The increasing mandates and incentives for the rapid deployment of energy storage are resulting in a boom in the deployment of utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS). In the first installment of our series addressing best practices, challenges and opportunities in BESS deployment, we will look at models and recommendations for land use permitting and environmental review compliance for battery energy storage projects with a particular focus on California, which is leading the nation in deploying utility-scale battery storage projects.
Land use permitting and entitlement
There are three distinct permitting regimes that apply in developing BESS projects, depending upon the owner, developer, and location of the project.
Utility-Sponsored Projects – Public Utilities Commission
BESS projects developed or owned by the state’s investor-owned utilities are subject to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) jurisdiction under General Order (GO) 131-D. GO 131-D governs permitting for utility-owned infrastructure including the potential need for a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience (CPCN) or Permit to Construct (PTC) and related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For BESS projects approved to date, the utilities have invoked an exemption from GO 131-D qualifying such projects as “distribution” facilities falling below applicable 50 MW and 50 kV thresholds, thereby avoiding CPCN and PTC compliance and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and significantly streamlining permitting.
Private Land Projects – State and Local Government Agencies
For BESS projects developed or owned by private entities, permitting jurisdiction is dependent upon the location of the project, typically either on private, federal or state land, and governed by the applicable governmental agency with jurisdiction over that property. The majority of BESS projects developed to date are located on private land – typically near substation infrastructure and/or generating facilities – and subject to the applicable county or city zoning and land use ordinances and, if necessary, associated CEQA review.
Co-locating BESS facilities with the solar or wind generating source has proven to streamline the permitting process. In such circumstances, several California counties have found BESS projects to constitute an accessory use to the associated energy generation facility, thereby bundling the two projects together, even where a BESS project may be added subsequent to the development of the solar or wind facility. In other jurisdictions, BESS projects have been interpreted as falling within permitted uses for electrical substations and transmission and distribution facilities, thereby avoiding discretionary review; or, alternatively, BESS projects may be interpreted as allowed as conditional uses for similar facilities, requiring a conditional or special use permit and triggering CEQA review.
Federal Public Lands – Federal Government Agencies
For those projects located on federal or state land, permitting will fall under the jurisdiction of the applicable agency and its associated permitting regime – for example, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s Right of Way (ROW) process for projects falling under Bureau of Land Management (BLM) jurisdiction. As with BESS projects located on private land, BLM will typically bundle the consideration of a BESS facility with an associated solar or wind facility in an initial ROW Grant, or, if the BESS facility is added subsequent to the generation facility, treat it as an amendment to the ROW Grant. We have not, however, seen BLM treat a BESS facility as an authorized use under an existing ROW Grant, thus the agency must still make an affirmative decision that triggers NEPA compliance.
Environmental review compliance
Where BESS projects trigger discretionary permitting and CEQA or NEPA review, there are a variety of procedural mechanisms for agencies to address environmental review compliance ranging from categorical exemptions/exclusions to a full scope environmental impact report/statement, respectively. Where a BESS facility is combined in environmental review with a solar or wind project, the BESS facility will be subsumed within the scope of that review process, typically requiring a mitigated negative declaration/environmental assessment or environmental impact report/statement. Where a BESS facility is permitted as a stand-alone facility and/or added subsequent to the review of a related solar or wind project, we have seen success in the use of categorical exclusions/exemptions for these projects due to the relatively small size and enclosed nature of the facilities.
While the applicable categorical exemptions/exclusions are specific to the relevant agency, they typically fall within categories for existing facilities, replacement or reconstruction of existing structure or facilities or accessory structures. For subsequently added BESS facilities, BLM has also utilized a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) finding the BESS facility to fall within the scope of the broader environmental review for the already analyzed solar or wind project.
Given the relatively small footprint of typical BESS projects and their location closer to urban load centers or existing generating facilities, the environmental and natural resource issues emerging to date tend to focus on technology-specific impacts including fire risk, noise impacts and hazardous materials transportation, use, and disposal.
Recommendations for BESS project development
The rapid deployment of BESS projects at large scale to meet regulatory mandates and tax incentives presents developers and regulatory agencies with an array of novel permitting and environmental review issues and potential hurdles. Developing strategies for addressing land use permitting and environmental review issues early and effectively will facilitate the cost-efficient, timely and successful deployment of BESS projects. Our “best practices” recommendations for permitting BESS projects include:
- Prior to engaging regulatory agencies, prepare a permitting and environmental review strategy, which should include references to potentially applicable zoning or land use entitlement requirements and categorical exemptions/exclusions.
- Site BESS facilities within the existing or anticipated disturbance footprint of a co-located energy generating facility, such as within or adjoining temporary construction laydown areas, parking areas or operations and maintenance facilities; and, for stand-alone BESS facilities, identify existing structures or buildings that could provide the footprint for the facility.
- Consider identifying a potential BESS facility in conjunction with solar or wind project development to provide optionality for future deployment even if such use is not immediately anticipated.
David Lazerwitz is a partner and Linda Sobczynski is an associate in Farella Braun + Martel’s San Francisco office. Mr. Lazerwitz is chair of Farella’s Energy and Natural Resources Industry group.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those held by pv magazine.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: email@example.com.
“For BESS projects approved to date, the utilities have invoked an exemption from GO 131-D qualifying such projects as “distribution” facilities falling below applicable 50 MW and 50 kV thresholds, thereby avoiding CPCN and PTC compliance and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and significantly streamlining permitting.”
Why stop at 50MW and 50kV systems? The picture at the beginning of the article shows a cargo container being set on site. If you set one of these units or 1,000 of these units, what does it matter?
“Co-locating BESS facilities with the solar or wind generating source has proven to streamline the permitting process. In such circumstances, several California counties have found BESS projects to constitute an accessory use to the associated energy generation facility, thereby bundling the two projects together, even where a BESS project may be added subsequent to the development of the solar or wind facility.”
Permitting is just one of the “soft costs” that needs to be streamlined and curtailed if possible to promote more energy storage infrastructure.
“Site BESS facilities within the existing or anticipated disturbance footprint of a co-located energy generating facility, such as within or adjoining temporary construction laydown areas, parking areas or operations and maintenance facilities; and, for stand-alone BESS facilities, identify existing structures or buildings that could provide the footprint for the facility.”
So, does this mean one could “recycle” an old abandoned big box store, use the massive internal space to install cargo containers of energy storage and generation, use the existing commercial power feed and use this structure to house large local energy storage systems, where the electricity is used? There are many old abandoned super market buildings, big box stores (some SAM’s Club stores have been vacant for years). These large buildings have required fire suppression installed already, have a lot of floor space to lay down cargo container sized energy storage units and one could even stack a second group of cargo container ESS on top of the floor level containers. A big building with stacked ESS, one could see 100MW/800MWh of energy storage and a great big roof to put a 1MWp solar PV array on. Why oh why does it have to be so hard?
Excellent article, thank you.
If a CA “Utility-Sponsored Project” is exempt from General Order (GO) 131-D, then is that Utility project subject to the permitting requirements as described under “Private Land Projects – State and Local Government Agencies”?
If not, what are the permitting requirements?
Can you suggest a way to identify projects that fall in the category of “Private Land Projects – State and Local Government Agencies”? I am hoping to study and learn from the permitting process for these projects.
We are very concerned about a Battery Storage Facility that may be built in our small valley. Our valley has beautiful expensive homes with horse ranches, lots of expensive livestock and beautiful wildlife everywhere. The land that is being considered was a beautiful 22 acre equestrian ranch and has been there for 70 years, a lot of it is a Wetland and it can’t be built on, but can be planted on. The owner refused all offers from interested horse ranchers or vineyard planters and is trying to destroy our beautiful valley. The thousands of neighbors are fighting this project from happening. We have almost lost our entire valley before from fires. So having lithium batteries in massive containers right in the middle of our valley would definitely blow up our entire valley. Our fire department can’t handle the chemical leaks that will kill everything from people, to livestock and all of the wildlife. The zoning in our area is for Residential, horse property and light agriculture, vineyards! Where many homes are located there would be no way to escape an explosion from these facilities with the small country road and easements to get out! This is not a safe place for this type of facility. Plus all the expensive homes would lose their value! All the residence in the Valley are planning on getting an attorney to protect us against any damage that could happen from this facility so we would all be able to get our loss of value, life or destruction if this is installed. It need to be in a protected place away from vandalism or people shooting at it to start fires. We have one in our industrial that is surrounded with security. This does not belong near homes, families and animals, wildlife etc!
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.