A proposed 500-megawatt battery complex in northwest Harford County is putting Maryland’s push for more reliable electricity on a collision course with residents worried about fire, water quality and the location itself.
The project near the BGE Conastone Substation is part of a statewide storage initiative that supporters say could help supply electricity for roughly 350,000 homes. WBAL-TV reported that the debate intensified after a public meeting where residents and officials challenged the proposed site.
Oystercatcher Would Be Maryland’s Largest Proposed Battery Site
The Maryland Public Service Commission identifies the project as Oystercatcher Energy Storage, proposed by Cardinal Energy Storage East LLC. The lithium-ion facility would have six hours of storage capacity and sit in the northwest corner of Harford County, next to the Conastone Substation, according to the Maryland Public Service Commission.
The Round 1 solicitation initially drew five applications, although one applicant withdrew in July, leaving four projects for the commission’s current review. The first round is tied to Maryland’s 2025 Next Generation Energy Act, which directs the state to pursue large transmission-connected storage projects that can charge when demand is low and release power during peak periods.
Residents’ objections are focused less on the idea of storing electricity than on putting a massive lithium-ion installation near Deer Creek. One resident said the site sits at the top of the watershed and could contaminate the creek, while another questioned how the parcel was selected; Harford County Councilman Tony Giangiordano has also opposed the project’s location, WBAL-TV reported.
County Officials Are Already Preparing For A Fight
Harford County government said in May that the County Council cut $500,000 from the law department budget, money that County Executive Bob Cassilly said could have helped hire an expert in federal environmental law for possible action against the proposed facility. The county said residents have raised concerns about both the Deer Creek watershed and the project’s fire risks.
The safety concerns are not coming out of nowhere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says a battery fire began at the Moss Landing energy storage facility in California on January 16, 2025, burned until January 18 and prompted air monitoring for hydrogen fluoride and particulates; cleanup and battery removal remain under federal oversight more than a year later.
Why Maryland Wants More Battery Storage
The state’s argument is that batteries can help absorb excess electricity, reduce peak demand, ease transmission congestion and delay more expensive grid upgrades. In a 2026 announcement, the Maryland Public Service Commission described the systems as rapid-response resources that can store power during off-peak hours and dispatch it when demand rises.
That statewide logic is colliding with a hyper-local question: whether the grid benefits justify placing the largest proposed project beside a rural watershed. Supporters include environmental advocates, unions and elected officials who say Maryland needs to move storage forward, while opponents argue that a clean-energy label does not settle the land-use and emergency-response questions.
PSC Decision Expected Before October
The commission held a virtual public comment hearing Thursday, and written comments in the case are due by the close of business Friday. The PSC says it must decide whether to award the first-round storage credits by October 1, 2026, but projects receiving those credits would still need additional construction approvals and public review focused on safety, siting and environmental impacts.
For Harford residents, that means Thursday’s hearing was not the final word on Oystercatcher. It was the opening round in a longer fight over whether the county’s rural northern edge should become a key piece of Maryland’s emerging power-storage network.
