In Parts I and II of our analysis of HB 1532, the Utility RELIEF Act of 2026, we examined new requirements related to county permitting of residential
rooftop solar and study language concerning future state action on siting large-scale energy projects.
For Part III, the focus shifts from what the General Assembly passed to what may still need to be clarified. Over the past two years, lawmakers have enacted several significant energy measures, including the Next Generation Energy Act and the Renewable Energy Certainty Act of 2025, followed by the Utility RELIEF Act of 2026. As those laws move from enactment to implementation, some provisions may benefit from technical refinements to better align statutory language with legislative intent and practical administration.
That is not unusual. Major legislation often requires follow-up adjustments once agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders begin working through how the new law will operate in practice. With that in mind, here are several areas counties may be watching as energy policy discussions continue into the 2027 legislative session.
Part III: Refinements
Explicit Exemption of County Facilities from the Definition of Large Load Customers
Relevant language: HB 1532 of 2026, Page 73, Lines 5–20
Prior to HB 1532, a large load customer was defined as:
“a commercial or industrial customer for retail electric service that:
(i) has or is projected to have an aggregate monthly demand of at least 100 megawatts; and
(ii) has or is projected to have a load factor of over 80%”
Under the new definition, a large load customer is:
“A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER FOR RETAIL ELECTRIC SERVICE THAT:
(I) HAS OR IS PROJECTED TO HAVE AN AGGREGATE MONTHLY DEMAND OF AT LEAST 25 MEGAWATTS; AND
(II) HAS OR IS PROJECTED TO HAVE A LOAD FACTOR OF MORE THAN 60%.”
The General Assembly also included several exemptions, including water and sewage disposal companies, as well as facilities exempted at the discretion of the Public Service Commission (PSC). For counties, one question moving forward is whether publicly owned local government facilities should be more explicitly addressed in statute.
That issue may become more important as jurisdictions respond to environmental compliance requirements, including those related to PFAS contaminants and biosolids management. In some cases, counties may need to develop or expand public works infrastructure that could approach the new threshold for large load customer status. While certain utility-related entities are already exempt, county-owned facilities may still need to seek case-by-case relief from the PSC. A more explicit exemption for qualifying local facilities could provide additional clarity and reduce uncertainty for project planning and financing.
Clarify Local Authority Regarding Residential Rooftop Solar Regulations
Relevant language: HB 1532 of 2026, Page 28, Lines 6–8
While the General Assembly’s intent in the rooftop solar section is generally clear, one provision may warrant additional clarification:
“A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL COMPLETE ANY MANUAL REVIEW OF A SOFTWARE-APPROVED PERMIT WITHIN 5 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE PERMIT IS APPROVED.”
As drafted, this language raises practical questions about how a manual review is intended to function after automated software has already issued an approval and permit. Under the bill, an applicant must be able to submit materials through automated software that produces an approval or denial and, where approved, issues a valid permit.
If the intent is to allow a county or municipality to review certain software-approved permits after issuance, the scope and effect of that review needs to be more clearly defined. If an applicant already has an approve application and a permit to start building, the local government is incredibly limited in what it may due to address any concerns. Additional statutory direction could help ensure that applicants, local governments, and software providers share the same understanding of what post-approval review is permitted and what actions may follow from that review.
Keep Developers Responsible for Facility Decommissioning
Relevant language: Public Utilities Article § 7-218(g)(2)
Under the Renewable Energy Certainty Act of 2025, the PSC must consider the salvage value of materials when calculating the value of a solar decommissioning bond. This approach puts both the state and county budgets in an unpredictable and possibly dangerous situation.
Because solar facilities often have useful lives measured in decades, estimating future salvage value with precision can be difficult. Even if bond amounts are revisited periodically, long-range market conditions remain uncertain. If those estimates prove overly optimistic, a bond may ultimately fall short of the true cost of decommissioning. In that scenario, both state and local governments could face financial exposure if a bond must be called and the available amount is insufficient.
Clarify Intent of the 5% Priority Preservation Area Limitation
Relevant language: Public Utilities Article § 7-218(h)(4)
Another area that will benefit from clarification is the 5% limitation applicable within a Priority Preservation Area. Since enactment of the Renewable Energy Certainty Act of 2025, questions have emerged regarding whether this cap applies only to solar facilities constructed after the law’s effective date, or whether it includes previously constructed facilities as well.
At the time, the intent of the General Assembly was for the 5% threshold to account for all qualifying solar development within the area, regardless of construction date. This point needs to be made more explicit in statutory language. Clarifying that issue would help reduce ambiguity and support more consistent implementation moving forward.
Closing Thoughts
Taken together, the three parts of this series show that HB 1532, the Utility RELIEF Act of 2026 is both a major energy policy bill and an important signal of where Maryland’s energy policy conversation may be heading. For county governments, the central takeaway is that Maryland’s recent energy legislation continues to reflect a strong state focus on affordability, reliability, and faster project delivery, while also raising important implementation questions at the local level. Some provisions create immediate operational responsibilities for counties, others point to broader policy discussions still to come, and still others may require refinement as agencies and stakeholders work through how these laws function in practice. As Maryland continues to navigate rising energy demand, infrastructure needs, and cost pressures, counties will remain important partners in translating broad policy goals into practical results on the ground.
Check out the Utility RELIEF Act of 2026.
Check out the Next Generation Energy Act
Check out the Renewable Energy Certainty Act
Check out our 2025 breakdown of RECA.
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.