Delegates at the Economic Matters Committee pressed PJM officials about how high‑voltage transmission projects are approved and routed after concerns that a PSEG project would cross Carroll County farmland and conservation areas.

Jason Shannon and PJM planners told lawmakers that PJM solicits competitive proposals in a regional transmission expansion plan (RTEP) process, evaluates submittals for constructability and cost effectiveness, and awards a solution to a developer; the developer, not PJM, selects the specific line route and must then apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Public Service Commission.

Shannon said PJM “solicit[s] solutions to that problem” and does not pick the route. He described the process in more detail: PJM issues an open solicitation of developers, scores proposals on constructability and permitting prospects, and awards the developer that is most likely to deliver a constructible project. After award, the developer seeks required state permits, including a CPCN, which involves evidence, cross‑examination and a PSC decision on the public interest.

Delegates raised reconductoring and grid‑enhancing technologies as alternatives to greenfield lines. PJM staff said planners consider reconductoring, dynamic line ratings and automated flow controls where feasible; those technologies can increase capacity on existing rights‑of‑way and may be preferable on a cost‑effective basis. PJM also noted limitations: some routes may need added right‑of‑way width or new tower alignments that require greenfield segments.

On local impacts, a delegate said the project appeared to benefit other states more than Maryland; a delegate quoted a figure that “92% of it is for the benefit of Virginia.” Shannon explained that high‑voltage lines cross state boundaries and that cost‑allocation benefits are assigned to zones rather than solely by state, and that the line in question would relieve congestion and overheating on Maryland lines, including those on the Baltimore Gas and Electric system.

Multiple delegates voiced frustration that Maryland has been described as a state “where transmission projects come to die.” Shannon acknowledged community opposition and permitting difficulty, and said the facts show Maryland has struggled to construct interstate 345 kV and higher lines in recent years. He repeated that the developer is responsible for routing and the PSC issues the CPCN after a contested process.

On reuse of retiring plant sites, PJM staff said locations such as Morgantown and Dickerson could be attractive because they have existing substations and bus work that lower interconnection upgrade costs; officials suggested the state could help market those sites to prospective developers.

The committee did not take action; PJM officials urged lawmakers to review PSC CPCN permitting timelines and encouraged state support to attract developers and financing for needed infrastructure.