Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff seek board input on draft battery energy storage ordinance as residents warn of health, fire and farmland risks
Summary
Staff presented a draft BESS ordinance that would regulate front‑of‑meter systems over 1 MW with discretionary use permits, third‑party review, decommissioning bonds, and options to prohibit siting on prime agricultural land; public commenters repeatedly urged bans on lithium‑ion systems, wider setbacks, and protections for farms, schools and seniors.
Solano County staff briefed supervisors on a draft battery energy storage (BESS) ordinance and solicited direction as the county’s two‑year moratorium approaches its end. The presentation explained the county’s intent to regulate front‑of‑meter systems greater than 1 megawatt, require discretionary use permits with comprehensive application materials, fund third‑party technical review, require decommissioning financial assurances and site‑specific emergency response and decommissioning plans.
Eric Hagstrom and resource management staff said the draft incorporates lessons learned from Moss Landing and other incidents and leans on national best practices (NFPA 855, UL, EPRI). Staff described a technical working group of local first‑responders, ag representatives and industry, and proposed a risk‑based approach: systems with a thermal‑runaway risk would face larger setbacks (staff recommended up to 300 feet from sensitive receptors, a 30‑foot fire access perimeter and 100‑foot front setbacks) plus mitigation payments for fire equipment, responder training, radio interoperability and air‑quality monitoring. The draft would exempt behind‑the‑meter systems such as residential Powerwalls and allow sites to qualify for reduced setbacks if their battery chemistry is demonstrated — via third‑party experts — to carry no thermal‑runaway risk.
Board members repeatedly raised concerns about plume modeling, fire‑equipment needs, response times in rural areas, impacts on groundwater for some chemistries, and whether the County could effectively prohibit BESS on prime agricultural land without triggering state preemption under AB205. Chair Mashburn and staff noted the California Energy Commission (CEC) AB205 process requires the CEC to consider local laws but the CEC may exempt rules that make a project infeasible if the project is deemed necessary for public convenience and necessity.
Public comment was extensive and overwhelmingly urged greater protections or outright bans on lithium‑ion technology and on siting BESS on prime agricultural land. One resident cited Moss Landing and said the plume “traveled for miles,” noting reported health effects. Michael Geller, who lives roughly 1,000 feet from the proposed Corby site, asked for a 2,500‑foot setback from residences. Sarah Dunn, who has participated on the technical working group, recommended restricting flammable chemistries from commercial service zones and argued for an expedited ordinance that excludes prime farmland and gives the county clear power to require plume modeling and cleanup bonds.
Staff told the board they will return with ordinance language that reflects board direction, run maps that overlay Williamson Act parcels and prime farmland, and further refine mitigation, decommissioning timing and requisite financial assurances. Supervisors signaled support for strong protections and asked staff to explore versions that seek a full ag ban as well as versions limited to prohibiting prime/unique/statewide‑important farmland in order to assess CEC risk and legal feasibility.
