California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB38

Introduced
12/5/22  
Refer
1/18/23  
Introduced
12/5/22  
Introduced
12/5/22  
Refer
3/22/23  
Refer
1/18/23  
Refer
1/18/23  
Refer
3/22/23  
Refer
3/22/23  
Refer
3/29/23  
Refer
3/29/23  
Refer
3/29/23  
Report Pass
4/17/23  
Report Pass
4/17/23  
Refer
4/18/23  
Refer
4/18/23  
Refer
4/18/23  
Report Pass
5/18/23  
Report Pass
5/18/23  
Report Pass
5/18/23  
Engrossed
5/25/23  
Engrossed
5/25/23  
Refer
6/8/23  
Engrossed
5/25/23  
Refer
6/8/23  
Refer
6/8/23  
Refer
7/3/23  
Refer
7/3/23  
Refer
7/3/23  
Report Pass
7/13/23  
Report Pass
7/13/23  
Report Pass
8/23/23  
Refer
7/13/23  
Refer
7/13/23  
Enrolled
9/7/23  
Report Pass
8/23/23  
Report Pass
8/23/23  
Chaptered
10/7/23  
Enrolled
9/7/23  
Enrolled
9/7/23  
Chaptered
10/7/23  
Passed
10/7/23  

Caption

Battery energy storage facilities: emergency response and emergency action plans.

Impact

The bill significantly impacts the Public Utilities Code by establishing regulatory standards for emergency responses from battery energy storage facilities. It requires these facilities to submit their emergency action plans to the relevant local authorities, thereby enhancing accountability and preparedness. Furthermore, it recognizes the need for local government collaboration in emergency management, thus potentially leading to improved community safety and a more structured emergency response framework during unforeseen events.

Summary

Senate Bill 38, introduced by Laird, focuses on enhancing safety measures within the battery energy storage sector in California. The legislation mandates that all battery energy storage facilities develop comprehensive emergency response and action plans to address potential hazards effectively. These plans must be coordinated with local emergency management and first response agencies, ensuring all stakeholders are prepared for incidents that may arise during operations. This requirement aligns with California's ongoing commitment to energy stability and safety, particularly as reliance on battery storage technology increases with the shift towards renewable energy sources.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB 38 appears to be supportive, particularly among safety advocates and regulatory bodies. Stakeholders recognize the necessity of stringent safety protocols as battery storage infrastructure becomes ubiquitous. However, there may be concerns regarding the implementation costs and the burden these regulations could place on smaller operators within the industry. As such, discussions have highlighted a balance between ensuring safety and fostering innovation within California's energy landscape.

Contention

One notable point of contention regarding SB 38 relates to the financial implications for local governments and facilities in adhering to the new mandates. The bill stipulates that certain costs will not be reimbursed by the state, which raises concerns among local agencies about potential financial strain. Additionally, industries may debate the sufficiency of the proposed guidelines, questioning whether they adequately cover all possible emergency scenarios that could be faced by battery energy storage operations.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB283

Energy storage systems.

CA SB1383

Electricity: storage facilities: standards and records.

CA SB772

Long duration bulk energy storage: procurement.

CA AB2787

Long duration bulk energy storage: procurement.

CA AB813

Multistate regional transmission system organization: membership.

CA AB3107

State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission: microgrids: study.

CA AB1513

Energy.

CA AB2256

Net energy metering.