Maryland residents fighting against land access for controversial electrical grid project
A federal judge recently listened to arguments on both sides -- the developers and the landowners -- before making a decision.
PSEG Renewable Transmission, a New Jersey-based company, applied for a permit to begin the construction of 70 miles of overhead 500,000-volt power lines connecting an existing transmission line through parts of Baltimore, Carroll, and Frederick counties.
PSEG then filed for court-ordered access to the properties.
PSEG said they must start by completing non-invasive environmental surveys which are standard practice across many industries for any new construction and are required for the permitting process at the federal, state and local level.
Awaiting a judge's ruling
Susan Euteneuer, who represents the Maryland landowners, said they don't want their rights curtailed.
"For a project that really doesn't help the grid, that really impacts their properties without great benefit to Maryland," Euteneuer said.
Euteneuer said the judge asked questions during a recent hearing before taking more time to decide.
"There are a lot of legal moving parts here with regards to whether or not PSEG has this authority," Euteneuer said. "Then, if it does, what circumstances can it exercise this authority?"
Euteneuer said the impact of this project goes beyond the farmers advocating against it.
"Some of these farms will no longer exist," Euteneuer said. "The farms that put the food on your table. The farms that develop the food that your family needs."
"It's not for Marylanders or the reliability of Maryland."
Brandon Hill learned last year that his farm, Rolling Hills Conservation, is in the path of the transmission line project in Baltimore County.
"It's going to start at the top of my hill, take out that forest there, which is an old-growth oak forest. It's going to cut across my field here, basically, render this whole field here not usable," Hill said.
Hill said the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project will make it difficult to harvest many of the different crops on his farm.
"They won't stand being mowed, deforested. That's what a transmission line does," Hill said.
PSEG on the filed court order
PSEG did not comment on the legal proceedings and referred back to its statement on the Temporary Right of Entry.
PSEG said, "A temporary right of entry is not an easement and does not grant permanent property rights or construction rights or obligate the landowner to grant an easement.
"Over the past 4 months, the MPRP team has engaged with property owners along the line on multiple occasions requesting access and offering monetary compensation to conduct these surveys. Despite our efforts to engage with property owners and even offer reasonable compensation, we have been unable to gain voluntary access from a sufficient number of property owners that will allow us to conduct these environmental surveys."
PSEG added they are willing to "make one more public effort to request property owners to allow MPRP to conduct surveys on their property."
Euteneuer said she received an attached order from the judged regarding a supplemental briefing due May 29.
Euteneuer added that she filed a Petition to Intervene at the Public Service Commission (PSC) for the Maryland Farm Bureau. She said PSEG opposed it, arguing only landowners should be allowed to be parties. Euteneuer said PSC granted the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Van Hollen says an armed National Guard in DC would be ‘troubling'
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on Sunday underlined his stance that President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., over concerns of high crime and the level of homelessness amounts to an "abuse of power." "All of this is a total abuse of power. It's a manufactured emergency," Van Hollen said in an interview with "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz. "Obviously D.C. can do more to reduce violent crime, as we can across the country. But as you pointed out, crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low and a downward trajectory. So, this is all an opportunity for Donald Trump to play dictator in Washington, D.C." "The way the law is written, it appears he has the legal authority. And Mayor [Muriel] Bowser conceded that. So, what is the abuse of power here?" Raddatz pressed. MORE: Trump admin live updates "The abuse of power is claiming that this is an emergency. And everybody who is watching what happens knows that this is not an emergency in Washington, D.C.," Van Hollen argued. Violent crime levels have decreased compared to years prior, down 26% since 2024, a 30-year low, leaving outstanding questions over why Trump deployed roughly 800 troops around the city. Over the weekend, several Republican-led states announced additional Guard troops would also deploy to Washington to support the president's mission. As some outlets report the National Guard could be armed soon, Van Hollen said, "Well, that's very troubling, because, as you know, the National Guard, first of all, is not supposed to engage in any local law enforcement activity. We have the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits them from engaging in local law enforcement. And so I'm not sure what it is that they need to do where they need to be armed." Despite fierce criticism from Democrats like Van Hollen and protests from some Washington residents, the White House has defended its decision to surge federal law enforcement to the city and bring in the National Guard as necessary and legal. Here are more highlights from Van Hollen's interview On D.C. police chief saying additional law enforcement 'positive' Raddatz: The mayor suggested this week that the surge of -- of federal police could be useful in fighting crime. And there is a crime problem in D.C. We all live here. I want you to -- I want to play you something that D.C.'s police chief, Pamela Smith, said this week. Pamela Smith (video clip): You're talking about 500 additional personnel in the District of Columbia. And as you know, we've talked about the fact that we're down in numbers with our police officers. And so, this enhanced presence clearly is going to impact us in a positive way. Raddatz: So, do you see anything positive about this? Van Hollen: Well, I understand the position the police chief is in. The best way to help the police chief in Washington, D.C., is for President Trump and Republicans in Congress to give them the $1 billion in money that belongs to them so that they can hire those police, rather than bringing in these federal agents. I would also say, Martha, I would think that taxpayers all over the country, federal taxpayers, have to ask themselves how it is that we are using resources, national resources, the FBI, the DEA, folks who are supposed to be out and about protecting the country from violent criminals, and now they're spending their time taking down tents of homeless people in the District of Columbia. I would think people all over the country would worry about that diversion of resources. On what Congress does if Trump goes past the 30-day limit Raddatz: The -- the president says he's going to maintain control of D.C. police past this 30-day limit, no matter what Congress does. So, then what do you do? Van Hollen: Well, that clearly is a violation of the statute. And so, we'll end up right back in court. Of course, the president also thought he had the ability to essentially take out the police chief and have his people come in and run the police department. A federal judge already said that that was not authorized. And in the same way, his ability to extend it beyond 30 days is not authorized. And so, they're going to have to pass this statute in the -- this extension in the Congress. And I don't think that that's going to pass. On his reaction to the Trump-Putin summit Van Hollen: Well, Martha, there's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. All the threats and sanctions that, you know, Donald Trump talked about, apparently, have been set aside. Donald Trump got flattered by Vladimir Putin. But when it comes to Ukraine under European allies, this was a setback. I do believe that Congress now, the Senate in particular, should move forward on bipartisan legislation that has over 60 senators as co-sponsors that would impose sanctions on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Personal relations are important. And I have no objection to people talking. But you want to have a clear objective in mind. Clearly, Vladimir Putin had a clear objective in mind. And he came to Alaska and gave up nothing, whereas, you know, Donald Trump said he had hoped to do, you know, a ceasefire, he had hoped to fly in Zelenskyy maybe even while Vladimir Putin was there. None of that happened. And meanwhile, they've taken the pressure off the sanctions. I mean, again, Donald Trump was supposed to impose sanctions on Russia weeks ago now, and nothing. So, this was a victory for Vladimir Putin.
New York Times
11 hours ago
- New York Times
How to Keep Up With President Trump
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together. Erica L. Green entered Baltimore's foster care system when she was 7 years old. By the time she entered college, she had lived in six homes. From that experience, she learned how to navigate a diverse set of family structures and households. 'I'm extremely vigilant and extremely adaptable,' said Ms. Green, who credits those traits as essential to her job covering President Trump for The New York Times. 'I grew up that way. You go where the news takes you, and that means, especially under Trump, it could be in 10 different directions.' Ms. Green joined The Times in 2017, reporting on federal education policy. She saw the job as an opportunity to shine a light on an issue important to her — America's flawed education system — on a large scale. In 2023, she accepted a role as a White House correspondent. Soon after, she began reporting on the Biden administration and eventually Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential campaign. She's now covering the Trump administration, with much of her coverage focusing on how the president is attempting to roll back civil rights and change racial dynamics in the United States. 'It has become incredibly clear how important it is for people to see a Black White House reporter for The New York Times,' she said. In a recent interview, Ms. Green spoke about the day-to-day demands of the job and the challenges that come with the beat. This interview has been condensed and edited. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
16 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Weekend Law: California and DC Sue Trump
Mary McCord, the executive director of Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Justice Department, discusses DC suing the Trump administration. Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses California's suit against the Trump administration. Harold Krent, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses the administration's suit against the entire Maryland federal bench.
