Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project
As shown in the map above, a massive electricity transmission line – the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project – is proposed to run from Frederick County through Carroll County to Baltimore County, Maryland. This project will carry electricity from heavily polluting coal-fired power plants in West Virginia to data centers and other power-hungry uses proliferating in Virginia and now in Maryland. If you are concerned about how the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project may affect your property then contact CEDS president Richard Klein at 410-654-3021 or Help@ceds.org. To see examples of how CEDS has helped protect land and homeowners from transmission line impacts visit: https://ceds.org/success-examples/#tl.
Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project Status
Of the various possible routes shown in the map above, PSEG selected that shown below as the preferred route.
On December 31, 2024, PSEG (Public Service Enterprise Group) the company proposing the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, filed an application with the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC). To view the application documents submitted thus far go to: https://webpscxb.psc.state.md.us/DMS/case/9773. The PSC press release announcing application receipt can be viewed at: https://www.psc.state.md.us/wp-content/uploads/PSEG-Files-CPCN-Application_12312024.pdf
Now that an application has filed there will be ample opportunity to voice your concerns through PSC hearings held during the review period which will likely last one- to perhaps three-years. In the meantime, you can let PSC know of your concerns by sending an email to: piedmontcomments.psc@maryland.gov. To check the status of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project visit the following PSC webpage: https://www.psc.state.md.us/pseg-maryland-piedmont-reliability-project/
Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project Potential Impacts
While there may be some need for improving the transmission grid, it is not clear that 70 miles of new 500,000-volt, transmission line is the best answer. Especially when one considers the following impacts the transmission lines could cause:
• Disruption of dozens of neighborhoods and thousands of households during construction,
• Increased pollution from coal-fired power plants,
• Possible adverse health effects to those living up to a thousand feet away due to electromagnetic fields (EMF),
• Possible loss of property value for homes up to 1,000 feet from transmission towers,
• Impacts to farms including many which have been preserved from development at great cost to farm owners and tax-payers, and
• Attracting data centers and other power-hungry uses to our communities which may bring on a whole other set of impacts. And to literally add insult to injury, we’ll likely see our electric bills increase to pay for this this $424 million project.
CEDS Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project Narrated Presentation
At the following link you will find a CEDS PowerPoint presentation outlining the potential impacts of the PSEG transmission line project as well as options for ensuring the project is not approved until it is proven to be the best option and all impacts have been resolved: https://youtu.be/NgE4VmnA9KA.
CEDS Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project Strategy Analysis First Step
The best opportunity to prevent Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project impacts will be the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC), Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity (CPCN) process. CEDS success in safeguarding clients from transmission lines and other major impacts always begins with an analysis of past decision-making history. This analysis frequently shows what approaches are most likely to provide the outcome desired by our clients for the least cost. So, to better understand what strategy options might allow those concerned about the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, CEDS reviewed PSC transmission line decision-making history during the most recent five-year period for which records were readily available: 2019 to 2023. The document resulting from this CEDS analysis is posted at: https://ceds.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Recent-Maryland-Public-Service-Commission-Transmission-Line-Decisions-2019-2023.pdf.
According to PSC annual reports for 2019 to 2023, seven transmission line CPCN applications were considered. Of the seven transmission line cases, Transource was the project most like the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project. Transource impacts were substantially reduced by requiring that the line be constructed within existing transmission right-of-way. There are several existing transmission line and other corridors in which the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project could be built. Co-Location the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project transmission line within or adjacent to these corridors could resolve a substantial portion of Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project impacts, but not all.
Transmission Line Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) & Health
The potential for adverse health effects due to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is a concern of a number of those whose homes might be near the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project transmission line. Here’s a summary of a few recent studies and a layman’s (non-expert) take on significant findings. Some of the studies report adverse effects; others do not. Clicking the blue text below will take you to the actual study. If you know of other studies that should be presented here then please send a message to Help@ceds.org.
Assessment of cortisol secretory pattern in workers chronically exposed to ELF-EMF generated by high voltage transmission lines and substations. This 2022 study conducted in France, focused on electric substation health effects. I had been searching for research regarding substations for decades. This was the first study I’ve seen. As noted in the study abstract: “This study strongly suggests that chronic exposure to ELF-EMFs alters the peak-time serum cortisol levels. Studies are required on the effect of this disruption in high-risk populations such as children, elderly people, and patients with cancer.”
Biological and health-related effects of weak static magnetic fields (. 1 mT) in humans and vertebrates: A systematic review. This 2020 paper by researchers based in Germany is more akin to the meta-analysis needed to show consistent effects. The focus was the health effects of weak static magnetic fields (SMF) from “high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, systems operating with batteries, such as electric cars, and devices using permanent magnets.” I do not believe the AC transmission line proposed by ATC is comparable. The researchers concluded: “The available evidence from the literature reviewed is not sufficient to draw a conclusion for biological and health-related effects of exposure to weak SMF.”
Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. This 2020 paper by a researcher based in Korea is also something of a meta-analysis.
This paper differentiated between two categories of EMF:
- Extremely low frequency (ELF) from transmission lines and other sources, and
- Radiofrequency waves (RF) like those from cell phones.
While the researcher concluded that it remains uncertain just what adverse health effects result from EMF, the key messages were:
- The nervous systems of children are more vulnerable to the effects of electromagnetic waves than adults.
- The exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) among children should be minimized.
- According to International Agency for Research on Cancer EMFs are possibly carcinogenic, it should not be overlooked or interpreted with bias.
Residential exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines and risk of childhood leukemia. The abstract of this 2023 paper by researchers based in Italy began with: “Several studies have suggested an excess risk of leukemia among children living close to high voltage power lines and exposed to magnetic fields. However, not all studies have yielded consistent results, and many studies may have been susceptible to confounding and exposure misclassification.”
The researchers examined the relationship between childhood leukemia and proximity to high-voltage power lines greater than 132 kV.
The principal result from this study was: “Spline regression analysis showed an excess risk for both overall leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia among children with residential distances <100 m from power lines, with a monotonic inverse association below this cutpoint.”
The abstract conclusion was: “In this Italian population, close proximity to high-voltage power lines was associated with an excess risk of childhood leukemia.”
While the researchers noted an excess health risk for children within 100 meters (328 feet) of a ³132 kV transmission line, I believe they found no excess health risk at ³400 meters (1,312 feet). Does this mean the “safe” distance is something in excess of 328 feet, perhaps as great as 1,312 feet?
Residential proximity to power lines and risk of brain tumor in the general population. This 2020 study by researchers based in France noted a significant association between those residing in homes less than 50 meters (164 feet) from high voltage lines and brain tumors.
These papers are by no means the result of an exhaustive online search. The next step in a search could be to enter each title into an online database like PubMed or Google Scholar. More recent papers that cite these titles may provide further evidence of effects.
How Do Transmission Lines Affect Property Value
Loss of property value is also a major concern for a number of those whose farms, homes, or other properties might be near the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project transmission line. A 2018 study, The Pricing of Power Lines, examined the effect of proximity to High voltage Transmission Lines on the value of 5,455 vacant lots sold in Pickens County, SC. The researchers concluded that the value of lots adjacent to a power line sold for 45% lower and an 18% reduced values for lots within 1,000-feet.
A study published in 2002, Power Lines, Visual Encumbrance and House Values, found that homes within view of a power line sell for 5% to 20% less.
In a 2010 study, The Effects of Electric Transmission Lines on Property Values: A Literature Review, the authors concluded:
“The studies reviewed, while having some inconsistencies in their detailed results, generally pointed to small or no effects on sales price due to the presence of electric transmission lines. Some studies found an effect but this effect generally dissipated with time and distance. The effects that were found ranged from approximately 2% to 9%. Most studies found no effect and in some cases a premium was observed. This was attributed to the additional open area usually behind the residence created by the transmission line easement.”
Given that the studies cited above and other research documents that properties within view of a transmission up to 1,000 feet away may lose value, the potential property value impact zone likely extends no further than 1500-feet. Of course, if the pylons, towers, poles and circuits wires are not visible then the impact zone would be less than 1500 feet.
Transmission Line Visual Impacts
The Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project will pass through a number of scenic areas. As shown in this section, transmission lines can detract from the scenic qualities of these areas. The towers (pylons, poles) supporting a transmission line may be 200-feet tall or more. Transmission line right-of-way may measure 50- to 600-feet in width and is frequently cleared of all vegetation except grass or other low-growing plants. Depending upon topography, forests, and other factors a transmission line may be visible from a distance of three miles or more. As noted above though, adverse effects on property value likely do not extend beyond 1500-feet from a transmission line or a lesser distance where it is no longer visible.
Those who study the effect of new transmission lines on views commonly begin their analysis three miles out. When passing through forest, a transmission line corridor appear as an ugly gash across the landscape. Such a scene detracts from the beauty of an otherwise natural view. When located near a community, transmission lines can lend an industrial feel to what otherwise tranquil residential neighborhood.
Following are two studies showing that a proliferation of transmission lines can harm a regional tourism-based economy where visitors are attracted by the scenic, natural or historic features of an area.
In a 2021 study, Analysis of the impact of high voltage power lines on the value of properties in environments of high ecological value and rural tourism: the case of the Lecrín Valley (Granada – Spain), the researchers reached the following conclusions:
“Through a comparative methodology, the projected losses to property values in the municipalities of the area and the economic and social implications caused by the visual impact of the HVPL [High Voltage Power Lines] are quantified. The conclusions point out that the infrastructure [High Voltage Power Lines] would rupture of the regional balance while generating precariousness, loss of wealth in economic and patrimonial terms for the region as a whole.”
“Therefore, according to the studies analysed in Sections 2 and 3, for habitual residences or second homes, average values of depreciation of 45%–50% would be applicable considering the special beauty of the zone. Such values would increase, as established by previous studies, in consonance with increased proximity to the pylons and can reach percentages close to 70%. That is why the two variables used to categorize the impact of the passage of the HVPL on the real estate value are the proximity to the pylons and visibility, as shown by the studies. The impact, however, is greater in a scenic area of great beauty where there are constant leisure and work displacements of both the resident and tourist population.”
In the 2017 study When tourists meet transmission lines: The effects of electric transmission lines on tourism in Iceland, the researchers concluded:
“Although transmission lines are necessary to carry renewable energy, they are often highly visible and frequently meet strong public opposition. This is especially true in areas with a high degree of perceived aesthetic naturalness, which are often valued landscapes for nature-based tourism. Due to tourism’s economic importance, and the growing necessity for a stronger transmission system, it is imperative to identify tourists’ opinions on transmission lines in natural areas. Attitudes were analysed by employing a questionnaire at seven locations where power plants are proposed. Results demonstrate that tourists are generally negative towards transmission lines, especially in the Highlands and consider them one of the least desirable infrastructures.”
The following graph from the Iceland study lists features which scenic area visitors find most to least acceptable, with transmission lines near the bottom.
For further detail options for assessing visual impacts and options for screening undesirable features from view, visit the CEDS Scenic Views & Land Development: Preserving Views from Your home & Other Favorite Places webpage: https://ceds.org/view/
Options for Gaining Transmission Line Benefits Without Impacts
In general, it is far easier to win changes that resolve impacts compared to stopping a proposed transmission line project, like the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project. In addition to winning good visual buffering with trees, earth berms, etc., impact resolving changes can include placing the a portion or all of a line underground, co-locating it along a highway, rail line or existing transmission line, or bumping the alignment away from sensitive areas.
Undergrounding: Burying Transmission Lines
Placing new transmission lines underground resolves much of the visual impact and greatly reduces electromagnetic field strength. Those wishing to construct new transmission lines will frequently argue that burying a line is substantially more expensive compared to overhead installation. However, when all the costs of an overhead line are summed for the 100-year transmission line lifespan, burial is a bargain, at least for those who must live with the project. These “all the costs” include: property value loss, decreased farm and forest productivity, health costs, tourism income losses, visual impacts, environmental damage, etc.
In their 2012 study Cost and reliability comparisons of underground and overhead power lines, the researchers wrote:
“This paper outlines the benefits of undergrounding power lines. We present research that reveals the reliability and operation and maintenance (O&M) impacts of electric underground lines relative to overhead lines. This research uses a comprehensive dataset from 163 US electric utilities. Holding the effects of other important operating variables constant, our research indicates that undergrounding reduces O&M cost and enhances reliability by reducing power outage durations.”
“In general, underground lines greatly diminish the need for right-of-way clearing expenses. As mentioned above, underground lines also lower the number of interruptions due to vegetation, animals, and weather.”
“Two main considerations beyond costs and reliability are increased aesthetic value and improved safety. Studies have shown that in an urban context, homeowners value the aesthetic improvements of underground lines, and this can increase property values.”
In their 2019 study, Underground power lines can be the least cost option when study biases are corrected, published in The Electricity Journal, the coauthors wrote:
“However, many studies of U.S. electric utilities have concluded that a broad undergrounding mandate would be too expensive and undergrounding can only be justified when factoring customers’ willingness to pay more for underground lines. We show that misleading national comparisons and improperly conducted U.S. studies have led to false conclusions about the economic efficiency of undergrounding power lines. Once data are standardized and properly disaggregated, the case for undergrounding improves significantly.”
In a 2022, Energywire article Are highway rights of way an answer to power siting dilemma?, regarding a study of the feasibility of placing transmission lines underground along Minnesota highways it was noted:
“The study also said underground HVDC transmission can be built at a cost comparable, on a capacity basis, to much of the 345-kilovolt alternating current (AC) transmission that has been built across the country. It’s a view not shared universally in the transmission industry, and cost is often cited as an obstacle to burying high-voltage power lines.”
The cost difference does not appear as great for High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) lines. An HVDC circuit is buried in a trench 1.5-feet in width with a separation distance of 15- to 30-feet between circuits. Junction boxes are placed every 1,000- to 2,000-feet to join sections of HVDC cable.
In summary, the research cited above indicates that placing new transmission lines underground should always be given priority when:
- A line is proposed in a suburban or urban area where multiple homes would be within view of an overhead line,
- In the vicinity of rural towns or other home clusters,
- When an above ground line could be seen from multiple existing or future homes within the 1500-foot potential residential property value impact zone referenced above, or
- The transmission line would detract from scenic or historic features due to the industrial feel they impart to an area.
Co-Locating Transmission Lines
As mentioned above, there are a number of options for Co-Locating the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project. There is a growing trend towards locating new transmission lines along highways, rail lines, and existing transmission right-of-ways. In the 2022, Energywire article cited in the preceding section of this webpage, Are highway rights of way an answer to power siting dilemma?, the following appeared:
“Could a key to unlocking a cleaner, more durable power grid and furthering the adoption of electric vehicles be found in vacant strips of land alongside highways and interstates? The answer may be yes, and it’s a concept that’s gaining momentum across the country, according to a feasibility study done for the Minnesota Department of Transportation.”
Co-location options for existing transmission line corridors include:
- Stringing new circuits (wires-cables) on existing transmission line pylons (towers-poles) if space is available,
- Placing a new transmission line underground within the existing right-of-way, or
- Constructing a new line adjacent to the existing right-of-way.
Bumping A Proposed Transmission Line Route
CEDS has had considerable success in negotiating project changes that resolve our clients concerns while allowing applicants to achieve their goals. We call these Equitable Solutions. We can certainly envision a number of possible equitable solutions for the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project.
Following is a relevant example.
As shown in the aerial below, CEDS assisted Pennsylvania residents in convincing a company that had proposed a new transmission line to change the alignment so it would not cut through a farm that had been in their family for generations.
Defeating Bad Transmission Line Projects
It remains to be seen if the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project is a “bad” transmission line proposal. When CEDS first became involved in these cases we intensively researched how citizens fared in transmission line battles throughout the USA. This research showed a pattern we had seen with numerous other issues:
Citizens generally lost when they fought with just lawyers and experts, but the probability of success tripled when legal action was coupled with an aggressive political strategy.
Political action makes success far more likely because:
- publicity is generated well beyond that normally resulting from a purely legal strategy;
- decision-makers are more inclined to decide technical-legal questions in favor of citizens, particularly on close-calls;
- it enhances fund-raising and volunteer recruitment;
- it increases the likelihood legislative bodies will change laws in ways that resolve citizen concerns; and
- when done well, political action puts in place elected officials and advocacy groups which discourage future proposals involving poorly-planned projects.
Combining aggressive political action with Smart Legal Strategies – another CEDS innovation – further increases the probability of success. We call the combined approach Politically Oriented Advocacy. This approach dramatically increases the likelihood citizens will win transmission line cases. Consider the following example:
The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) was a 500 kilovolt (kV) backbone line originally supposed to run 230 miles from Virginia, through Maryland, Delaware, ending in New Jersey.
When CEDS began assisting citizens with MAPP in late 2008, State officials were all of the same opinion – the transmission line was urgently needed to keep the lights on. We drafted an Initial Strategy Analysis setting forth options for ensuring MAPP would not harm nearby residents. A principle component of the analysis was an aggressive political organizing strategy along with the technical analysis required to support our arguments. The attitude of decision-makers changed dramatically as we implemented the strategy over the ensuing months. In fact, nine State experts eventually registered their opposition to MAPP. These experts were hired by some of the same agencies who’d strongly supported MAPP a year before.
Normally citizens pay upwards of $400,000 for just expert witness testimony in transmission line cases. In MAPP our clients paid but $5,000 or 1% of the total cost of the expert testimony. MAPP was put on hold by the State agencies for four months and the Delaware portion was indefinitely postponed. The company wishing to build MAPP subsequently withdrew their application. MAPP has been dead ever since.
A critical component of Politically Oriented Advocacy is not just opposing something but coming up with a way that makes things better. In the case of transmission lines our better way has taken the form of Comprehensive Energy Planning. Few states have a plan which: 1) shows future energy needs, 2) identifies all reasonable options for meeting those needs, 3) compares those options with respect to cost, reliability, environmental effects, etc., then 4) selects those energy choices which provide the greatest benefits with the fewest negative effects. While not right for every situation, this form of planning does show how citizens can avert an imminent threat and use their political clout to bring about a better future for all.
Keeping Routing Studies Honest
Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project routing study documents are yet to be filed to the Maryland Public Service Commission. In the meantime, here’s some thoughts on how one can ensure that a transmission line routing siting study fairly analyze all reasonable alignments to identify the best option.
The first step is to understand how an analysis can be manipulated to select the route the applicant prefers vs. that which is best for the rest of us. With this understanding you can determine if the analysis was honest. And if not prove it to decision-makers.
CEDS has created the Siting Game for your use in understanding how siting factors and other analysis variables can be manipulated to make one route appear preferable. The Excel-based Siting Game is posted at: ceds.org/SitingGame.xlxs.
The Game consists of 17 siting factors common to transmission line proposals and begins with values assigned to six candidate routes. When you have a moment try altering the siting factor values to see how easily one of the six candidate routes can be made to appear preferable to the other five.
To learn more about how these analyses work and how to keep them honest, see the Siting Game Excel worksheet labeled How the Siting Game Works.
Need for New Transmission Lines
New transmission lines are usually justified with projections showing that the service area faces an imminent threat of blackouts or other electricity problems. After reviewing the findings from numerous independent evaluations of these projections, it is clear to CEDS that the threat is frequently overstated. Following are a couple of the more common shortcomings.
Flawed Growth Projections
This shortcoming results from reliance upon outdated electricity use projections based on long term trends showing continued growth well into the future. However, growth in electricity use has been slowing since 2002, it was flat in 2007-2008, then declined in 2009 (at least in the Mid-Atlantic states).
This trend is likely to continue due to increased efficiency caused by higher prices as well as state initiatives increasing demand-response and energy conservation. Even as the economy rebounds it is unlikely that growth in electricity use will return to pre-2002 levels.
In the near future utilities will begin supplying customers with advanced (smart) metering equipment which will accelerate conservation and further reduce peak-demand. And it is peak-demand which generally drives the supposed need for new transmission lines.
Flawed Modeling
Criteria for analyzing electric service reliability are established by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Good utility planning practice dictates the use of not only accurate electricity use projections but sound modeling. However, the applicant need analyses we’ve reviewed frequently show several bad planning practices. First, realistic reductions in energy use through demand-response and conservation are not included. Second, proposed increases in generating capacity are not included even though the increase meets NERC criteria for inclusion. Third, projections are based upon highly unreliable extrapolations rather then the required contingency analyses. Fourth, alternatives such as upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations are not thoroughly evaluated then compared to the proposed backbone project.
Transmission Line Basics
Here are some basics applying to most transmission lines, including the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project.
As shown in the following illustration, transmission lines convey electricity from locations where it is generated to the substations-transformers where it is then runs via distribution lines to our homes, businesses, etc.
Transmission lines consist of the circuits (wires-cables) that carry electricity. The circuits are mounted on structures called pylons, poles or towers.
Overhead transmission lines are located in a right-of-way 75- to 200-feet or more in width.
You can estimate the voltage of an existing transmission line by counting the number of insulators. For each insulator the voltage will range from 14- to 20-kilovolts (kV). So a 345 kV would have about 18 insulators like that pictured to the right.
Following are some good publications on the basics of electricity and transmission lines.