Last Tuesday, an application for what is officially known as a “Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity” was filed with the Maryland Public Service Commission for the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, the highly controversial 70-mile power line proposed to run through parts of Frederick, Carroll and Baltimore counties. Indeed, to suggest the MPRP is “highly controversial” is to seriously understate the vehemence of the opposition already expressed in various public forums by farmers, landowners and others along the proposed route. And who could blame them? We don’t know many who would welcome a 500,000-volt transmission line in their backyard (or worse, be forced to sell long-held perhaps even pristine property to accommodate the project).

Throw in the fact that the effort is spearheaded by New Jersey-based Public Service Enterprise Group or PSEG and that it will serve, among other things, Northern Virginia data centers, major consumers of electricity (as just one such facility can require the equivalent of what is needed to power 750,000 average homes), and it’s not hard to appreciate how any Marylander might feel they are being asked to make big sacrifices to reward power-brokers who don’t even live in their state.

Yet too easily ignored in this continuing brouhaha (and a major reason why the project gained favor with PJM, the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that manages the electrical grid in Maryland and a dozen nearby states along with the District of Columbia) is that the need for electricity is growing. Without serious corrective action, Marylanders face serious challenges including much higher rates and potentially much lower reliability. Rolling blackouts? That may be a worse-case scenario but it’s probably not off the table, not in a state that consumes far more energy than it produces.

That isn’t an endorsement of MPRP but it is a call for a clearer and better informed public conversation about Maryland’s energy future.

It must consider, for example, not just the state’s electricity needs (as great as they may be given the lack of in-state power generators) but the need to lower greenhouse gas emissions. It’s one thing to close a coal-fired in-state power plant, for example, it’s quite another to become dependent on out-of-state generators that worsen climate change. What can be accomplished through greater investment in energy conservation, increased wind and solar generation, even nuclear power? All must be part of the dialogue.

The challenge is that most people have a vested interest. PSEG wants its project to go forward. Local property owners (and elected officials who have been deluged by the outcry) do not. Yet, the PSC will need to look beyond to consider how to meet the state’s energy needs without causing substantial economic and environmental hardship. Gov. Wes Moore correctly observed this balancing act weeks ago when he announced: “We need sustainable and cost-effective infrastructure to ensure the reliability of our grid and build the economy of the future in our state. But the approach must be one that puts people first.” How does that happen? On that, he has yet to offer specifics.

One of the dangers is that — like the old saw about how when you only use a hammer “everything looks like a nail” — regulators will merely approve or disapprove the power line on familiar — and narrow — standards.

Yet we would hope that the decision might look beyond this one power line (as critical as it may be) to consider broader issues: What would such an investment mean for the state’s zero emissions goals? Conversely, what could a lack of electricity in the future mean for the regional tech economy or artificial intelligence (AI) development? And what about affordability and how high a price consumers may face?

In the weeks and months ahead, the PSC will be seeking public comment and we would encourage all to get involved. One simple way to ensure that would be to reach out now and register with the commission’s website (psc.state.md.us) to receive updates on these proceedings.

And also a final caution: climate change is a serious threat and reducing greenhouse gas emissions isn’t accomplished by making the state more dependent on out-of-state power plants that run on fossil fuels.

What is our best, most realistic, most practical and affordable alternative to manage this challenge? We know only this for certain: That’s a question that deserves to be fully answered.