Maryland’s largest agricultural trade organization broke its silence Wednesday morning to officially condemn a controversial power line project that it contends would put over 1,300 acres of farmland at risk.

The Maryland Farm Bureau reports an internal survey showed more than 25 of its members could be directly affected by the development of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project.

“Our members have raised important concerns about the viability, and more importantly, the disruption this project would cause Maryland farmers,” MDFB president Jamie Raley said. “Maryland Farm Bureau stands with our state’s farmers in opposition to the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project for its substantial impact on our state’s finite farmland.”

Representing nearly 8,000 members of the state’s agricultural community, the MDFB criticized state energy priorities, including green initiatives under the Climate Solutions Now Act.

“Amid the rising mandates for clean energy and other legislation that competes with agriculture for land use, we believe it’s crucial to take a stand on this project in collaboration with our local county farm bureaus,” Raley said.

The MDFB says it is concerned about the speedy implementation of Gov. Wes Moore’s green energy agenda.

Part of the Farm Bureau’s concern was announced in Moore’s Climate Pollution Reduction Plan in December. In the plan, the Maryland Department of Environment called for the construction of new power line infrastructure to create green energy generation options.

“To achieve deeper reductions in emissions from the electricity sector, Maryland intends for 100% of the electricity consumed in-state to be clean by 2035,” the department said in December. “[N]ew statewide transmission and distribution infrastructure must be built while existing infrastructure is updated to enhance the electric grid.”

The policy document said that Maryland’s rapid progress towards its clean energy goals under the Moore-Miller administration is supported by President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

FOX45 News first reported that the regional electric grid operator PJM Interconnection said transmission projects like the MPRP are the result of state energy policy and the closure of fossil fuel power plants.

A PJM spokesperson also confirmed to FOX45 News on Friday that Maryland state officials first learned about the MPRP as far back as October.

“If you’re looking for the first time Maryland officials would have been informed that the PSEG proposal was a possible solution to the specific needs identified in 2022 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan Window 3, that would have been at the October 3, 2023, meeting of the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee,” the PJM spokesperson said.

PJM added that several state agencies were in attendance at the first meeting in October, adding that the initial meeting was followed up by a presentation made in November to the Independent States Agencies Committee (ISAC) regarding upcoming transmission project needs.

“Maryland government is heavily involved in the ISAC, as Maryland Public Service Commissioner Michael Richard is the Committee Vice-Chairman,” PJM said.

The Maryland Public Service Commission has the sole responsibility of either approving or denying power line routing proposals submitted by developers, according to state utility regulations. MPRP developer Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) said during multiple August town hall meetings that it intends to submit its development application to the PSC before the end of the year.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told FOX45 News via email Wednesday that the federal government has limited legal authority to exercise eminent domain for power line development projects.

“The authority to site electric transmission lines principally [resides] with the states,” the federal regulator’s spokesperson said. “In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress established a limited federal role in electric transmission siting under the Federal Powers Act.”

The MDFB said the government’s possible seizure of state-preserved farmland to construct the MPRP is compounded by the recent loss of nearly 12,000 acres of agriculture. The trade group said the continued elimination of Maryland farmland could have serious implications for the local food supply and exacerbate food insecurity.

FOX45 News sent Moore’s office on Wednesday the following questions about the MDFB’s announcement:

Does Gov. Moore stand with the Maryland Farm Bureau?

In the governor’s opinion, does he believe energy generation in Maryland is at a crisis level?

Will Gov. Moore oppose constructing transmission lines on permanently preserved land?

Why did Gov. Moore’s administration not publicly announce last year PJM’s plans to build the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project?

Does Gov. Moore support the use of eminent domain to complete the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project and future energy initiatives?

The governor’s office acknowledged receipt of the questions but did not immediately provide answers as of Wednesday afternoon. Questions sent to the Maryland Department of Agriculture and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation also were not immediately returned.

A September survey by FOX45 News found that many local elected officials were previously unaware of the proposed 70-mile high-voltage project cutting through Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties. Few officials said they had any contact with the governor’s office or state government regarding the project.

Moore has not publicly expressed his thoughts on the use of eminent domain for the construction of the MPRP. The governor dodged questions in late August about eminent domain on WBAL NewsRadio.

“[A]ny action that does come before the state has to be thoroughly evaluated and we need to make sure that the state and local leadership is actually involved inside of that process,” Moore said.

Meanwhile, the Maryland Farm Bureau said it has instructed its members to join the fight to cancel the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project.

“Members have been encouraged to voice their opposition to state lawmakers regarding the MPRP,” the MDFB said.