News Stories

As reported recently, on January 9, 2026 the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a notice of request for comments next generation energy act requirements for transmission-connected energy storage obligations and commercial relationships.

The Commission’s request for comments stems from the passage of the Next Generation Energy Act (“NGEA”). The Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) was signed by the Governor on May 20, 2025, and codified as PUA § 7-1224 – § 7-1229 and § 7-216.2 Annotated Code of Maryland that prescribes a goal of soliciting 150 MW of distribution-connected front-of-the-meter energy storage.

Each electric distribution company (EDC) is required to submit to the Commission plans to procure its allocation of the 150 MW target by November 1, 2025, and November 1, 2026. The Commission is required to issue an order accepting, accepting with modifications, or denying EDC procurement plans by May 1, 2026, and May 1, 2027, respectively. Additional information can be found in the Case No. 9715 regarding the Maryland Energy Storage Program.

The energy storage parts of the NGEA requires the Commission to issue at least two solicitations for a cumulative 1,600 MWs of front-of-the-meter transmission-connected energy storage, with each energy storage device having a minimum 4-hour duration. The first round NGEA Energy Storage Request for Applications was issued on December 24, 2025, with Applications due March 2, 2026. The Commission has retained Power Advisory LLC to assist the Commission in meeting NGEA requirements.

In response to these requirements the Commission sought comments and recommendations from interested stakeholders on the implementation of these requirements, including the obligations and the commercial relationship between successful Applicants, the Commission, the Escrow Account Administrator, and Electricity Suppliers.

Comments were due by Friday, January 30, 2026.

Below is an overview of some of the comments filed by interested parties:

MEA – Regarding the administration of electricity supplier obligations, “MEA recommends that the Commission implement the electricity supplier obligations in a manner that strictly adheres to PUA § 7-1226(a)(1). The statute assigns electricity suppliers the responsibility to purchase storage capacity credits at a fixed, Commission-approved monthly price, in proportion to each supplier’s PJM capacity obligation. Implementation should preserve this allocation without introducing mechanisms that indirectly shift procurement, performance, or market risk to electric companies or customers.

MEA recommends that the Commission establish clear administrative processes to calculate supplier obligations, track compliance, and reconcile payments, while avoiding unnecessary complexity. Consistent with MEA’s positions in prior proceedings, suppliers should remain financially responsible for their statutory obligations, and the Commission should avoid utility mediated structures that could dilute accountability or obscure cost causation”

Office of People’s Counsel – “The Commission’s process for procuring and evaluating first-round applications and selecting projects for front-of-the-meter (“FTM”) transmission-connected energy storage likely will set the template for years of procurements and associated ratepayer obligations. To ensure the Commission’s eventual decisions are testable, transparent, and administrable, the Commission should do four things now: (1) allow targeted discovery of the RFA Administrator’s3 assumptions and workpapers; (2) adopt basic reporting and escrow-related rules modeled on existing offshore wind regulations; (3) memorialize any material policy choices in the public record through docketed filings and Commission action; and (4) clarify, by order, an interim standardized settlement framework for the monthly ESCC payment obligations and PJM capacity revenue escrow flows required by the Next Generation Energy Act, including invoicing, payment timelines, reconciliation, reporting, and dispute resolution among successful applicants, electricity suppliers, the escrow administrator, and the Commission.”

REV Renewables – “REV suggests the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) 20.61.06, which apply to offshore wind projects selected by the Commission, are a useful model and starting point for the storage program. For the generator, the main difference should be that not all PJM wholesale market revenues (capacity, energy, and ancillary services) are sent to the Escrow Account. Given that this program is only for energy storage capacity credits, the generator would only send the PJM capacity market revenues received to the Escrow Account. Accordingly, the generator would retain any PJM energy and ancillary service revenue. This is appropriate because those services would not be part of the contract and the generator is retaining the merchant risk for those products.

REV also recommends that, since the storage program will be a regulatory award similar to offshore wind awards, that the commercial terms should also be aligned with offshore wind program. REV recommends that these awards not be subject to the standard state government procurement contract terms in COMAR Title 21, which includes some clauses that can be challenging for utility-scale energy projects. This alignment with offshore wind terms is necessary to ensure reasonable assurance of payment and continuation of the contract as long as all conditions are met, in order to enable sufficient project financing.”

Maryland Joint Exelon Utilities – The MJEU recommends the following guiding principles:

1. Use what works from COMAR 20.61.06: Repurpose the escrow, invoicing, refund, reporting, and administrator oversight provisions, adapting terminology and calculations from offshore wind renewable energy credit (“OREC”) constructs to Storage Capacity Credits (“SCCs”) and supplier capacity obligations.
2. Align with the NGEA’s explicit roles and cash flows: Ensure the framework honors the Commission’s Notice regarding supplier purchase obligations, escrow handling of PJM capacity revenues, electric company refund roles, and non-bypassable cost recovery.
3. Keep supplier complexity low: Centralize invoicing and data flows through the Administrator with standardized inputs from PJM settlements and electric companies, modeled on COMAR’s quarterly cadence.
4. Build financeable certainty: Allow multiyear, fixed SCC price schedules (within Commission set limits), with narrowly tailored true-ups for exogenous, system level changes (see Section VI). COMAR permits up to 20-year terms for OREC price schedules and storage can benefit from similar tenor.
5. Timely and transparent cost recovery: Allow utilities to implement a surcharge to collect costs and to be calculated by dividing the total annual revenue requirements by the forecasted Maryland retail sales (in kilowatt-hours). The annual revenue requirement will include current-year forecasted program costs, return of and on capital, and prior period true-up adjustments.
6. Communication and outreach: Educate customers on a new line-item charge for the storage capacity credits.

In terms of roles and responsibilities for Electricity Suppliers, the MJEU recommends the purchase SCCs monthly at a fixed price proportional to capacity obligations; and pay Administrator invoices; subject to late payment charges and Commission enforcement (COMAR 20.61.06.11 as guidance).

• One area where the NGEA’s transmission interconnected storage program differs from the model Offshore Wind program is that the purchase of SCCs is the obligation of the state’s Electricity Suppliers and not the state’s Electric Companies.
• If Electricity Suppliers, including and specifically, Standard Offer Service (“SOS”) suppliers have this obligation, they would include in their SOS supply offer prices the cost of the SCC obligation, as part of their single offer price.
• Since SOS is a forward procurement, and the SCC obligation only begins after Commercial Operations Date (“COD”), SOS suppliers would increase their price to reflect the uncertainty of having to meet the future obligation for the load they will serve in the future.
• The MJEU needs clarification on the interpretation of the obligation to purchase storage capacity credits and whether the Commission interprets the requirement to mean that electricity suppliers providing retail choice and SOS have the obligation to purchase storage capacity credits.

Read all filed comments here.