In Part I of our analysis of HB 1532, the Utility RELIEF Act of 2026, we examined new requirements related to county permitting of residential rooftop solar, including more detailed software mandates, caps on permitting fees, and new enforcement authority for the Attorney General. 

In Part II, we turn to study language directing the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP), along with other state agencies, to identify certain sites for large-scale energy generation and energy storage. While Part I focused on direct statutory changes affecting local permitting, Part II looks ahead to a broader policy discussion that could shape how the state approaches siting and approval of major energy projects in the future. 

Part II: The Study 

Relevant language: Page 140, line 35 through page 141, line 22. 

Section 15 of HB 1532 directs PPRP, in coordination with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)and the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA), to complete a study by December 1, 2026 identifying ways to streamline permitting for energy development. As part of that work, the agencies must identify up to 50 sites suitable for expanded or new generation and energy storage. 

For counties, one of the most notable provisions appears near the end of the study language. It directs PPRP to: 

“develop recommendations on what a State-level zoning or permitting structure should look like in order to promote fast-tracked development at the priority energy sites identified in item (1) of this subsection.” 

To understand the significance of that language, some context is helpful. For more than a decade, county land use authority has already been substantially preempted in the siting of larger energy projects. Under current law, the Public Service Commission (PSC) may approve generating stations and related infrastructure above 2 megawatts, even where there is local opposition. Counties may still require a limited set of local permits and play an important advisory role, but final siting authority for major projects generally rests with the state. 

That context matters because the reference to “State-level zoning or permitting” may sound, at first glance, like a major new shift. In practice, however, state-level authority is already a defining feature of the current approval framework for most energy projects. Counties continue to have major influence in shaping project outcomes, permit conditions, and local impact discussions, and both PPRP and PSC routinely rely on local input during their review. Even so, the broader structure of state preemption in this area is not new. 

With that baseline in mind, the study language raises an important question: what is the General Assembly seeking to evaluate? One possibility is that the language reflects a desire to better understand and organize the state’s existing role in energy siting. Another possibility is that lawmakers are exploring whether the current framework should be adjusted to support faster project development over a multitude of other state priorities. 

Either way, the provision is worth close attention from county leaders. Maryland is facing significant near- and long-term energy challenges, and policymakers are clearly weighing how to balance reliability, affordability, speed of development, environmental considerations, and community input. Because large-scale energy projects can bring very different local impacts depending on technology, location, and surrounding land uses, any future conversation about statewide siting policy will likely require careful consideration of both statewide energy goals and local on-the-ground realities. 

Stay Tuned for Part III

In our final article, we will look at what likely adjustments may need to be made to state energy policy during the 2027 legislative session.  

Check out the Utility RELIEF Act of 2026.

This article is part of MACo’s Policy Deep Dive series, where expert policy analysts explore and explain the top county policy issues of the day. A new article is added each week – read all of MACo’s Policy Deep Dives.