Seventh District Senator J.B Jennings announced House Bill 1532, the Utility RELIEF Act, was signed into law and he explains the new law in the following article.
House Bill 1532, the Utility RELIEF Act, was signed into law. This legislation will provide modest relief to Maryland utility ratepayers, but it does not go nearly far enough to address the rising energy costs families are facing every six months.
During debate, Republicans offered several amendments that would have delivered greater long-term savings for ratepayers. Those included proposals to end the EmPOWER Maryland Program, adjust Maryland’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, and withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Unfortunately, those cost-saving amendments were rejected and should be revisited next session.
However, one important Republican amendment did pass.
I was able to successfully secure an amendment to add language to the Utility RELIEF Act to strengthen transparency and notification requirements for landowners affected by major transmission line projects.
This amendment came directly from my original bill, SB584, which I introduced in response to serious concerns raised by residents impacted by the Brandon Shores Retirement Mitigation Project, PSC Case #9748.
The purpose of this legislation is simple: if a utility project could affect your home, your farm, or your property rights, you deserve clear, direct, and documented notice.
You should not have to rely on rumors, last-minute meetings, legal advertisements, social media posts, or a website update to learn that your land may be under consideration for a major transmission corridor.
As Harford County Executive Bob Cassilly stated in support of the bill, this measure does not stop necessary projects from moving forward. It simply ensures that affected citizens are properly notified and afforded due process. Joanne Frederick, leader of Stop MPRP, also testified that Maryland property owners should not have to depend on rumor or last-minute meetings to learn their land may be impacted.
While SB584 received a strong hearing before the Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee, it was never brought forward for a final vote. When that happened, I knew we had to find another way to protect Maryland families.
That is why I offered revised language as an amendment to the broader Utility RELIEF Act during Senate floor debate.
There was pushback from those who argued that stronger notification requirements would be inconvenient for utility companies. My response was simple: this is somebody’s home.
This is somebody’s family farm. These are places where Marylanders raised their children, built their lives, and invested their savings. It is not acceptable to tell them, “Sorry you were not notified, tough luck.”
The amendment that passed will help fix that problem by making sure affected landowners are properly notified and given a fair opportunity to participate in the Public Service Commission process.
This issue matters because Maryland’s existing notification laws have been applied inconsistently. Developers of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project directly notified landowners and local governments of their rights to intervene.
In contrast, BGE relied primarily on a legal advertisement, website posting, and social media notice for the Brandon Shores project.
That kind of inconsistency is exactly why the law needed to be clarified.
Maryland families deserve a fair and transparent process, regardless of which utility is involved. The statute, as previously written, was too ambiguous and allowed utilities to decide how much, or how little, notice to provide. That is not good enough when private property and family homes are at stake.
I continue to challenge the Brandon Shores Retirement Mitigation Project before the Public Service Commission alongside several regional lawmakers. On April 9, I joined Senators Chris West, Johnny Ray Salling, and Mary-Dulany James in filing an appeal regarding the project.
On April 19, I submitted a detailed Memorandum of Appeal outlining constituent concerns, problems with the CPCN process, and evidence suggesting that the proposed transmission infrastructure may extend beyond immediate reliability needs.
One of the concerns raised involves a 2014 rendering mailed to landowners showing a second transmission line marked for “future capacity.” That raises serious questions about the long-term scope and purpose of this project.
During evidentiary hearings last October, a Public Utility Law Judge cited my earlier letter challenging the redaction of project files and acknowledged the validity of transparency concerns raised by affected communities. In that letter, I made clear that my constituents deserve transparency and assurance that this infrastructure is truly being justified by an immediate reliability crisis, not speculative future commercial needs.
An independent report prepared for the Power Plant Research Program also concluded that the project could create transmission capacity exceeding identified reliability needs.
The Public Service Commission is expected to issue a final order in Case #9748 in the coming months. I will continue to monitor this process closely and fight to ensure that Maryland families, farmers, and property owners are treated fairly.
As always, I will continue working to protect ratepayers, defend private property rights, and bring accountability to a process that has too often left working-class Marylanders in the dark.