More than a quarter of the people who own land slated to become part of the $424 million, 70-mile power line known as the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project have been sued by PSEG, the contractor hired to build the line. PSEG wants temporary access to their land to conduct surveys. The landowners, in Carroll, Frederick and Baltimore counties, say they have no obligation to provide that access.

Lawyers representing the parties met Monday morning in federal court in Baltimore to hash things out, but the case may not be resolved for months.

Regardless of what happens, Carroll County Sheriff Jim DeWees said in April that police would not enforce the court orders if they are granted.

Attorney Harris Eisenstein, who represents the landowners, said his clients, who represent 28% of the landowners, were sued because they were the most assertive in declining PSEG access to their land. He requested the case be dismissed, then requested a three- to four-month discovery period on Monday.

Kurt Fischer, attorney for PSEG, said the company made bona fide “overwhelming efforts” to reach landowners and ask for access, and all but one of the landowners being sued denied the request. That person hung up on PSEG instead of responding.

U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson did not rule on Monday. It is unclear when his ruling will be made.

Since December PSEG has been seeking temporary right-of-entry from property owners on the project’s path. The company contracted with Contract Land Staff and authorized payments of $1,000 to owners of land that PSEG must survey, Strategic Communications Manager William Smith said in an email in December.

Emily Wilson, attorney for PSEG, said the boundaries of every property would be surveyed by walkthrough. Some properties need a tree delineation survey, and some require wetlands delineation surveys with a “non-intrusive” soil sample. PSEG is working with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to determine which properties have rare or protected plants and animals, she added.

Defense attorney David Wyand said though the company notified property owners about the surveys, it did not share information about the nature of those surveys, which falls short of the standard of a bona fide effort.

Kenneth Thompson, attorney for PSEG, said the company would be responsible for any damage caused by the surveys.

“They want good relations with these folks,” Thompson said, “they don’t want a World War III.”

Susan Euteneuer, attorney for the landowners, said soil studies would be invasive, and argued that granting access to private property without proper eminent domain rights would set a dangerous precedent.

The state holds the power of eminent domain, and can grant it to other entities, including those that “will be” a public utility, which PSEG is prequalified to become by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Fischer said.

“That puts it in a different position than some random company,” Abelson said.

Eisenstein said it is important that property owners retain the right to exclude others from their land. The surveys would constitute taking land, in part because it would be more difficult to sell a property that a company has access to, he added.

“That is a taking,” Eisenstein said, “it’s a physical intrusion on private property.”

A temporary right of entry is not an easement, according to PSEG, and does not grant permanent property rights, construction rights, or obligate the landowner to grant an easement.

Wyand said PSEG does not have the power of eminent domain with regard to court orders for land access because, “the power of eminent domain is secured only through the issuance of a (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity).”

The project must receive a certificate from the Maryland Public Service Commission, a five-member board appointed by the governor, before construction can begin.

PSEG filed for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the powerline project with the Maryland Public Service Commission in December. The commission is expected to make a ruling within a year.

Though Thompson said a delay caused by lack of surveys would have real consequences to the project, and called June 2027 a “doomsday date” for project completion, Eisenstein said it is misleading to characterize June 2027 as a deadline, because the Doubs Substation at the end of the project’s path in Frederick would not be able to support the new infrastructure until 2030 at the earliest.

“If we can’t get that data, can’t get that information … this process is essentially stymied,” Thompson said. “We’re stuck in limbo.”

Eisenstein said that missing the date would cause no harm.

“No matter what happens in this case, they are stymied,” Eisenstein said.

Have a news tip? Contact Thomas Goodwin Smith at thsmith@baltsun.com.