HB 40 updates Maryland’s Public Utilities law to encourage and require greater consideration of advanced transmission technologies in the planning, approval, and operation of high-voltage overhead transmission lines. The bill expands the definition of a “qualified generator lead line” to include associated advanced transmission technology and defines several new terms, including grid-enhancing technologies, high-performance conductors, and traditional ACSR conductors. It also clarifies that these technologies may be part of the transmission infrastructure considered in certificate proceedings.
For new overhead transmission line applications requiring a certificate of public convenience and necessity, the bill requires applicants to submit evidence that they considered relevant local, state, federal, and PJM transmission planning processes, along with alternatives to the proposed line, alternative routings, distribution-system modifications that could avoid the line, ratepayer costs, resource adequacy, energy efficiency, demand response, environmental impacts, and integrated transmission-distribution planning. The Public Service Commission must also consider this evidence before taking final action, including route-selection analysis, cost estimates, cost containment, construction schedule, rights-of-way, outage coordination, and the applicant’s experience working with communities and stakeholders.
The bill further adds a new reporting requirement for owners or operators of overhead transmission lines. Beginning December 1, 2026, and every four years thereafter, they must report to the Commission on transmission congestion, the costs of congestion to ratepayers, the feasibility and cost of alternative congestion solutions, the economic/environmental/social issues associated with those alternatives, and, if feasible, a plan to implement advanced transmission technologies. The Commission may modify the reporting schedule, and filers may use data from PJM Interconnection or other sources.
Overall, the bill would make the certificate and oversight process more detailed and technology-focused, while pushing utilities and transmission owners to evaluate nontraditional solutions before building new overhead lines. It would affect electric companies, transmission owners/operators, the Public Service Commission, ratepayers, and communities affected by transmission siting and condemnation. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB 40 amends § 7-207 of the Public Utilities Article and adds new § 7-207.6, creating new application, review, and reporting requirements for overhead transmission lines over 69,000 volts. It broadens the statutory framework to explicitly recognize advanced transmission technologies and requires the Commission to evaluate alternatives, route impacts, and congestion-mitigation options before approving new lines. It also imposes recurring congestion and technology-planning reports on overhead transmission line owners and operators, with potential implications for utility planning, ratepayer costs, and siting/condemnation proceedings.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, the bill appears to be presented as a policy and planning reform rather than a controversial restructuring measure. Its tone is pro-efficiency, pro-transparency, and pro-consideration of alternatives, suggesting support for modernizing the grid and reducing unnecessary transmission costs. No formal opposition or recorded sentiment is available in the provided context, but the bill’s added planning and reporting obligations could draw scrutiny from utilities or transmission developers concerned about added procedural burdens.
The main points of potential contention are the new evidentiary burdens on applicants for transmission certificates, the requirement to analyze alternatives and advanced transmission technologies, and the added reporting obligations for transmission owners/operators. Utilities or developers may view these provisions as increasing project costs, delay, and regulatory complexity, while supporters are likely to argue they improve ratepayer value, reduce congestion, and avoid unnecessary construction. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s restriction on non-electric-company applicants for certain in-territory lines paid for solely by an electric company and its ratepayers, which appears designed to limit who may build such projects under specified circumstances.