Carr Alleges “Despicable Lobbying Tactics” by Pepco

For the second year in a row, Delegate Al Carr (D-18) has introduced a bill to cut down on light pollution from street lighting. And for the second year in a row, the bill has not passed. But this time, Carr is blaming Pepco for killing it through “despicable lobbying tactics” and that is making sparks fly!

Carr’s Marilyn J. Praisner Safe and Earth-Friendly Roadway Act is an attempt to crack down on light pollution. According to the Department of Legislative Services:

This bill authorizes the State Highway Administration (SHA), Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA), or a political subdivision to install or replace permanent outdoor highway light fixtures only (1) if other means of passive or reflective lighting do not address safety concerns; and (2) with lights designed to minimize light pollution, veiling luminance ratio, and light trespass. The bill establishes a waiver process and specifies duties for electric companies when installing or replacing highway lighting.

Carr told the Gazette, “The streetlights that we have now are very wasteful and lots of the light shines sideways and upward rather than coming down onto the street and to the sidewalk… When you put these kinds of fixtures in place it’s good for safety because it cuts down on the glow shining in driver's eyes so drivers can see pedestrians much better.” Carr also claims that the types of lights required by the bill can cut energy consumption by half. But Pepco opposes the bill, saying it would create millions of dollars in unnecessary costs that would be passed on to customers.

Carr originally introduced the bill in 2009, but it did not receive a vote in the House Environmental Matters Committee. This year, Carr tried again, picking up nine additional Senate co-sponsors. But the bill has aroused some opposition in the law enforcement community. Prince George’s County Chief of Police Roberto Hylton and Prince George’s County Sheriff Michael Jackson – the latter writing on behalf of the Maryland Sheriff’s Association – sent letters opposing the bill. The letters contain nearly identical language, suggesting they were drafted by a common writer.

Hylton’s letter said:

I am writing to express my concern about HB 169 - Marilyn J. Praisner Safe and Earth-Friendly Roadway Act. I understand that your subcommittee has jurisdiction for the bill.

My concern is safety. At a time when jurisdictions are adding video cameras and gun shot detection equipment to light poles, reducing the light canopy of the light fixture undermines the viability of the other safety devices. While full cut-offs might be suited for state highways, the reduced light canopy that they produce along our community streets would be counterproductive to our public safety initiatives.

Well-lighted streets are an important crime deterrent. Indeed, my experience as Chief of Police for Prince George’s County has been that communities want more lighting, not less. The full cut-offs required by HB 169 could result in dead zones where there is no illumination, unless poles are relocated and/or new poles are added. As the latter is a costly expense in these tough economic times, I fear that we would be left with dead zones. Importantly, dead zones present a safety hazard at night for drivers and pedestrians.

For these reasons, I urge an unfavorable vote on the bill by your subcommittee.

Jackson’s letter said:

The MSA, composed of Maryland’s 24 elected Sheriffs, oppose this legislation as it is not in the best interests of public safety.

At a time when jurisdictions are adding video cameras and gunshot detection equipment to light poles, reducing the light canopy of the light fixture undermines the viability of these and other safety devices. While full cut-offs might be suited for state highways, the reduced light canopy that they produce along our community streets would be counterproductive to our safety initiatives.

Well-lighted streets are an important crime deterrent. Indeed, our experience as sheriffs has been that communities want more lighting, not less. The full cut-offs required by SB 464 could result in dead zones where there is no illumination, unless poles are relocated and/or new poles are added. As the latter is a costly expense in these tough economic times, we fear that we would ultimately be left with dead zones. More importantly, dead zones present a safety hazard at night for drivers and pedestrians.

For these and other reasons, we urge an Unfavorable Report, and thank you for your consideration.

If the Police Chief and the Sheriff were coordinating their letters, either with each other or with Pepco, that would not be an issue. All parties are entitled to work with whomever they wish on issues of common interest. But this letter from Montgomery County police officer Dana Stroman raised eyebrows:


The letter is on MCPD letterhead. The officer writes, “Montgomery County Department of Police would oppose this legislation because it is not in the interest of public safety.” Later, the officer writes, “For these reasons, I would oppose this bill and would like to thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.” The letter’s placement on letterhead and reference to MCPD might suggest to some that it is an official communication on behalf of the Department. Six days later, Montgomery County Chief of Police Tom Manger sent a new letter saying the old letter “does not represent the position of the Montgomery County Police Department” and was “sent in error.”


The campaign against the bill worked. The Senate Finance Committee voted against it 9-2, with only bill sponsors Rob Garagiola and Nathaniel Exum voting in its favor.

Carr blamed Pepco. In a letter sent to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mac Middleton, Carr said:

I want to express my concern about the despicable lobbying tactics that were employed to influence the unfavorable committee vote yesterday on SB464.

Pepco targeted African-American members of our law enforcement community and asked them to sign letters on official letterhead that misrepresented the positions of their jurisdictions. The letters, drafted by Pepco, contained misinformation and might have led committee members to the false conclusion that the bill is harmful to public safety. For example – your constituent – Montgomery County Police Officer Dana Stroman (nee Matthis), who is African-American, was targeted by Pepco. She printed a letter that Pepco drafted on Montgomery County Police Letterhead, signed it and sent it to Legislators. The letter gave the false impression that the County and the Police Department opposed the bill on safety concerns. When the Montgomery County Executive and Chief of Police got wind of Officer Stroman’s letter, Chief Manger had to send a damage-control letter to state that Stroman’s letter was sent in error and in fact the County did not oppose the bill.

Such reprehensible tactics are harmful to the reputations of police officers and departments who depend on the public trust.

Even more troubling, by targeting African-American law enforcement officers, this tactic plays off our worst fears and stereotypes that all of us in Maryland have worked to leave behind us…

I ask you not to reward this despicable behavior and to find a way to reconsider SB464 and not prejudice the cross filed HB169 that is scheduled for a House committee vote later today.

After Carr sent this letter, his bill deadlocked in the House Environmental Matters Committee 11-11, ending its chances of passage this year.

We asked Pepco representatives about Carr’s allegations. While they acknowledged passing on information about the bill to law enforcement authorities, they say that any letters written by law enforcement officers were authored on their own volition and do not reflect pressure by Pepco. They said that the Montgomery County bill that inspired Carr’s bill did not pass in part because of police opposition.

One source inside the county government told us, “Officer Stroman’s letter apparently was influenced by Pepco which opposes the bill.”

Disclosure: The author is the Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team, which includes Delegate Al Carr.