Solano supervisors push back on NextEra AB 205 battery-storage application, demand stronger community benefits and safety protections

Solano County supervisors pressed staff and raised warnings about public-safety, farmland loss and inadequate community benefits during a long discussion of a NextEra application under California's AB 205 opt-in process.

The board heard a staff presentation detailing two AB 205 filings that would allow applicants to pursue state permitting through the California Energy Commission (CEC) and thereby bypass local land-use review. Alan Calder, the county planning manager, told supervisors the primary proposal is a 300-megawatt battery energy storage system sited on roughly 40 acres of designated prime agricultural land; NextEra filed its 2,500-page application on Nov. 4, starting a CEC completeness clock that staff said must be met by Dec. 4.

Why it matters: under AB 205 an applicant must include a community benefits agreement (CBA) — usually an outline at the time of filing — and secure at least one signed agreement with a nonprofit or community organization; staff said the applicant chooses the partner. That design, supervisors said, leaves the county with little leverage and risks token payments to local nonprofits while the project reaps long-term private profit.

"It sounds like we're buying our souls to make this happen," one supervisor said, arguing the small sums the applicant proposed in the filing (examples cited by staff included some nonprofit offers as low as $10,000 and a $200,000 total figure) were inadequate compared with case-study benchmarks. Staff pointed to a Medway, Massachusetts, case study in which a roughly comparable project yielded more than $43 million in host-jurisdiction payments; staff's scaled estimate for a 300 MW project ranged from roughly $26 million to $52 million over the project life depending on the per-megawatt benchmark used. Using the higher benchmark, staff estimated a possible annualized community-benefit stream in the low millions of dollars.

Supervisors asked how the county could compel larger sums or protect local interests. Staff said the county cannot force a higher CBA before the CEC deems the application complete but recommended the board direct staff to: (1) comment formally to the CEC on the inadequacy of the proposed community benefits; (2) press for a host community agreement (HCA) with the county; (3) insist on decommissioning bonding, insurance and explicit ag-mitigation funds; and (4) coordinate with legislative partners and county associations to seek statutory fixes to AB 205's applicant-driven CBA process.

Safety and farmland impact raised separately: supervisors and public commenters urged strong fire-safety and public-health protections. Concerns centered on thermal runaway and toxic smoke from large lithium-ion battery fires, the potential need to let affected battery modules burn rather than extinguish them, and the difficulty of containing harmful fumes. Supervisors asked for explicit testing standards (staff cited UL-style fire testing and the need for robust UL 9540/9540A tests and first-responder training) and liability protections that would not fall to the county.

Local land-use consequences were front and center: board members warned that siting a large BESS on prime agricultural soil could induce adjacent property owners to stop farming, harm farm operations during construction, and reduce nearby property values. Staff stressed that a county ag-mitigation ordinance being adopted Dec. 6 would not retroactively apply to an application already filed, though it could affect future completeness cycles and negotiations.

Public comment and next steps: dozens of residents and local stakeholders urged the board to publicize the CEC comment process, encourage local participation in required community meetings, and consider litigation if AB 205 violates local authority. Staff said the county will file formal CEC comments before the Dec. 4 completeness deadline, will pursue HCA discussions if the application is deemed complete, and will press for stronger mitigation, decommissioning bonds and safety testing in its comments.

What the county voted: the board did not take a final vote on the application but asked staff to return with recommended negotiating positions, to use case-study benchmarks when evaluating NextEra's community benefits plan, and to press legislative and association partners for statutory change. The county also noted the pending ag-mitigation ordinance will take effect Dec. 6 and asked staff to reflect that timing in comments where relevant.

Representative quotes: "The applicant is going to go to the state and they're going to cram this down our throat. We get to ask for how much and how it's going to be used, but we don't actually get to make them pay," a supervisor said, urging staff to demand meaningful mitigation and community benefits.

The county will accept public comments to the CEC during the application comment window and staff said it will post guidance and links to the CEC comment portal on the county website and in forthcoming outreach.

Ending: the board closed the discussion with direction for staff to prepare a strong county comment to the CEC highlighting safety, ag-protection, decommissioning and an expectation that community benefits be scaled to project revenues; no permit decision is required or made by the county under AB 205, but supervisors said they want to be in a stronger negotiating position if the applicant proceeds.