Maryland Senate Bill SB34

Maryland 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25

Caption

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Overhead Transmission Lines - Conservation Easements

Summary

SB34 would change the Public Utilities Article provisions governing certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for overhead transmission lines. In addition to the existing factors the Public Service Commission must consider when reviewing a CPCN application, the bill specifically requires the Commission to consider the impact of a proposed overhead transmission line on properties subject to an existing conservation easement when an alternative route is being evaluated. The bill also directs the Commission to require applicants for new overhead transmission lines to address conservation easements more directly. Applicants would need to either minimize impacts on properties in the proposed route that are subject to conservation easements or alter the proposed route to reduce those impacts. The bill leaves in place the existing requirements that applicants consider alternative routes, costs, and reasons for rejecting alternatives, while adding conservation-easement impacts as an explicit part of that analysis.

Impact

SB34 would amend § 7-207 of the Public Utilities Article to add conservation easement protections to the CPCN review process for overhead transmission lines. It would not eliminate the Commission’s existing authority to approve transmission projects, but it would require a more detailed route-selection analysis and make conservation easement impacts a formal consideration in deciding whether and how a line may be built. The bill would affect utilities, transmission-line applicants, landowners, conservation easement holders, and the Public Service Commission, and it would take effect October 1, 2025.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be precautionary and protective of conserved lands rather than controversial on its face. The sponsors’ framing suggests support for balancing transmission development with land conservation concerns. No opposing or supporting arguments are documented in the provided record, so there is no clear evidence of committee division or floor debate.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the added burden on transmission-line developers and the Public Service Commission. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a necessary safeguard for conservation easements and land preservation, while opponents could argue that it may constrain routing flexibility, increase project costs, or slow electric transmission buildout. The bill does not specify a hard prohibition on crossing conservation easements, but it does require applicants to minimize impacts or change routes, which could be seen as either a modest planning requirement or a substantive constraint depending on the project.