Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects county support for AB 303 after split public debate over battery storage siting
Summary
Supervisors rejected a motion to support Assembly Bill 303, which would limit state fast‑track approval for private battery energy storage systems and set buffer rules; the motion failed 1–3 after extended public comment and competing views on local control and fire risk.
Supervisor Jim Desmond asked the Board of Supervisors to support Assembly Bill 303, state legislation that would remove private battery energy storage systems (BESS) from the California Energy Commission’s expedited approval process and impose siting and buffer requirements for larger projects. After extended public comment and debate, the board voted not to support the bill.
Supervisor Jim Desmond said AB 303 would close a state loophole that allows private BESS projects to bypass local land‑use authority, and he highlighted fires linked to battery installations that prompted public safety concerns. "These battery energy storage facilities are vulnerable to long hot fires," Desmond said in the discussion, pointing to incidents in Escondido, Valley Center and Moss Landing.
Opponents of the motion warned that AB 303 would amount to a statewide moratorium and would impede deployment of energy storage needed to stabilize the electric grid. Labor and business representatives urged stronger local regulations and a trained, licensed workforce rather than a blanket ban. The regional chamber and construction unions said site safety is important but must be balanced with the need to maintain grid reliability.
Supervisor Desmond moved that the board support AB 303; Supervisor Joel Anderson seconded. The vote failed: Supervisor Desmond was the sole yes vote; Supervisors Joel Anderson, Montgomery Stepp and Vice Chair Tara Lawson Reamer voted no. Board legal staff and county program directors said work is already underway at the county level on updated siting standards, and two supervisors said they preferred to wait for local ordinance and fire‑code changes rather than pursue the state bill.
No formal county ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff were already working on local recommendations and the board directed further follow-up as part of ongoing fire‑safety work.
