Balancing the critical need to expand the capacity to generate and transmit electricity within Maryland with environmental and other considerations is a daunting challenge, as demonstrated by the controversy over the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP) proposed by PJM Interconnection. To use the obvious metaphor, debate about the project has generated more heat than light and obscured the big picture.

The big picture begins with this: The shortage of electrical generation and transmission facilities in the state is a problem that must be solved. The shortage is nationwide but is approaching crisis levels in Maryland, which generates only 60% of the electricity that it consumes. PJM is the federally regulated regional transmission organization that administers the electrical grid that serves 13 states, including Maryland. It has warned that Maryland faces rolling brownouts and blackouts as early as 2027.

Maryland joined PJM in 1956, pooling its resources with other states to create a regional system for administering generation and transmission facilities and a more competitive wholesale market for electricity. The decision to have PJM manage the production and distribution of electricity on a multi-state basis was a wise one, but it had consequences, as described below.

There are legitimate questions and concerns about the MPRP, but I believe that the vehemence of the well-organized opposition and the weakness of some of its arguments betray a more visceral objection: Anger by residents of rural areas of Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties at the prospect of unsightly power lines marring the landscape. It certainly isn’t the first time we’ve seen them go to the mat on similar issues.

It was the strident opposition in rural communities to solar power facilities that caused the General Assembly to pass the Renewable Energy Certainty Act this year. If it becomes law, it will curtail the authority of counties to block the construction of solar power facilities that, ironically, are part of the state’s plan to reduce dependence on out-of-state energy sources.

Opponents of the MPRP complain that a disproportionate share of the increased demand for electricity comes from the large number of data centers in Virginia, and Maryland shouldn’t have to bear the burden in the form of increased costs or high-voltage power lines across its rural areas. The complaint ignores the fact that a single system and common market involves trade-offs and sharing burdens as well as benefits.

On one hand, it means that Maryland residents may have to help pay for additional transmission capacity needed to support data centers in Virginia. On the other hand, it allowed Maryland to close 16 coal-fired generating units since 2012 without either replacing the generating capacity or having the state go dark.

Opponents also contend that Maryland residents receive no benefit from out-of-state data centers despite the fact that services provided by those data centers are indispensable to Maryland’s information technology-dominated economy and therefore to the protection of Marylanders’ jobs. Gov. Wes Moore wants to reduce Maryland’s reliance on out-of-state data centers, but that won’t happen immediately.

The need for more data centers is driven primarily by the explosive growth of generative artificial intelligence (AI), which is the subject of its own controversy. Opponents of the MPRP include skeptics who cast doubt on the costs of AI as well as its future. The smart money is on the position taken by Moore, however, which is that Maryland can’t afford to get left behind when it comes to AI.

Power lines take relatively little active farmland out of production and, despite claims to the contrary, the impact on Maryland’s highly successful farmland and other land conservation programs would be negligible. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation projected that 514 acres of land protected from development would be affected by the MPRP. That’s 0.027% of the nearly 1.9 million acres (30% of the land in the state) permanently protected from development by those programs. Maryland’s goal is to conserve 40% of its land, or about 2.5 million acres, by 2040, further reducing the impact.

The application by Public Service Enterprise Group to construct the MPRP on behalf of PJM is in the hands of Maryland’s Public Service Commission (PSC). Thankfully, the PSC’s independence gives it some insulation from political pressure in determining if the MPRP is necessary. Hopefully, after considering all relevant interests, including those of the landowners directly affected by the proposed project, it will make the decision that best serves the interests of all Marylanders.

David Plymyer is a former county attorney for Anne Arundel County. He lives in Catonsville.