An act to add Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 66350) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 25545 of the Public Resources Code, relating to energy, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
AB 303 would restrict the siting and permitting of large battery energy storage systems in California. The bill defines a “battery energy storage system” as an energy storage system capable of storing 200 megawatt-hours or more that uses battery technology, and then excludes those systems from existing state certification pathways that currently apply to certain large energy storage facilities. It would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to deny pending applications for battery energy storage systems as of the bill’s effective date.
The bill also adds a new statewide land-use restriction for development projects that include these battery systems. Local agencies would be prohibited from authorizing such projects if they are within 3,200 feet of a “sensitive receptor” or located on an “environmentally sensitive site.” The bill defines environmentally sensitive sites broadly to include coastal zone areas, prime farmland, wetlands, very high fire hazard severity zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones, flood hazard areas, conservation lands, and habitat for protected species. Sensitive receptors include homes, schools, daycare centers, parks, hospitals, retirement homes, prisons, dormitories, and other public-facing or residential uses.
In addition to changing permitting rules, AB 303 would amend the Public Resources Code’s definition of “facility” for the state’s energy facility certification process so that battery energy storage systems are not treated the same as other large energy storage systems. It also declares that the new chapter is a matter of statewide concern and applies to all cities, including charter cities, and states that no state reimbursement is required for local costs. The bill is drafted as an urgency statute, meaning it would take effect immediately if enacted.
The bill’s stated purpose is public safety, especially fire prevention. Its urgency clause says immediate action is needed because of the potential fire hazard posed by large energy storage systems. As introduced and at the point reflected in the available history, the bill had not advanced through committee and there are no recorded votes or hearing transcripts in the provided materials.
Overall, the available context suggests the bill is driven by safety concerns rather than a broad policy debate in committee. Because there are no transcripts or votes, there is no documented legislative split in the materials provided. The main policy tension inherent in the bill is between expanding clean-energy storage infrastructure and imposing stricter siting limits to reduce fire, environmental, and community impacts.
AB 303 would narrow existing state-level permitting authority for large energy storage projects by carving battery energy storage systems out of the definition of eligible energy storage facilities under the state certification process in the Public Resources Code. It would also create new Government Code restrictions on local approval of development projects containing large battery storage systems, effectively barring projects near sensitive receptors or on environmentally sensitive sites. These changes would affect the California Energy Commission, local land-use agencies, and developers of utility-scale battery storage projects, while also creating a state-mandated local program and applying statewide, including to charter cities.
The bill’s stated rationale is strongly protective of public health, safety, and the environment, especially in light of fire risk from large battery storage facilities. Because the provided record contains no committee transcript and no votes, there is no documented opposition or support in the materials beyond the bill’s own urgency findings. The available context therefore reflects a precautionary, safety-focused posture rather than a recorded partisan or stakeholder debate.
The central point of contention is likely the tradeoff between safety and clean-energy deployment. Supporters would emphasize fire risk, proximity to homes and other sensitive uses, and protection of wetlands, farmland, habitat, and flood-prone areas. Opponents or affected parties would likely argue that the bill could significantly limit siting options for battery storage, delay or block projects already in the pipeline, and interfere with California’s broader energy reliability and decarbonization goals. The bill also directly requires denial of pending applications, which could be contentious for developers with active projects.