​Grid-scale storage is nascent in PJM, but state governments are pushing the buildout forward. Three states (New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois) are running competitive procurement programs. Additionally, Virginia mandates grid-scale storage through its utilities.

Elsewhere, support is thin: Michigan applies mandates to utilities only outside of PJM's footprint, Pennsylvania and Delaware are still forming their programs, and the remaining states have no policies or mandates at all.

Key takeaways

• Three states in PJM actively back storage through competitive programs: New Jersey targets 2 GW by 2030, Maryland aims for 3 GW by 2034, and Illinois is seeking 3 GW by 2030.
• At the transmission level, the targeted volumes are 1 GW in New Jersey and 1.6 to 2.85 GW in Maryland, while Illinois's 3 GW target is all utility-scale, but only partly inside PJM.
• The three states support transmission-level batteries differently. New Jersey provides fixed revenues to the asset owner, Maryland offers a hedge for capacity revenues, and Illinois hedges the whole stack against a reference index through a 20-year Indexed Storage Credit.
• Virginia has PJM's largest and longest-term storage target, roughly 19 to 21 GW by 2045. Virginia supports this target through a utility procurement mandate led by Dominion, not a state-run program.

How the three state-run programs compare

New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois all run competitive procurement programs. All three are mid-cycle in 2026 with decision points between August and October.

They run a spectrum of support mechanisms, from a fixed payment that leaves market revenue with the developer to a hedge that pegs total take-home revenues to a strike price.

The programs also vary in the time between bid submissions and decisions. Maryland takes about 7 months, while Illinois confirms winners within days by front-loading qualifications and ranking sealed bids mechanically.

New Jersey leaves the market upside with developers

The Garden State Energy Storage Program (GSESP) is the most mature competitive procurement in PJM. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) runs it, and utilities are barred from Phase 1, opening it to independent developers and public entities.

It pays a fixed incentive in dollars per MW-year, competitively bid over a 15-year term. That payment stacks on top of wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary service revenue, allowing the developer to keep every dollar of market upside. The incentive itself is availability-contingent and cut if a project runs under 90% of hours in a year.

Tranche 1 awarded 355 MW to three projects in March 2026. Tranche 2 then opened for 645 MW, with bids due August 7, 2026, and a Board decision targeted for late October. Together, they complete the 1,000 MW Phase 1. Phase 2 targets 1,000 MW of distributed projects to achieve a 2 GW target by 2030.

Maryland hedges PJM’s most uncertain market

The Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) directs two 800 MW solicitations for transmission-connected storage run by the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC). It also sets a utility mandate for at least 150 MW of distribution-connected storage. That 1,750 MW sits inside a broader 3 GW by 2034 target, where the remaining volume isn't yet assigned to a segment.

Maryland's mechanism is an Energy Storage Capacity Credit (ESCC) set by competitive bidding. Functioning as a capacity-revenue hedge, it shifts the developer's volatile PJM capacity revenue onto ratepayers in exchange for a fixed credit, while energy and ancillary service revenues stay with the developer.

That makes it the most explicit hedge of the three. It takes the revenue stream facing the most uncertainty, PJM capacity payments, and pegs it, stabilizing the developer's most volatile income.

Round 1 drew five applications totaling roughly 1,375 MW against an 800 MW target. The PSC must decide on awardees by October 1, 2026. Round 2 follows in January 2027.

Illinois hedges the entire revenue stack

The Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act (CRGA), effective June 2026, is the newest program and carries the longest tenor. The Illinois Power Agency (IPA) will procure 3 GW by 2030 through a 20-year Indexed Storage Credit (ISC).

The ISC is a contract-for-differences. The developer bids a strike price and settles against a modeled reference price, a benchmark energy-arbitrage reference plus a capacity reference. When the reference falls below the strike, the IPA pays the difference. When it rises above, the developer pays the excess back.

Because the reference is an index, not actual revenue, developers keep whatever they earn by outperforming it.

The first procurement is due by August 26, 2026, for 1,038 MW. Only the 588 MW in the ComEd area sits inside PJM. The other 450 MW is awarded to projects in MISO.

Virginia has PJM's biggest target, but Dominion will build most of it

Virginia carries the largest storage target in PJM by a wide margin. The 2026 expansion of the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) lifted the combined mandate to about 21 GW by 2045 and added its first long-duration requirement.

This is not an open solicitation. The utilities petition the State Corporation Commission and deliver the capacity through their integrated resource plans.

Dominion carries 20 GW, roughly 94% of the total obligation, and Appalachian Power the remaining 1.3 GW. Up to 10% may sit behind the meter, putting the front-of-meter figure nearer 19 GW.

The support is real but indirect. Utilities can build the capacity themselves, acquire it, or contract for it. It lands on the utility's rate base rather than in a program the state runs directly.

Beyond the four, state support thins out

Outside the above four states, support ranges from out-of-market to none at all.

Michigan has a 2.5 GW target, but DTE and Consumers Energy are slated to deliver it in MISO, not PJM.

Pennsylvania and Delaware are currently developing legislation to support BESS buildout. Pennsylvania has proposed storage legislation still pending, and Delaware has a 2026 cost-benefit study and small pilots.

Everywhere else, batteries lean on market revenues rather than state support.

The success of these four programs will likely set the template for whether other PJM states act going forward.