HB 829 revises Maryland’s Public Utilities law governing certificates of public convenience and necessity for overhead transmission lines, with a focus on advanced transmission technologies and transmission planning. It expands the definition of a “qualified generator lead line” to include advanced transmission technologies that support carrying high-voltage electricity, and it keeps in place the general requirement that a certificate be obtained before construction of certain generating stations and overhead transmission lines. The bill also adds detailed application requirements for new overhead transmission line projects, including analyses of alternatives, route selection, costs, resource adequacy, energy efficiency, demand response, environmental impacts, and whether advanced transmission technologies could delay or avoid the need for new transmission or generation upgrades.
The bill further directs the Public Service Commission to consider a broader set of alternatives before approving overhead transmission line projects, including alternatives considered by PJM Interconnection, alternatives submitted by other parties, and evidence that the applicant evaluated advanced transmission technologies during internal planning. It also limits approval of certain overhead transmission lines in an electric company’s service territory when the line would be located solely within that territory and paid for solely by that company and its ratepayers. For existing lines, the bill preserves waiver authority for some upgrades and allows emergency work to proceed without prior certification, but requires a post-construction report to the Commission.
HB 829 also creates a new reporting requirement for owners and operators of overhead transmission lines. Beginning December 1, 2026, and every 24 years thereafter, they must report on transmission congestion, ratepayer costs, the feasibility and cost of alternatives, the economic, environmental, and social issues associated with those alternatives, and, if feasible, propose an advanced transmission technology implementation plan. The Commission may modify the reporting schedule, may use data from PJM or other sources, and may authorize cost recovery or financial incentives for advanced transmission technologies if those technologies are adopted as a result of the reporting process.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a more structured planning and review framework for high-voltage transmission projects in Maryland, especially by requiring applicants and the Commission to evaluate nontraditional grid solutions before building new overhead lines. It also creates an ongoing oversight mechanism for congestion and technology alternatives, which could influence utility investment decisions, ratepayer costs, and the siting of future transmission infrastructure. The bill amends existing Public Utilities provisions and adds a new section requiring periodic reporting and potential Commission action on advanced transmission technologies.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee transcript debate, but the bill was reported favorably with amendments and adopted by the House, suggesting general support with some technical or policy refinements. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the added regulatory burden on applicants, the expanded Commission review of alternatives, and the bill’s effect on utility control over transmission planning and cost recovery. Supporters would likely view it as a grid-modernization and ratepayer-protection measure, while opponents might argue it could slow project approvals or complicate transmission development.
HB 829 amends Maryland Public Utilities Article § 7-207 and adds new § 7-207.4 to require more extensive analysis, reporting, and Commission review for overhead transmission lines and related advanced transmission technologies. It affects electric companies, transmission developers, the Public Service Commission, and ratepayers by changing the approval process for new high-voltage transmission projects and by creating recurring congestion and technology reporting obligations. The bill also authorizes potential Commission-approved cost recovery and incentives for advanced transmission technologies, which could affect utility rates and future infrastructure planning.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, as reflected by a favorable committee report with amendments and House adoption. The lack of recorded opposition in the provided context suggests the measure was not highly contentious in the available proceedings, though the amendments indicate lawmakers likely refined the bill’s scope or implementation details. The general tone is consistent with support for grid reliability, modernization, and more rigorous evaluation of transmission alternatives.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s expanded requirements for applicants to analyze alternatives, including advanced transmission technologies, and the Commission’s broader authority to weigh those alternatives before approving projects. Utilities and transmission developers may object to added procedural burdens, potential delays, and uncertainty around cost recovery, while consumer and policy advocates may support the bill’s emphasis on ratepayer costs, congestion reduction, and avoiding unnecessary new transmission lines. Another possible point of dispute is the restriction on certain projects within an electric company’s territory when the company and its ratepayers would bear the full cost, which could be seen as protecting local ratepayers or, alternatively, limiting competitive or regional transmission development.