Maryland Closes Public Comment on 1.24 GW of Battery Storage Proposals as October Decision Nears
Maryland regulators have closed the public-comment period for four transmission-connected battery projects totaling 1.24 GW, moving the state's first major storage procurement toward an October 1 decision.
Published · Updated · 5 min read
Maryland’s Public Service Commission closed the public-comment period on July 31 for four transmission-connected battery storage proposals totaling 1.24 GW, advancing the first round of a major state storage procurement toward a required October 1 decision. The proceeding matters because Maryland is evaluating whether to provide long-term financial support for large batteries designed to strengthen grid flexibility and help manage electricity demand within the PJM region.
The four remaining proposals range from 40 MW to 500 MW and offer storage durations of four to six hours. Together they represent 1,240 MW of potential battery capacity, exceeding the 800 MW originally contemplated for the first procurement round, although Maryland law now allows regulators to approve more than 800 MW if additional projects are found to be cost-effective and in ratepayers’ interests.
Four projects remain under consideration
The Maryland Public Service Commission’s Round 1 proceeding includes projects in Harford, Montgomery, Prince George’s and Garrett counties.
The largest is Oystercatcher Energy Storage, proposed by Cardinal Energy Storage East LLC near Baltimore Gas & Electric’s Conastone Substation in Harford County. The lithium-ion project would have 500 MW of power capacity and six hours of storage duration.
RWE Supply & Trading Americas is proposing the 300 MW Fourth Quarter BESS at the retired Dickerson Generating Station in Montgomery County. The system is designed for four hours of storage and would interconnect with Potomac Electric Power Company.
The third large proposal is Chalk Point Storage, a 400 MW, four-hour lithium iron phosphate system planned by Chalk Point Reliability Storage LLC in Prince George’s County. It also would interconnect with Pepco.
Jade Meadow III Battery Storage, proposed by Jade Meadow III LLC in Garrett County, is the smallest of the four at 40 MW with four hours of storage. Its planned interconnection is through FirstEnergy’s Potomac Edison system.
Round 1 originally included five applications. Pulaski Energy Storage LLC withdrew its 135 MW proposal on July 2, leaving the four projects now before regulators.
Maryland is using capacity credits to improve project financing
The Commission is not simply selecting batteries for direct state ownership. It is considering whether the projects should receive Energy Storage Capacity Credits, or ESCCs.
According to the PSC, the credits are intended to make large storage projects easier to finance by providing a hedge against uncertainty in future PJM capacity-market prices and creating a more stable revenue stream.
Receiving an ESCC would not constitute final construction approval. Selected projects would still need to complete applicable permitting and construction-approval proceedings, including additional consideration of siting, safety and environmental issues.
That distinction is important because financial selection and physical project approval are separate stages. A project that succeeds in the current procurement would gain revenue support, but it would not automatically receive permission to build.
The four proposals exceed the original Round 1 target
The official Round 1 project summary describes the procurement as seeking 800 MW of transmission-connected storage with at least four hours of duration.
Maryland’s 2026 Utility RELIEF Act subsequently clarified that the Commission can exceed 800 MW in a single procurement round when additional projects are cost-effective and in the best interests of ratepayers.
That creates an important decision for regulators. The four remaining proposals collectively total 1.24 GW, meaning the Commission could select a subset of projects, potentially approve capacity beyond the original 800 MW level, or decline proposals that fail the statutory evaluation.
The broader statutory framework calls for two transmission-storage solicitations totaling as much as 1.6 GW. Maryland’s public utilities law requires a decision on the first procurement by October 1, 2026 and establishes a second solicitation and decision cycle for 2027.
RWE plans to reuse a retired power plant site
One of the proposals also illustrates how storage developers are looking to reuse existing energy infrastructure.
RWE’s Fourth Quarter BESS project is planned for the retired Dickerson Generating Station site. The company says the 300 MW system would provide four hours of storage and use an existing power corridor, with operations anticipated in 2028.
Locating storage at former generating sites can offer access to established transmission infrastructure and land already associated with power production, although individual projects still require technical interconnection studies, permitting and regulatory approval.
RWE says its project would charge when electricity demand is lower and discharge during periods when the grid needs additional capacity. That operating model is particularly relevant as Maryland and the broader PJM region confront increasing electricity demand from electrification, economic development and large loads such as data centers.
Storage is part of a much larger Maryland target
The transmission procurement is only one component of Maryland’s storage policy.
Under the state’s Maryland Energy Storage Program, policymakers established a goal of at least 3,000 MW of storage by the end of the 2033 delivery year, subject to cost-effectiveness requirements.
Large transmission-connected batteries can perform several functions depending on their configuration and market participation. They can shift electricity from lower-demand periods into peak periods, respond rapidly to grid conditions, reduce transmission congestion in some circumstances and help integrate variable renewable generation.
The projects currently before the Commission are substantial even by utility-scale storage standards. Oystercatcher’s proposed six-hour configuration, for example, implies considerably more stored energy than a conventional two- or four-hour battery with the same 500 MW power rating.
The next major deadline is October 1
With the public-comment period now closed, attention shifts to the Commission’s evaluation of the four remaining proposals.
The PSC has retained Power Advisory LLC to assist with the solicitation, while Customized Energy Solutions is supporting quantitative evaluation of the proposals. Regulators must determine whether to award Energy Storage Capacity Credits to one or more projects by October 1.
The outcome will establish an important precedent for Maryland’s approach to financing transmission-connected storage. It will also determine which, if any, of the 1.24 GW currently under consideration advance with the revenue support envisioned by the state’s new storage framework.
Even after that decision, selected projects will face additional development milestones. Final siting, construction approvals, interconnection requirements and project-specific safety reviews remain separate from the current financial procurement.
For Maryland’s grid strategy, however, the July 31 deadline marks the end of one important stage: the public record for Round 1 is now substantially developed, and the Commission has roughly two months before its statutory decision deadline.
