New Bill to Increase Community Choice, Environmental Protections For Battery Storage Projects

A new bill aimed at increased community choice and environmental protections for battery and energy storage projects across the state was introduced earlier this week amidst rising concerns over the safety of battery facilities.

According to Assembly Bill 303, authored by Assemblywoman Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), the permitting process for battery or energy storage facilities will now require critical local engagement. Specifically, it eliminates battery energy storage facilities from California Energy Commission’s opt-in certification program, meaning that local permitting and oversight would oversee and greenlight such projects if passed.

In addition, AB 303 would prohibit the authorization of a development project that includes a battery energy storage system capable of storing 200 megawatt hours or more of energy if the development project is located within 3,200 feet of a sensitive receptor or is located on an environmentally sensitive site. Such sites include schools, hospitals, and natural habitats.

Assemblywoman Addis authored the bill in response to increased local demand to oversee such projects because of safety concerns. These concerns were exacerbated earlier this month following the Moss Landing Vistra fire at the 300 megawatt lithium battery storage facility. While no one was hurt or killed, with the EPA later saying that residents were never at risk, 1,200 residents were evacuated for a time following the fire because of health concerns over the toxicity of the batteries. In addition, a spike in heavy metals particles was found in soil in Monterey County around the Moss Landing plant after the fire.

In a statement over the weekend, Assemblywoman Addis explained that her bill was a protective measure to help ensure that such facilities would need to be signed off locally in the future.

“AB 303 is a proactive measure that will ensure companies like Vistra go through the normal, local, regulatory process,” said Addis in a statement to the press. “It is designed to build trust, increase safety, and give communities a choice, by restoring local community processes for permitting these projects.”

“It will remove battery energy storage facilities from California Energy Commission’s opt-in certification program, which will return the authority to decide whether to allow these facilities back where it belongs, back into the hands of local communities,” continued Addis in a later statement made in Moss Landing. “Additionally, AB 303 will establish reasonable limitations on where battery energy storage facilities can be located, ensuring that they will not be built in environmentally sensitive areas, such as high fire and high flood zones.

“Our true goal is to guarantee safety for the community and make sure that we are moving forward, effectively and collaboratively with local residents, businesses and all who surround Moss Landing as well as any community where a battery storage energy facility may be planned. California must never have a disaster like this again.”

Debate over battery storage facilities

Many lawmakers have backed AB 303 since the introduction of the bill over the weekend. Local lawmakers in cities and counties nearby such facilities have been especially vocal in their support, with the Moss Landing battery facility fire still fresh in their minds.

“What we have now are rather haphazard regulations on this relatively new industry,” added Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church. “I appreciate the aspects inside of AB 303 that will allow local control. This is what democracy is all about.”

However, energy companies and battery facility supporters have said that such a bill would limit where such facilities could be built. As California’s 100% green energy by 2045 plan is dependent on a large number of battery and energy storage facilities, any potential blocking of facilities could put that goal in jeopardy.

“Wind and solar energy, the bulk of California’s new energy plant construction, is dependent on such storage,” energy facility consultant Ashton Reeves said to the Globe Tuesday. “You know, it’s never always windy and the sun is out only so much during the day if it isn’t cloudy. There’s a lot of variables, and energy needs to be stored for later use. There’s still some hydroelectric and nuclear going forward, and geothermal and biomass also play a part.

“But these batteries are part of the cost of switching over from fossil fuels. Limiting them like this is the thin end of the wedge. What happens when not enough of these facilities are okayed? If you are going to go green, you need these. California is already enough in an energy crunch.”