Covina Planning Commission opens hearing on 110‑MW battery project amid safety and outreach disputes

The Covina Planning Commission on June 23 opened a public hearing on the Covina Reliability project, a proposed 110‑megawatt battery energy storage system on two sites totaling about 3.4 acres. Staff recommended the commission adopt resolutions recommending City Council certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approve the development agreement, conditional use permit, site‑plan review and a variance for a perimeter wall.

The applicant, RWE, presented the project as a reliability investment for the Southern California Edison service area that would store energy near the Cortez substation and inject up to 110 MW during peak demand. Christina Gispert, RWE’s director of utility‑scale development, said the system would use containerized Tesla Megapack 2 XL units (about 9 feet, 8 inches tall), be remotely monitored 24/7, and operate with minimal daily vehicle traffic. RWE representatives projected roughly $3 million in sales tax from materials purchases, tens of millions in local construction economic output, and long‑term local tax revenues and community‑benefit payments included in a draft development agreement.

LA County Fire and outside consultants described the fire‑safety review that accompanies the proposal. Richard Stillwagen, LA County fire marshal, told the commission the department focuses on water and emergency access and had required 2,500 gallons‑per‑minute at-street supply plus additional on‑site hydrant capacity and other conditions; he said applicant materials must meet listing and testing requirements and that the department will conduct an alternate materials and methods review during building permits. Fire consultant Matt Quinn said industry practice has moved to smaller, containerized outdoor systems and to lithium‑iron‑phosphate (LFP) chemistries that, he said, reduce the likelihood of the kind of large indoor failures seen in earlier incidents.

But public comment was overwhelmingly critical. Residents and local business owners raised safety concerns about possible thermal‑runaway events, proximity to homes, a senior center and a preschool, evacuation routes near Metrolink, and whether the MND adequately addresses hazards. Multiple speakers questioned whether the applicant’s hazard analysis and proprietary test data (the transcript cites UL testing standards and references to UL 9540/9540A and NFPA 855) were sufficient and said those tests should be certified to current standards before approvals proceed. Several commenters also argued the city’s outreach was insufficient—citing limited newspaper notice, lack of translations and claims that canvassing and online postings did not reach all affected residents.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on specifics: battery lifespan and replacement procedures, how sales tax at the POCO (point of change of ownership) would be calculated, noise modeling (the environmental consultant reported modeled operational noise at 45–52 dB, below municipal thresholds), and whether outreach materials were available in languages other than English. Staff and consultants said technical reports were publicly available in the IS/MND and that certain numbers (notably detailed sales‑tax calculations) would be negotiated and presented to City Council. The city’s retained peer reviewer, EPD Solutions, explained that its independent review concluded impacts are either less than significant or can be mitigated, supporting an MND rather than an Environmental Impact Report.

Because of the volume of public interest (staff counted 86 speaker cards and 354 written comments, 349 opposed and 5 in favor), the commission reduced individual speaker time from five to three minutes and agreed—after legal counsel’s advice—to accept one hour of public testimony that evening and continue the hearing for the remainder of public comment, applicant rebuttal and commission deliberation. The commission voted to continue the hearing to June 30, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.

What’s next: The commission will reopen the hearing June 30 to hear remaining speakers and then take rebuttal and deliberate. If the commission votes to recommend approvals, the matter will move to the City Council, which has final decision authority for certification of the environmental document and project entitlements.

Authorities and procedural references mentioned at the hearing include AB 205 (state permitting authority/opt‑in process cited by staff), the city staff’s referenced CEQA document (Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study), municipal code 2.04.0.04 and cited standards including UL 9540/9540A and NFPA 855 (discussed during technical testimony). The LA County Fire Department emphasized its ongoing role reviewing AMMR materials during the building permit stage.