Public Utilities - Alternatives to Construction of New Transmission Lines
Summary
HB657 expands the circumstances under which the Maryland Public Service Commission must examine alternatives before approving a new transmission line. Under current law, the Commission must consider alternatives when an existing transmission line is convenient to the service area or would best promote economic and efficient service to the public. The bill adds two new triggers: when an alternative would best maintain historical, environmental, or agricultural preservation areas, and when it would avoid overlap with land in a planned growth area or land zoned residential or mixed-use with a residential component.
The bill also clarifies what counts as an alternative to building a new transmission line. Those alternatives expressly include using an existing transmission line owned by another company, using an existing right-of-way, reconductoring an existing line, and undergrounding a transmission line. In addition, when the Commission evaluates an alternative, it would not need to consider whether the owner of an existing line has a franchise in the service area. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB657 would amend Section 7-209 of the Public Utilities Article to broaden the Public Service Commission’s review obligations in transmission-line siting cases. It would not prohibit new transmission lines, but it would require the Commission to more explicitly consider non-new-build options and to weigh land-use and preservation concerns alongside service and efficiency considerations. The bill could affect utilities, landowners, local governments, and communities in planned growth, residential, mixed-use, agricultural, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and text, the measure appears to be framed as a planning, preservation, and siting reform rather than a major restructuring of utility regulation. Its emphasis on avoiding impacts to residential, agricultural, and preservation areas suggests support from members concerned with land use and community impacts, while utilities may be more cautious because it increases the number of alternatives the Commission must examine.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the added constraints on transmission-line development and the expanded role of land-use and preservation considerations in Commission review. Supporters are likely to favor the bill’s protections for historical, environmental, agricultural, and residential areas, as well as its encouragement of alternatives such as undergrounding or using existing corridors. Opponents or concerned parties may argue that the bill could complicate or delay transmission projects, increase costs, and limit utility planning flexibility. The explicit removal of any need to consider whether a line owner has a franchise in the service area may also be significant for utilities and competing transmission owners.