluation criteria. 

 

• We retained an environmental consultant to prepare an inventory of the PRRLA and parts of North Baltimore County

• We hired an engineering firm to consider the viability of the project using existing transmission rights of way

• We retained an attorney with experience at the PSC and in eminent domain

• We engaged a lobbyist and worked with coalition partners to educate elected officials about the threat to conservation.

 

Armed with a stack of reports, maps and purpose we met with five

representatives from PSEG to explain that no matter where they might put a line

through the PRRLA, they could not reasonably escape LPT’s conserved land. As a

private land trust with independent authority regarding the deeded conservation

easements, we have the right and obligation to defend each easement to “the

end,” meaning that PSEG would be forced to go to court to use eminent domain

to build through the PRRLA. In other words, it would be difficult for PSEG to get an

advance foothold because of the number and breadth of the LPT easements. We

pointed out that many of LPT’s easements are co-held with the State of Maryland,

which further clouded PSEG’s ability to predict how the State and County would

defend the $43 million (State) and $6 million (County) they had invested in

conserving these properties. The meeting was cordial with each organization

explaining its position.

 

In the meantime, we worked in advocacy and coalitions to approach D.C. Senators

and Congressmen, Annapolis officials and our Baltimore County Council – all with

success. Recognition is due to our several coalition partners who actively engaged

with County Council. It is incredible how much work it takes to move the needle in

situations like this. Achieving meaningful opposition from Governor Moore is still

a work in progress, despite overwhelming opposition to the project from a wide

range of constituents and elected officials.

 

PSEG has announced its preferred route, and for whatever combination of

reasons, the Piney Run Rural Legacy area is no longer immediately threatened by

the MPRP. The route PSEG chose through Baltimore County approximates the

original route it proposed to PJM at the outset of its selection process. So, while

the PRRLA and its many dozens of conservation easements (most co held by LPT)

are spared for the moment, the horrible clarity of the project has become sharply

focused for our neighbors to the north, who live on breathtakingly beautiful farms

with historic places, just north of Prettyboy reservoir. LPT has one directly affected property and we will be working with those landowners to defend their easement.

 

What is next? We are teamed up with several in the conservation coalition to

consider legislation to protect conserved lands and we are consulting with

attorneys to consider our position as an intervenor at the PSC. There is a risk that

PSEG changes its route in the PSC review and we need to be in a position to

continue to defend the PRRLA.

 

We thank each one of you who has made calls, sent emails, or sent a donation.

Our strategy of “a good offence is the best defense” was, as predicted, expensive.

While we are in a relative holding pattern until PSEG files its application with the

MD PSC, we hope you will reach out to help our neighbors in North County with

your time and contributions. I am sure you know of the excellent work being done

by the grassroots organization, STOP MPRP, Inc. and several in the conservation

coalition who represent farming neighborhoods in North Baltimore County. The

Sparks Glencoe Area Planning Council and The North Baltimore Community

Association come immediately to mind.

 

As to the future, we need to consider how to prevent future intrusion to rural

conserved areas close to home, and throughout Maryland. We are all now

familiar with transmission lines, but pressure to build industrial scale solar

installations could be an equal challenge to rural conserved properties.

 

Please know that the PSEG – MPRP challenge is likely to be the first of many.

MPRP is known throughout the industry as a test to see how difficult it will be to

build similar transmission superhighways in other places. Energy policy is simply

not keeping up with the new challenges swiftly brought on by advanced

computing, leaving technology companies ravenous for energy and transmission.

Maryland and the Federal Government need to consider more relevant methods

of delivering energy to where it is needed most.

 

Please if you have questions, you are welcome to call. My cell is 443.799.7428. or

write to office@thelandpreservationtrust.org. If you see one of the working group

listed below, please thank them. Their combined sense of purpose, intensity,

intellect, and ability to work as a true team have been nothing short of remarkable.

 

My best, Victoria C. Collins (communications and finance)

     The LPT transmission working group

                 Ann H. Jones – Easement Director and Greenway Legacy

                 Michael T. Wharton (legal and advocacy)

                 Alice Chalmers (ag economics and coalition building)

                 Michael J. Sonnenfeld (easement, engineering, and legislation)

                 Meriwether H. Morris (communications) 

                 Teresa Moore (policy)

                 Mini Morris (media and outreach)