Updated July 2026: the Essential Edition and its companion database are refreshedGet it on Amazon→
MD — State Policy Updated 2026-07-17

Maryland

Existing data center incentives remained in place Enacted large-load legislation Data center bills that did not enact Water Constraints

Update scope and source note

This section covers Maryland data center policy developments from February 1 through July 17, 2026. It prioritizes enacted laws, bill and docket records, and state and local government materials. A proposal, administrative pause, or pending rule is identified as such rather than treated as final law.

1. State incentives and 2026 legislative outcomes

Existing data center incentives remained in place

Maryland’s sales and use tax exemption for qualified data center personal property remained in effect under Tax-General Section 11-239, and counties retained authority under Tax-Property Section 7-248 to reduce property tax on qualified data center personal property (Maryland Department of Commerce, accessed 2026-07-17; Maryland Code, Tax-General Section 11-239, accessed 2026-07-17; Maryland Code, Tax-Property Section 7-248, accessed 2026-07-17). No bill repealing, expanding, or materially modifying those incentives became law in the 2026 regular session (Maryland General Assembly data-center subject index, updated 2026-05-18).

Enacted large-load legislation

HB 1532, the Utility RELIEF Act, became Chapter 353 when Governor Wes Moore approved it on May 12. The law defines a covered large-load customer generally as one with at least 25 MW of peak demand and a load factor above 60%; requires the Public Service Commission (PSC) to establish a large-load registry by July 1, 2027; sets a registration fee of at least $1,000 per MW of peak load, divided equally between the Electric Universal Service Program and the Department of Housing and Community Development’s low-income efficiency, conservation, demand-response, and beneficial-electrification program; and bars a utility from submitting a large-load adjustment request to PJM after July 1, 2027 without a completed registration (Maryland Laws, Chapter 353, 2026-05-12). Registration disclosures include duplicate interconnection requests, supply and backup-generation plans, monthly water demand and source, permits, site control, peak demand, load factor, ramp schedule, annual use, load profile, operational timing, and point of interconnection (Maryland Laws, Chapter 353, 2026-05-12).

Chapter 353 also requires the PSC to create a voluntary clean-capacity rating program by December 15, 2027. For data centers locating on or after July 1, 2026, it states the General Assembly’s intent that they maximize Maryland labor, add capacity through storage, carbon-free generation or demand response, engage local communities, and publish a written plan; it also prohibits data centers in specified Baltimore City development districts, subject to the statute’s affordable-housing exception (Maryland Laws, Chapter 353, 2026-05-12). The law further directs the PSC to establish a voluntary interruptible-interconnection process, keep behind-the-meter storage from being studied as additional load, and set peak-period storage operating requirements; the registry, interruptible process, and clean-capacity program were not yet operating on July 17, 2026 (Maryland Laws, Chapter 353, 2026-05-12; Maryland Department of Legislative Services fiscal and policy note, 2026-05-21).

Data center bills that did not enact

The remaining 2026 data center industry measures failed to pass. The final bill records show:

The 2025 Data Center Impact Analysis Act became Chapter 10 in the December 2025 special session, but its statewide fiscal, environmental, energy, and water report is not due until September 1, 2026; therefore no report was available by this section’s July 17 cutoff (Maryland General Assembly SB 116, updated 2025-12-31).

2. PSC and statewide large-load implementation

The PSC’s PC 72 work group continued implementing the 2025 Next Generation Energy Act’s large-load provisions (Maryland PSC PC 72 docket, accessed 2026-07-17). Proposed COMAR 20.96.01, published in the June 26 Maryland Register with comments due July 27, would require a utility to determine application completeness within 30 calendar days, give an applicant 10 business days to cure deficiencies, complete the initial load study within 18 months subject to extensions, and accept specified collateral forms including a letter of credit, performance bond, parent guarantee, or cash; it was proposed, not final, on July 17 (Maryland Register, 2026-06-26).

On July 13 the PSC separately directed utilities to respond by August 10 about the large loads included in PJM capacity and proposed backstop-procurement forecasts, including MW, zone, expected service date, materialization and duplicate-request risk, allocation across customer classes, and how large loads would pay resulting capacity costs. It also sought views on interim rules or tariffs before the September filings; this was a request for comments, not a final cost-allocation order (Maryland PSC PC 72 request for comments, 2026-07-13).

Maryland’s electric companies still had until September 1, 2026 to file the large-load rate schedules required by the 2025 law. Consequently, no final Maryland large-load special rate class or utility tariff decision existed by July 17; the key tariff and cost-allocation proceedings remained ahead (Maryland Laws, Chapter 353, 2026-05-12; Maryland PSC PC 72 docket, accessed 2026-07-17).

3. Local moratoriums, bans, and zoning actions

Enacted moratoriums and bans

Temporary administrative pauses and pending legislation

Prince George’s County CB-019-2026 would repeal the earlier by-right approval pathway and require detailed-site-plan and District Council review; it remained pending after its March 17 referral (Prince George’s County Council CB-019-2026, status accessed 2026-07-17).

Frederick County Executive Jessica Fitzwater ordered an administrative pause on new Critical Digital Infrastructure facilities and associated substations from July 1 through December 31, while exempting projects already approved or under construction. A second order directs development review to require proof of PSC large-load registration once that registration framework is available; the county also resumed community-benefit negotiations with Quantum Frederick (Frederick County Government, 2026-07-01). The action followed Maryland’s highest court ruling on June 30 that affirmed the circuit court and prevented a referendum challenge to the county’s data center zoning ordinance from appearing on the 2026 ballot (Supreme Court of Maryland, 2026-06-30; Frederick County Government, 2026-07-01).

Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich instituted a six-month administrative pause on data center permitting on June 12. Separately, Expedited Bill 19-26 would codify a six-month pause, Bill 24-26 would impose a two-year pause, and ZTA 26-01 would define data centers and confine them to conditional-use review in industrial zones with energy, water, setback, environmental, noise, and backup-generation requirements; all three legislative measures remained pending on July 17 (WTOP, 2026-06-13; Montgomery County Council Bill 19-26, status accessed 2026-07-17; Montgomery County Council Bill 24-26, 2026-05-12; Montgomery County Council ZTA index, accessed 2026-07-17). Council leaders announced July 15 that the July 22 committee review would consider codifying the six-month pause and temporarily prohibiting hyperscale facilities during it; neither change was enacted by the cutoff (MoCo Show, 2026-07-15; Montgomery County Council upcoming meetings, accessed 2026-07-17). An earlier proposal, Bill 4-26, would have created a data center task force, but the joint committees voted 3-2 against it on March 9 (Montgomery County Council, 2026-03-09).

Atmosphere Data Centers challenged the county’s application of the administrative pause to its Dickerson proposal by July 17. County Executive Elrich continued to characterize the pause as time to develop rules rather than an effort to block all projects; no resolution of the developer’s challenge was reported by the cutoff (Washington Business Journal, 2026-07-17).

Calvert County continued work on text amendments advanced by the Board of County Commissioners at its January 28 special meeting. The proposed additions would limit cooling water use, prohibit wells for cooling, strengthen stormwater controls, require developers to fund project infrastructure, and require Tier 4 backup generators; the county still described the amendments as in progress on July 17, not adopted. A separate proposal for a temporary county moratorium had failed 3-2 in April (Calvert County Government, accessed 2026-07-17; Washington Post, 2026-04-13).

Charles County ZTA 25-187 would define data centers and permit them with conditions in the IG and IH industrial zones. The Planning Commission held a June 1 public hearing, but no final adoption appeared in the official record by July 17 (Charles County Government, 2026-05-11). At its July 7 work session, the Worcester County commissioners rejected an immediate permanent ban 2-4 and then unanimously directed staff to prepare a one-year moratorium while definitions, siting, and operating standards move through Planning Commission review; the direction had not yet resulted in an enacted moratorium or permanent zoning rules by the cutoff (Worcester County commissioners’ packet and meeting video, 2026-07-07). Caroline County said July 14 that it was only beginning to consider zoning amendments, enhanced review, or a temporary moratorium for possible future proposals; it had not adopted any of those options (Caroline County Government, 2026-07-14).

4. Major project and permit developments

MDE issued Amazon Data Services a final air permit effective March 25 for its BWI150-BWI153 Frederick campus at 3250 Digital Drive, covering 99 diesel emergency generators. The permit restricts the generators to emergency and specified testing or maintenance use rather than routine primary power (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2026-03-25; MDE issued Amazon permit, 2026-03-25). Aligned Data Centers reported topping out its 72-MW IAD-06 building in Frederick on March 12, marking completion of the structural phase rather than full operation (Data Center Dynamics, 2026-03-12).

Calvert County accepted AWS’s Calvert Technology Center site-plan application on May 27. The county completed its first review and posted comments July 13; the applicant must revise and resubmit, and the official record disclosed neither an investment amount nor MW capacity (Calvert County Government, status updated 2026-07-13). Natelli Holdings separately presented the proposed Appeal Digital Park on March 24, involving purchase of county land in a heavy-industrial zone near the landfill and wastewater plant plus a separate community-park proposal; the county page did not identify a capacity, investment amount, approved sale, or final site approval (Calvert County Economic Development, 2026-03-24).

Atmosphere Data Centers proposed a 360-MW campus on about 170 acres at the former Dickerson generating site in Montgomery County. That proposal became a central subject of the county’s permit pause and pending moratorium legislation; it was not an approved operating project by July 17 (Atmosphere Data Centers, accessed 2026-07-17; WTOP, 2026-05-07).

TeraWulf agreed to acquire the Morgantown generating site in Charles County, which it described as having approximately 210 MW of current grid-connected generation capacity, for a proposed Chesapeake Data campus. The company described an initial concept of 500 MW of generation, 250 MW of storage, and 500 MW of load, expandable to 1 GW of generation, 500 MW of storage, and 1 GW of load; as of its May 8 quarterly filing, the acquisition remained subject to FERC approval, so those figures were plans rather than operating capacity (TeraWulf SEC filing, 2026-02-02; TeraWulf SEC earnings release, 2026-05-08; TeraWulf investor presentation filed with SEC, 2026-05-08).

The Maryland Board of Public Works approved a $9.04 million capital grant on May 6 toward Johns Hopkins University’s approximately $196 million Data Science and Computing Center in Baltimore; the project program included up to 25,000 gross square feet of data center space (Maryland Board of Public Works agenda, 2026-05-06).

5. Water, environmental, and community opposition

Water use, diesel emissions, noise, land conversion, transmission construction, and ratepayer cost allocation remained the dominant community issues. Calvert’s pending amendment targets cooling water, wells, stormwater, infrastructure funding, generator emissions, setbacks, and noise, while the AWS project page documents continuing county review rather than final approval (Calvert County Government, accessed 2026-07-17; Calvert County Government, status updated 2026-07-13). Frederick residents’ generator concerns were addressed through MDE’s permit process, and the county’s July orders coupled a temporary pause with renewed community-benefit negotiations (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2026-03-25; Frederick County Government, 2026-07-01).

The Chesapeake Data proposal drew environmental opposition because it could reactivate generating equipment at the former Morgantown coal plant. A Charles County coalition asked FERC to scrutinize emissions, water, environmental-justice, and reliability effects, while Public Citizen argued that the transaction should not proceed without fuller public and environmental review (Charles County coalition filing at FERC, 2026-03-05; Public Citizen, 2026-03-04).

Community opposition also became an election issue. Maryland Matters reported on July 13 that data center controversies contributed to incumbent losses in Frederick and Calvert county primaries, while opposition in Calvert continued around both the AWS and Natelli proposals despite the commissioners’ rejection of a moratorium (Maryland Matters, 2026-07-13).

6. 2026 bottom line

By July 17, Maryland had retained its tax incentives but enacted a substantially broader large-load registration, disclosure, fee, and clean-capacity framework through Chapter 353. Every other data-center industry policy bill described above failed, while the PSC’s interconnection rule and utility-specific rate schedules remained unfinished (Maryland Laws, Chapter 353, 2026-05-12; Maryland General Assembly data-center subject index, updated 2026-05-18; Maryland Register, 2026-06-26).

Local policy moved more quickly and in divergent directions: Harford enacted a permanent ban; Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll, Howard, Prince George’s, Queen Anne’s, and Washington adopted temporary restrictions; Frederick and Montgomery imposed administrative pauses; and Calvert, Charles, Worcester, and Caroline were still developing or considering permanent rules (Harford County Government, 2026-06-10; Prince George’s County Council CR-066-2026, 2026-07-07; Frederick County Government, 2026-07-01; Caroline County Government, 2026-07-14).