Maryland Landowners Appeal Ruling That Allows Surveys For Piedmont Power Line

By Christine Condon, Maryland Matters

June 27, 2025

About 60 Maryland landowners are looking to block a federal district court ruling that said workers for the proposed Piedmont power line could go on private property to survey for the project without the landowners’ permission.

In their appeal Tuesday to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the landowners said the ruling last last week by U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson has “sweeping provisions and consequences” that will affect landowners for the “months or years” it will take Maryland regulators to consider the power line proposal.

Abelson’s injunction should be stayed while the case is on appeal, the landowners asked the 4th Circuit.

“This is about protecting our homes, our land, and our constitutional rights,” said a statement from Joanne Frederick, president of the advocacy group Stop MPRP Inc. and one of the sued landowners. “We support the landowners’ decision to appeal, and we urge the courts to halt PSEG’s actions before lasting damage is done.”

The landowners represent about half of the 117 property owners in the path of the proposed power line who were sued in April by PSEG, the project developer, after they refused to let surveyors on their property.

Abelson last Friday agreed with PSEG in an order that said landowners could not deny access to the surveyors as long as the workers posted notice at least 24 hours in advance of their intention to come on site to do the work.

Federal judge grants Piedmont power line company access to land for surveys

The appeal is the latest development of in what is likely the early stages of a legal battle over the proposed 67-mile Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project transmission line, which would stretch from Frederick County to northern Baltimore County, through thousands of acres of largely rural land.

Residents along the line’s proposed path have balked at its impact on their properties and the landscape. They argue that the overall project places an undue burden on Maryland, largely for the benefit of energy-hungry\ data centers in Northern Virginia.

“This appeal gives the courts a chance to restore fairness and rein in overreach,” Frederick said in her statement. “Marylanders should not be forced to surrender their land rights for a project that serves out-of-state corporate interests.”

But officials at PSEG and at PJM — the electric grid operator serving Maryland and 12 other states — say the MPRP is necessary not only because of a surge in demand from data centers, but from rising demand for electrical power generally at a time of declining supply, thanks to the retirement of older coal- and oil-fired power plants.

The Maryland Public Service Commission, which regulates state utilities and power projects, is only just beginning to consider the transmission project, and decide whether to issue a key certification.

In a directive issued Thursday, the PSC cited Abelson’s order allowing surveys to take place, and called for its staff to set a schedule in the case in the next 30 days.

In their appeal, the landowners argued that by getting the preliminary injunction, “PSEG has secured the ultimate relief it sought in this case,” but without all the procedures that would ordinarily take place prior to a final decision.

The injunction was “issued without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary proceeding during which Respondents could test the factual underpinnings for PSEG’s positions and the Court could weigh the evidence,” read the property owner’s appeal.

Absent a stay in the case, PSEG will likely begin surveying properties, using Abelson’s orders, the residents argued.

“If the Fourth Circuit later rules in favor of Respondents, that ruling cannot undo the invasion of Respondents' private property rights, which PSEG will infringe under the guise of a preliminary injunction,” the property owners wrote. “The damage will have been done.”

They also worry that PSEG will apply Abelson’s injunction as a justification to enter all of the affected tracts of land along the proposed route of the power line — an additional 292 landowners, according to their appeal.

In assessing PSEG’s application for environmental effects, the Maryland Power Plant Research Program determined that several things were missing, including field studies and information that would show “why route alternatives were rejected, including those with minimal environmental impacts, and why PSEG did not address rebuilding or using existing parallel transmission lines for the project,” the PSC said in a Thursday news release.

“In light of the federal court’s decision affirming PSEG’s right-of-access, the Commission has directed its Staff to facilitate between PSEG and PPRP regarding the time required to produce the field studies and the feasibility of proceeding without them,” read the news release.

The Commission will make the final call on the procedural schedule. The PSC also directed PSEG on Thursday to turn over information about the alternative routes that were not ultimately selected within 30 days.