Maryland Considers Stronger Property Owner Rights in Eminent Domain Cases

Maryland lawmakers are reviewing legislation that would enhance compensation protections for property owners affected by eminent domain proceedings related to transmission lines. The bill comes as officials consider a 67-mile power line project that would cross northern Maryland from Pennsylvania to Virginia.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland legislators heard testimony February 19th supporting a proposal to enhance protections for property owners impacted by eminent domain actions, particularly as the state considers a major transmission line project that could affect numerous communities.

Senator Chris West, a Republican from Baltimore County, introduced the legislation following concerns about a planned 67-mile electrical transmission project. The proposed line would stretch from Pennsylvania’s Peach Bottom nuclear facility through northern Maryland to Point of Rocks, ultimately serving data centers in Northern Virginia.

The proposed legislation includes two significant reforms to Maryland’s current eminent domain statutes for overhead power lines. First, it would require courts to cover property owners’ legal expenses and attorney fees in certain condemnation proceedings. Second, it would expand compensation eligibility to nearby homeowners whose property values decline due to transmission line construction, even when their land isn’t directly seized.

“This giant transmission line is in effect a long extension cord,” West explained to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on February 19th. “It carries every electron that goes in at the one end up near Peach Bottom up the Pennsylvania line, travels 67 miles through the extension cord and comes out in Point of Rocks.”

The Maryland Public Service Commission is currently reviewing the transmission project, with a decision expected before the next legislative session concludes. Approval would grant New Jersey-based developer PSEG the authority to use eminent domain for property acquisition along the proposed route.

Agricultural landowners have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the transmission project over the past two years. Large crowds attended public hearings in Baltimore, Carroll, and Frederick counties, with farmers expressing strong concerns about the proposal’s impact on their operations.

These community meetings influenced West’s decision to pursue eminent domain law modifications, he noted. Under existing statutes, property owners may receive fair market value for seized land, but they face significant financial challenges when disputing low government appraisals.

“If they go to court to try to establish the correct just compensation — in this hypo $100,000 — they will have to pay legal fees,” West explained, noting that attorney and expert witness expenses can reach tens of thousands of dollars. “They will end up at the end of the day with no more than about $75,000.”

The proposed legislation would require courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to property owners when judicial proceedings or jury verdicts determine that actual property values exceed government appraisals. This provision would apply exclusively to condemnation cases involving overhead transmission lines.

“In short, if the owner is forced to go to court to obtain fair value, they will not be financially penalized for doing so,” West stated.

The bill’s second major component addresses compensation for adjacent property owners. Homeowners living within 300 feet of a transmission line could seek damages if they can prove the project reduced their property’s fair market value.

“But what about the immediate neighbors?” West questioned. “The person who owns the home next door, under our current eminent domain law gets nothing, even though the value of his or her house has been severely diminished because it’s literally in the shadow of the steel tower.”

West emphasized that the legislation would cover measurable economic losses rather than speculative or emotional damages. “This is not speculative or emotional harm,” he said. “It is measurable economic damage and it is only fair.”

Harris Eisenstein, an attorney with 15 years of experience representing Maryland residents and businesses in eminent domain cases, testified in favor of the proposal. He argued that current law fails to consistently provide “true just compensation.”

“Although Maryland condemners must pay just compensation, state law, as it presently exists, does not allow condemnees to fully recover a truly just amount for the life-changing loss of property rights,” Eisenstein testified.

He noted that initial government offers frequently undervalue properties, forcing owners to hire legal representation and expert witnesses to challenge them. “The result is that even if compensation increases, the net recovery is reduced by whatever money they have to spend on attorneys and experts,” Eisenstein said. “This is unjust.”

Eisenstein suggested the legislation would create more balanced proceedings, especially as Maryland faces multiple transmission projects driven by regional power demands.

During committee questioning, Senator Shelly Hettleman inquired about the 300-foot threshold for neighboring property compensation and whether that distance might be extended.

West explained that 300 feet — approximately the length of a football field — was designed to include properties most likely to experience substantial value decreases from large transmission towers. “If the committee wants to increase the distance to 400 or 500 feet, you’re not going to get any objection from me,” he responded.

No witnesses spoke against the proposal during the hearing.

West mentioned two potential amendments, including one requested by the Maryland Department of Transportation to specify that the bill covers only overhead electrical transmission lines, plus another technical modification to clarify references between assessed and appraised values.

West stressed that the legislation wouldn’t prevent infrastructure development from proceeding. “It simply ensures that when the government exercises one of the most powerful authorities available, the power to take or significantly impact private property, Maryland residents are fairly compensated for real economic losses,” he concluded.