HB1036, the Renewable Energy Certainty Act, makes broad changes to Maryland’s permitting and siting framework for solar generation and related energy infrastructure. It creates a new “distributed generation certificate of public convenience and necessity” for certain 2-5 MW community solar projects located outside municipal corporations, and it directs the Power Plant Research Program and the Public Service Commission to develop and adopt standardized siting, design, and licensing conditions for those projects. The bill also establishes a separate approval framework for front-of-the-meter energy storage devices, updates notice and hearing requirements, and requires the PSC to consider additional climate, land-use, and local planning factors when reviewing generating station applications.
The bill also imposes detailed statewide siting standards for larger solar projects, including setback, fencing, landscaping, stormwater, decommissioning, and community-notice requirements. It limits local governments’ ability to block qualifying solar and storage projects, requires expedited local review of compliant site plans, and sets special rules for projects in priority preservation areas, overburdened and underserved communities, and agricultural or rooftop contexts. In addition, it creates consumer-protection rules for residential rooftop solar sales and leasing, including warranty and disclosure requirements, and directs the Maryland Department of Labor to develop a special solar contractor license.
Beyond project permitting, HB1036 expands community solar policy by authorizing local governments to create automatic enrollment programs for low- and moderate-income subscribers, with consolidated billing and opt-out rights. It also requires state agencies to update and analyze state-owned land for solar development and directs the PSC to study procurement models such as power purchase agreements and partnerships between electric companies and electricity suppliers. Several provisions are prospective and include grandfathering language for projects already in process before the bill’s effective date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is that the bill was ultimately supported by a majority of the House and Senate, with third-reading passage in both chambers, but not without significant opposition. Multiple floor amendments were offered and rejected, suggesting that members sought to narrow, alter, or delay parts of the bill, especially around siting and local control. The final enactment indicates broad support for accelerating renewable energy deployment, but the amendment fights show that the bill’s scope and its limits on local authority were contentious.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s preemption of local zoning and permit discretion, the detailed mandatory siting standards for solar projects, and the new approval pathway for distributed solar and energy storage facilities. Local governments and some legislators may have objected to reduced local control, while supporters likely emphasized predictability, faster deployment of clean energy, and stronger statewide climate and reliability goals. The bill also appears to balance those concerns by preserving some local permitting authority, adding notice and public-hearing requirements, and exempting or tailoring rules for certain project types such as rooftop solar and agrivoltaics.
The bill amends the Public Utilities Article to create new PSC approval processes for distributed solar projects and front-of-the-meter energy storage devices, and it revises the criteria the PSC must consider when acting on certificates of public convenience and necessity. It also adds new statewide siting standards that constrain local zoning and site-plan decisions for qualifying solar projects, while preserving local permitting roles for certain approvals. Related changes to the Natural Resources and State Government Articles require state agencies to identify and publicize state-owned land suitable for solar development and to coordinate on solar siting tools and studies.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support among a legislative majority, as shown by passage in both chambers, but it also drew enough resistance to generate several failed floor amendments. The voting pattern suggests a policy consensus in favor of renewable energy expansion and permitting certainty, paired with substantial concern from some members about the bill’s breadth, local impacts, and implementation details. Overall, the sentiment was supportive but divided on how far the state should go in standardizing and preempting local solar siting decisions.
The most notable contention centered on local control versus statewide siting authority. Opponents likely focused on provisions that bar local jurisdictions from adopting laws that prohibit qualifying solar or storage projects, require expedited review, and limit denial of compliant site plans, while supporters argued these changes were necessary to reduce delays and meet climate and renewable-energy targets. Additional friction likely arose over the detailed setback, buffering, and preservation-area rules, the new automatic-enrollment community solar program, and the consumer and contractor licensing requirements for rooftop solar, all of which affect developers, local governments, utilities, and consumers differently.