Maryland PSC publishes draft energy-storage regulations for notice after RM85 revisions

The Maryland Public Service Commission on Oct. 25 voted to publish proposed new regulations creating a chapter for energy storage (COMAR 20.50.14, O1–O12) for notice and comment, after staff and a stakeholder work group revised a February rulemaking (RM 85) to reflect changes required by the Renewable Energy Certainty Act.

John Borkowski, Maryland Energy Storage Work Group leader, told the commission the subgroup limited edits to those necessary to implement the Renewable Energy Certainty Act or to correct errors and add clarity. "We did limit the scope of the subgroup's activities to only items that were necessary to implement the Renewable Energy Certainty Act or to correct errors or provide clarity," Borkowski said.

The commission’s decision follows months of stakeholder review and a revised petition filed in July. Staff said they reached broad consensus on most edits and that several outstanding items would be handled either in the draft regulations or through separate program materials and solicitations.

Why it matters: the regulations establish the state’s administrative framework for front‑of‑meter energy storage devices, clarify notice requirements to affected communities, set application expectations for devices of 20 megawatt‑hours (MWh) and below, and identify safety standards and reporting obligations that could affect project timing and developer commitments.

Key points from the proceeding

- Scope and statutory changes: Staff said earlier draft regulations approved in February were pulled after the Renewable Energy Certainty Act passed in the 2025 session and that the July filing incorporated those statutory requirements. Staff emphasized the subgroup kept changes narrow to avoid re‑litigating the February proceedings.

- Applications and thresholds: The commission has posted an application for front‑of‑meter energy storage devices of 20 MWh and below on its website; staff committed to developing a separate application for projects of 20 MWh or greater at a later date, saying those larger projects will require more extensive information and are not expected imminently.

- Notice to affected communities: Staff noted the affected‑communities definition parallels COMAR 20.79 (CPCN regulations) and includes residential individuals; some stakeholders had sought to narrow that definition. Staff said the application already defines notice as "an advertisement in the newspaper of general circulation in the county or municipal corporation affected by the application and the 1, 2 types of social media platforms" and that the commission website reference will be added next week to align with the statute.

- Definitions and technical clarifications: Stakeholders proposed changes to definitions, including an inverter definition. Staff reported no opposition to changing the inverter requirement to "at least 1 inverter," reflecting common system configurations where multiple inverters or integrated systems may be used.

- Safety and standards: Staff said the regulations are chemistry‑agnostic but noted lithium‑ion batteries are subject to NFPA 855 safety standards and may receive more intensive review when cited by the application or safety concerns arise.

- Project maturity, site control and deposits: Some industry groups urged stricter project‑maturity requirements (site control, interconnection agreements, or deposits) to discourage speculative proposals. Staff said the work group declined to add specific deposit or maturity thresholds into these regulations and instead recommended program administrators define maturity requirements on a program‑by‑program basis.

- Time extension criteria for large transmission projects: Cardinal Energy Storage East (a Tenaska subsidiary) asked the commission to define what could constitute "good cause shown" for extensions of the statute’s 24‑month operational deadline for transmission energy storage projects procured under the Next Generation Energy Act (citations in the record: 7‑12‑24 et seq.). Cardinal requested specific criteria to increase developer certainty for large projects. Commissioners and staff responded that the Next Generation Energy Act’s competitive procurements are a time‑limited, two‑tranche process and that the commission expects to address extension criteria in solicitation materials, orders or the RFP rather than in permanent regulations for a program with a statutory sunset.

- Equity and initiative assessments: The Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) proposed clarifications to initiative assessments, including that the program administrator perform those assessments, and recommended adding a benefit‑cost analysis focused on benefits to underserved communities. Staff and several commissioners said they supported clarifying who performs assessments but expressed concern that requiring a separate benefit‑cost analysis for a subset of customers would be novel, potentially subjective and outside the narrow scope of this rulemaking; the commission elected not to add that requirement to the regulations and indicated it could pursue equity questions in program materials, solicitations, orders or future rulemakings.

Commission action and vote

Commissioner McLean voted aye; Commissioner Linton voted aye; Commissioner Citra voted aye; Commissioner Barbay voted aye; Chair Hoover announced an aye vote. The commission’s motion approved publication of the new chapter and regulations in the Maryland Register for notice and comment "subject to any non‑substantive changes necessary to conform to COMAR drafting requirements."

Discussion versus directive

The record shows the commission accepted staff’s recommendation to keep the rulemaking narrowly focused on implementing statutory changes and correcting errors. Several substantive suggestions—such as stricter project‑maturity deposits and prescriptive time‑extension criteria for the Next Generation Energy Act procurements—were discussed at length but were left to program solicitations, RFPs or separate orders rather than being incorporated into these regulations.

What’s next

The regulations will be published for notice and comment in the Maryland Register. Staff said it will revise the posted applications and add the commission website reference to the notice language next week. Staff also said it will develop an application for projects 20 MWh or greater as a future initiative. Developers and stakeholders who raised outstanding concerns were told those issues could be considered in procurement documents or subsequent rulemaking.

Speakers quoted or named in this report made their remarks during the RM‑85 proceeding and are identified below.