Supervisors back AB 303 to restore local review of large battery sites amid fire and smoke concerns

The board discussed AB 303, legislation that would restrict expedited state permitting for large battery energy storage systems (projects capable of storing 200 megawatt‑hours or more) and return siting decisions to local authorities in specified circumstances. Staff and supervisors framed the bill as restoring local input after incidents at other battery facilities raised concerns about fires and long‑lasting toxic smoke.

Karen Lang and county Planning staff described two competing approaches: one bill (AB 303) would remove certain projects from the state's expedited pipeline and require local permitting; a counterproposal would keep the CEC fast lane but add firm consultation and state fire‑marshal standards. Supervisor questions focused on what “consultation” means in practice and whether a local chief or governing body must sign off — concerns the board asked staff to pursue as an amendment. Resource Management Director James Fusick said county staff have met with applicants and the CEC and that no CEC approvals had been finalized for projects affecting Solano County; he advised pursuing technical language to ensure meaningful local oversight.

Board members emphasized health and environmental justice concerns — one supervisor asked staff to pull together local asthma and air‑quality data to support the county's position — and sought clarity on cleanup responsibilities after a battery fire. The board recorded consensus support for AB 303 while directing staff to press for statutory language requiring substantive local sign‑off rather than a perfunctory meeting.