Monterey County urges statewide fire-and-siting rules after Moss Landing battery fire; board backs SB 283, delays decision on AB 303

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted April 15 to support SB 283, a state Senate bill that would incorporate the NFPA 855 battery-storage standards into California building code and require local fire consultation and inspection, and to hold off on a final position on AB 303, an Assembly bill that would set setback and siting restrictions pending further staff analysis.

The action followed more than an hour of public comment from residents and environmental groups who described health, safety and environmental harms after the January Moss Landing battery-storage fire and urged stricter rules. “Please support both of these bills,” said Brian Rotor, a Salinas resident, adding that greater setbacks and local input are needed for the protection of schools, farms and neighborhoods. “Your yes votes are for the protection of your constituents.”

Why it matters: county residents and elected officials said Moss Landing showed gaps in oversight and response for large, utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS). SB 283 (Sen. John Laird) seeks to tighten construction, operation and inspection standards, while AB 303 (Asm. Don Addis) would prohibit large BESS projects within set distances of “sensitive receptors” such as hospitals, wetlands and agricultural land. Supervisors and staff said the bills are complementary but distinct: SB 283 focuses on technical and fire safety standards, AB 303 on location and local permitting authority.

Board action and next steps - The board voted to support SB 283. That motion passed on the voice vote with no recorded opposition. The board asked staff to continue tracking the bill and offer follow-up language if needed. - On AB 303, the board voted to take no position today and to revisit the bill at its May 20 meeting after the legislature produces committee analyses and staff can present possible amendments or fiscal/land-use implications. The motion directing a May 20 follow-up also asked county staff to send a separate letter urging state regulators (including the California Public Utilities Commission where relevant) to use existing authority to increase inspections and safety oversight of existing BESS installations.

Public input and diverse views Residents addressing the board emphasized health, marine and agricultural impacts around Moss Landing and asked for strong state action. “The needs of communities require jurisdiction so that the science and the impacts of these facilities can be weighed with public hearings and expert testimony,” said Nina Beatty during public comment. Several speakers urged the board to support both SB 283 and AB 303 as a package that would strengthen both safety standards and local say about siting.

Industry and labor representatives urged caution about overly broad siting limits. Ron Cheshire, representing the electricians’ union, said the state must balance safety with the need to expand battery storage as part of the clean-energy grid.

Board context Supervisors said they faced competing priorities: the state’s decarbonization goals require storage to balance variable renewable power, while local communities demand protection from potential hazards. Supervisor Glenn Church, who supported both measures going forward, said SB 283’s emphasis on NFPA 855-style construction and inspection standards addressed immediate safety gaps. Supervisor [First name] Alejo and others cautioned that AB 303’s proposed 3,200-foot setbacks and broad definitions of “sensitive sites” could have far‑reaching consequences; they asked staff to return with legal and land-use analysis.

What the bills would do (as discussed at the meeting) - SB 283 (Laird): require BESS projects to follow NFPA 855 building and fire standards, require local fire department consultation and inspection, and restrict indoor installations absent non‑combustible construction or specialized mitigation. - AB 303 (Addis): would establish state setback and siting rules for large systems (the draft discussed at the meeting used 3,200 feet as a reference point) and would limit the ability of some projects to use the state’s “opt-in” approval pathway created by AB 205 (2022).

Officials noted both bills may be amended in Sacramento. The board’s direction asks county staff to return with a short memo by May 20 that compares the bills’ likely effects on local land use, emergency response responsibilities, and county permitting authority.

Ending note The board’s action is meant to send a signal to Sacramento: Monterey County supports stronger engineering and inspection standards now, and it seeks more time to weigh location rules that could reshape how — and where — large battery systems are sited across the state.