Maryland Farmers Push Back: Private Property Rights vs. the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project
Landowners say the 70-mile line would serve Northern Virginia’s data-center boom while cutting a 150-foot corridor through working farms.
A federal court has allowed developers of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP) to enter hundreds of private properties in Baltimore, Carroll, and Frederick counties to conduct surveys—over many owners’ objections. In a 52-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson wrote: “PSEG qualifies as an entity ‘having the power of eminent domain’.” The order permits access with 24-hours’ notice (including by posting a notice on a door) while the Public Service Commission reviews the project; it does not authorize construction.
Local law enforcement has distanced itself from enforcing entries on private land. The Carroll County Sheriff stated his department “will not get involved” in PSEG’s access fight, calling it a civil matter.
Opposition groups and county officials continue to press back. About 60 landowners moved to block the ruling within days, and appeals were filed in September challenging the court’s interpretation that allows pre-CPCN entry. The Carroll County Board of Commissioners also filed to keep PSEG off private land.
What the developer says—and what’s driving demand
PSEG describes the project as a “new 500kV transmission line” to “help ensure long-term reliability to customers and communities” across Maryland and nearby states, selected by PJM in December 2023 to resolve forecast reliability violations.
But the larger demand picture weighs heavily on data centers centered in Northern Virginia. PJM’s 2025 long-term forecast projects ~32 GW peak-load growth from 2024–2030, with trade and market monitors reporting that data-center load is the primary driver and a major factor in soaring capacity prices across PJM. Independent analyses and state studies likewise tie the region’s grid expansion pressures to data-center growth in and around Virginia’s “Data Center Alley.”
Farmland at the center of the impact
The proposed 150-foot corridor would cross more than 1,200 acres of farmland along the route, according to reporting on the project’s footprint. Maryland’s largest farm organization has taken a formal position against the line. “Our members have raised important concerns about the viability, and more importantly, the disruption this project would cause Maryland farmers,” Maryland Farm Bureau President Jamie Raley said, adding that MDFB “stands with our state’s farmers in opposition… for its substantial impact on our state’s finite farmland.”
Environmental reviewers have also flagged that the route could disrupt protected lands and sensitive watersheds. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation found that over 500 acres of protected land—including forests and high-quality watersheds—would be threatened by the MPRP.
Property rights and due process
At stake is the boundary between survey access and full eminent-domain authority. Landowners argue that forced entry before the developer has a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) flips the legal sequence and erodes the right to exclude others from private land. The PSC confirms PSEG filed its CPCN application on Dec. 31, 2024; approval is still pending.
Opposition has extended into Annapolis: testimony on SB 955 (2025) sought to curtail eminent-domain use for overhead transmission across preserved and encumbered lands. And even as the court declined to assign U.S. Marshals to protect survey crews, the judge noted the dispute’s volatility—underscoring how extraordinary the circumstance is for rural landowners.
Balancing grid needs with fairness
No one disputes the Mid-Atlantic grid faces real stresses. But the public-use case is murky when the lion’s share of new load is tied to private, high-consumption data centers outside Maryland’s borders. If PJM and PSEG are expanding transmission mainly to feed Virginia’s data-center buildout, the question becomes who benefits—and who bears the burden in perpetuity.
Maryland officials have publicly signaled concern for agriculture. Gov. Wes Moore acknowledged farmer impacts while the project advances through review: “I understand…” the concerns over nearly 70 miles of high-voltage lines crossing 400+ properties, WBAL reported. WBAL Baltimore News Community hearings captured farm-family worries about losing productive acreage and the day-to-day disruption of construction and maintenance.
The case against this route—on property and farm grounds
Private property rights: The district court’s temporary-entry framework allows non-consensual access before CPCN. That may be lawful under the judge’s interpretation, but it weakens the practical right to exclude—especially for farmers who must manage timing, soil health, and liability on working land.
Farm viability: Maryland Farm Bureau and local reporting document substantial agricultural disruption and loss of finite farmland along the corridor; those costs are borne locally and permanently.
Who benefits: Multiple independent sources link PJM’s load surge and price spikes primarily to data-center demand—private corporate growth concentrated in Northern Virginia—casting doubt on broad “public-use” benefits in Maryland’s farm belt.
Environmental/cultural landscape: Reviewers warn the line would fragment forests, wetlands, and protected lands already under pressure.
Bottom line
Grid reliability matters. But reliability at any cost—especially to private property and working farmland—is not a fair bargain. The public record shows Maryland’s farmers, local officials, and conservation groups have raised concrete, documented harms, while the most immediate load driver sits with private data-center growth in Virginia. Until the developer can demonstrate a route and process that respect property rights, farm viability, and genuine in-state public necessity, Maryland has strong grounds to say this project, in this form, goes too far.