Thoughts on the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project

By Richard Collins

The Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP) poses a significant threat to Maryland's farmland, property owners, and local communities. This issue transcends political affiliations, demanding immediate action to delay and reassess the project’s feasibility. Solutions must emphasize innovative approaches to energy generation and distribution, moving beyond outdated infrastructure models like the "67-Mile Extension Cord."

Physical Impact on Maryland  

• 1,100 total acres taken for the project (67 miles x 150’) wide
• 6 acres in cultivated cropland
• 2 acres of forest
• 8 acres in conservation (although there are at least 6 properties that do not show as conserved status in the application)
• 51 acres of wetlands
• 101 streams and waterbody crossings
• An additional 1801.7 acres of conserved property are within 500’ of the project Right of Way.

The Case for a New Energy Paradigm 

Jack Spencer, a Heritage Foundation fellow and author of "Nuclear Revolution: Powering the Next Generation," advocates for a market-driven revolution in energy policy. Spencer’s work highlights the inefficiencies of government-led initiatives and argues for removing subsidies to level the playing field among energy sources. While his focus is primarily on nuclear power, his principles apply broadly to energy infrastructure projects like MPRP.

Evaluating the MPRP’s Benefits According to PJM and PSEG, the MPRP aims to address projected reliability issues by 2027. However, the benefits for Maryland ratepayers remain minimal compared to the costs borne by local communities. Critics have likened this to constructing a taxpayerfunded sports arena that predominantly serves out-of-state visitors.

Key Criticisms

• Limited Local Benefits: The project primarily facilitates regional power distribution, offering negligible benefits to Maryland utilities and ratepayers.
• Environmental and Economic Impact: The proposed route threatens farmland and could disrupt local economies.
• Transparency Concerns: Decisions about MPRP rest with unelected entities, raising questions about accountability.
• Proposed Legislative Responses: Maryland legislators, including Senator Chris West, have introduced bills to:

1. Restrict eminent domain for conservation easements.
2. Require grid optimization studies before approving new projects.
3. Mandate renewable energy targets before phasing out natural gas facilities.
4. Delay new transmission projects pending a comprehensive energy task force review.

Conclusion: The MPRP represents a critical juncture in Maryland’s energy policy. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes local interests, environmental preservation, and technological innovation. Delaying the project to explore alternative solutions is not just prudent but essential for Maryland’s future.

_______________

Richard Collins is the Maryland Republican Party Third Vice Chairman.