As summer temperatures rise, so too do fears about electricity supply — and understandably so. Headlines warn of possible brownouts and blackouts across Maryland, citing growing demand from data centers and surging industrial growth. But during this heatwave of concern, it’s essential we ask: Are these warnings rooted in reality — or politics?

According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) 2025 Summer Reliability Assessment, the PJM Interconnection — the grid operator that supplies power to Maryland and 12 other states — has more than enough electricity supply to meet demand this summer, even during periods of extreme heat. In fact, PJM is operating with a reserve margin of 24.7%, well above the 17.7% threshold typically required for reliability. That means the region’s generation capacity is comfortably sufficient.

Yet in sharp contrast, Maryland officials have been sounding the alarm, citing localized demand growth and the strain of new data centers. The narrative is now echoing through news reports and public statements: Blackouts are coming, and new transmission lines are urgently needed to stop them.

This discrepancy should raise eyebrows. Because beneath the surface of these mismatched messages lies a politically convenient rationale being used to justify one of the most controversial energy infrastructure projects in recent state history — the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP).

The MPRP is a proposed high-voltage transmission line that would cut through hundreds of farms, forests and conserved lands across Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties. It has sparked enormous community opposition for its permanent damage to preserved open space, environmental habitats and private property. But suddenly, a narrative about impending blackouts is gaining momentum.

Here’s the kicker: The MPRP isn’t projected to be completed until June 2027 — two full years after the electricity reliability concerns now being raised for summer 2025. So why is it being invoked as a solution to an imminent problem?

Let’s be honest. Blackout threats have become a political shield, used to silence public concern and dismiss scrutiny of this project. When Maryland residents raise questions about the need, impact and alternatives to the MPRP, we are told it’s too late and too risky to delay. But that simply doesn’t hold up under factual examination.

We have a right to expect long-range energy planning that is transparent, evidence-based and not driven by panic or profit. Unfortunately, the rush to build transmission in response to every reliability scare often ignores smarter alternatives, like distributed generation, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and locating new power sources near the loads that need them most.

This is not about denying the real challenges our grid faces. Demand is growing. Aging infrastructure needs attention. But paving over farmland and taking private property for speculative future needs isn’t the solution. We must distinguish between genuine reliability threats and political narratives manufactured to serve development agendas.

PJM’s own data, as cited by NERC, shows the system has sufficient resources. That doesn’t mean Maryland doesn’t need local grid upgrades — but it does mean that we should question why a massive interstate transmission line is being framed as the only path forward.

The people of Maryland deserve an honest conversation — not one driven by fear or false urgency. We need accountability from our public officials, transparency from our utilities and an energy strategy that protects both our land and our lights.

Let’s not let the threat of blackouts be used to black out the truth.

Joanne Frederick is a cofounder and board president of Stop MPRP, a nonprofit opposed to the construction of the proposed Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project power line. She resides on a farm in Baltimore County.