AB 1285 adds Section 13105.3 to the California Health and Safety Code and directs the State Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES), to develop fire prevention, response, and recovery measures specifically for utility‑grade lithium‑ion battery storage facilities.
The statute requires the measures to include best practices protecting emergency services personnel and best practices enabling owners and operators to provide timely, accurate incident information to local emergency managers and public safety agencies. The law creates a statewide, centralized development task but does not itself create new enforcement tools, funding, or an explicit adoption timetable.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the State Fire Marshal, working with OES, to create guidance—labeled as "measures"—covering prevention, emergency response, and recovery for utility‑grade lithium‑ion battery storage facilities. It mandates two specific content areas: responder health and safety, and protocols for owners/operators to share incident information with local authorities.
Who It Affects
Primary actors affected are owners and operators of utility‑scale lithium‑ion battery storage, local emergency managers and public safety agencies, and first responders who may encounter battery incidents. State agencies (SFM and OES) are responsible for producing the guidance; utilities, developers, and county/city fire departments must consider or implement the resulting measures.
Why It Matters
Utility‑scale battery storage incidents (thermal runaway, fires, hazardous byproducts) pose atypical risks and require coordination across private operators and public responders. This bill fills a governance gap by tasking a single state authority with standardized measures, which could streamline local planning and improve responder safety if the guidance is widely adopted.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1285 creates a single statutory charge: the State Fire Marshal must work with the Office of Emergency Services to prepare fire prevention, response, and recovery measures for "utility‑grade" lithium‑ion battery storage facilities. The mandate is procedural — it compels the development of measures but stops short of declaring those measures to be binding regulations, setting deadlines, or providing implementation funding.
The law expressly requires the guidance to address two topics: health and safety best practices for emergency services personnel, and best practices for owners and operators to share timely, accurate incident information with local emergency managers and public safety agencies.
In practice, the resulting measures are likely to be operational guidance rather than new code requirements. Expect documents that describe pre‑incident planning (site access, on‑site contacts, battery chemistry and state-of-charge reporting), incident response protocols (thermal runaway control, water/foam use, cooling and isolation procedures), responder protective equipment and medical exposure protocols, and recovery steps (decontamination, salvage, site remediation).
Because the statute ties the SFM and OES together, the guidance is likely to emphasize integration with local emergency plans and mutual aid channels.The information‑sharing requirement pushes operators toward standardized, timely alerts to local public safety agencies during an incident. That could include formats and triggers for when to notify, what technical data to supply (e.g., battery capacity, chemistry, location of disconnects), and how to coordinate on-scene.
The law, however, is silent about confidentiality, cybersecurity, and proprietary data constraints that often accompany manufacturer or operator technical details; those practical tensions will need resolution during implementation.Finally, because the bill contains no appropriation, deadline, or enforcement provisions, its impact depends on what the SFM produces and whether local agencies and private owners incorporate that guidance into permits, contracts, local ordinances, or emergency plans. The statutory charge centralizes expertise and creates a template for safer operations, but adoption and resource commitments will determine whether it changes on‑the‑ground outcomes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Adds Section 13105.3 to the California Health and Safety Code requiring the State Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Office of Emergency Services, to develop measures for utility‑grade lithium‑ion battery storage facilities.
The statute explicitly requires the measures to include best practices protecting the health and safety of emergency services personnel (responders).
The statute also explicitly requires best practices for owners and operators to share timely and accurate incident information with local emergency managers and public safety agencies.
The bill does not define "utility‑grade," set a deadline, appropriate funds, or impose enforcement or penalty mechanisms for noncompliance with the resulting measures.
Because the text is limited to development of measures, its practical effect depends on how the SFM frames the guidance and whether local jurisdictions, permitting authorities, or operators adopt those measures into binding requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State Fire Marshal tasked to develop measures for utility‑grade battery storage
This clause is the statute’s operative mandate: the State Fire Marshal, consulting with OES, must develop fire prevention, response, and recovery measures for utility‑grade lithium‑ion battery storage facilities. That language creates a state‑level responsibility to produce guidance but does not itself delegate rulemaking authority, specify a form for the measures (manual, checklist, model ordinance), or obligate any private or local actor to comply.
Responder health and safety best practices
Subsection (a) requires the measures to include best practices to protect emergency services personnel. Practically, this focuses the SFM’s work on occupational safety and medical protocols for first responders encountering battery incidents—topics such as thermal runaway recognition, personal protective equipment recommendations, exposure monitoring, and medical surveillance. The subsection frames responder protection as a distinct deliverable the SFM must address in the guidance.
Information‑sharing best practices for owners and operators
Subsection (b) obliges the SFM to include best practices for owners and operators to provide timely and accurate incident information to local emergency managers and public safety agencies. That narrows one component of the measures to communications: triggers for notification, key data elements to share, and expectations for coordination with local incident command structures. The text does not resolve confidentiality, cybersecurity, or liability concerns related to sharing proprietary technical data.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Firefighters, EMS, and hazmat teams — clearer, state‑level guidance on hazards, PPE, and medical response reduces uncertainty at incidents involving large battery systems and can improve safety and decision‑making on scene.
- Local emergency managers and public safety agencies — standardized incident information templates and coordination practices can speed situational awareness and resource allocation during battery incidents.
- Residents and businesses near utility‑scale storage sites — better prevention and response planning should reduce the scale and duration of incidents that threaten nearby communities, improving public safety and continuity of services.
- Grid operators and utilities — clearer recovery and incident‑coordination practices can shorten outage durations and clarify roles during incidents that affect energy infrastructure.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Fire Marshal and Office of Emergency Services — responsibility for developing the measures consumes staff time and technical support; without an appropriation, those agencies must absorb the workload or reprioritize projects.
- Owners and operators of utility‑grade battery storage — adopting recommended best practices may require investments (reporting systems, site upgrades, training, telemetry) and changes to operational procedures.
- Local fire departments and emergency services — implementing new responder safety practices and incident protocols may require additional training, equipment purchases, or tabletop exercises that local budgets must cover.
- Manufacturers and system integrators — pressure to provide more detailed technical data to public safety partners can create costs and raise concerns about protecting proprietary information and cybersecurity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate priorities against each other: the public and responder interest in rapid, detailed incident information and robust safety protocols, versus operators’ and manufacturers’ interest in limiting disclosure of proprietary or sensitive technical data and avoiding unfunded compliance burdens. The statute solves the coordination gap by centralizing guidance development but leaves unresolved whether and how to require, finance, or reconcile the resulting measures with privacy, security, and commercial concerns.
The statute is narrowly framed: it mandates development of "measures" but leaves critical implementation questions open. The text does not define "utility‑grade," which creates ambiguity about which installations fall within scope — utility‑scale, merchant storage, co‑located behind‑the‑meter systems, or community microgrids could be treated differently depending on how the SFM interprets the phrase.
The absence of deadlines or funding means the guidance’s timeliness and depth will depend on competing agency priorities and available resources.
The information‑sharing obligation raises trade‑offs between public safety and commercial confidentiality. Operators may be reluctant to disclose certain technical details (battery chemistry specifics, control system telemetry, or proprietary design data) that aid incident response but also implicate security or competitive concerns.
The statute is silent on who bears liability for sharing incorrect or delayed information, how to protect sensitive data, and how to align state guidance with existing national standards (for example, NFPA standards) or federal agency recommendations. Those implementation gaps will shape whether the measures become practical tools or aspirational documents that see uneven adoption across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.