HB1338 amends Maryland’s Public Utilities law to require a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) from the Public Service Commission before construction begins on certain energy storage devices. The bill defines an “energy storage device” as a front-of-the-meter resource with at least 2 megawatts of storage capacity that can absorb electricity, store it, and deliver it later for use. By adding these devices to the CPCN framework, the bill places them in the same general permitting category as generating stations and qualified generator lead lines.
The bill also updates the notice, hearing, and review provisions that apply to CPCN applications so that energy storage devices are included wherever generating stations and transmission-related projects are referenced. This means affected counties, municipal corporations, legislators, and other interested parties must receive notice, and the Public Service Commission must hold public hearings and consider local recommendations and project impacts before acting on an application. The bill further clarifies that local governments may not condition required local permits on conditional use, special exception, or floating zone approvals for these projects, and it applies only prospectively to energy storage construction after the effective date of October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1338 would expand the scope of Public Utilities Article § 7-207 by adding large, front-of-the-meter energy storage devices to the list of projects that require a CPCN before construction. It would also extend existing procedural and substantive review requirements—notice, public hearing, local government input, and Commission consideration of environmental, climate, and community impacts—to these storage projects. The bill would not affect construction begun before its effective date and would leave existing CPCN rules for generating stations and qualified generator lead lines in place while adding a new regulated project category.
Sentiment
The bill text and available context do not include committee testimony, recorded votes, or other discussion, so there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the structure of the bill, it appears aimed at increasing oversight and local/public participation in the siting of energy storage infrastructure rather than opposing such projects outright. The absence of votes or transcripts means support or opposition cannot be reliably characterized from the provided record.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is whether large energy storage projects should face the same CPCN process as generating stations, including public hearings and Commission review of climate, aesthetics, economics, and local impacts. Developers and project sponsors may view the added permitting layer as a delay or barrier, while local governments, residents, and environmental stakeholders may favor the added oversight and notice requirements. Another possible issue is the bill’s restriction on local permit conditioning, which limits county and municipal leverage over project approvals even as it expands state-level review.