AB 615 amends the Public Resources Code to require applicants seeking certification of power facilities to submit an applicant‑paid emergency response and action plan coordinated with local emergency management agencies, unified program agencies, and first responders. It also creates a targeted requirement for energy storage system applications to include local emergency management analysis and feedback, and directs the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (the commission) to ensure that certain certified facilities meet setback protections at least as protective as the most recent edition of NFPA 855.
For compliance officers and developers, the bill shifts pre‑certification work onto applicants (plan development and local coordination) and locks in a dynamic, standards‑based setback floor tied to NFPA 855. That changes both pre‑application costs and the siting calculus for battery energy storage systems and other qualifying facilities.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires an emergency response and action plan in certification applications; makes applicants pay for the plan; mandates that energy storage system applications include analysis and feedback from a local emergency management agency. For facilities meeting a specified definition in existing law, requires the commission to ensure compliance with setback minimums at least as protective as the most recent NFPA 855.
Who It Affects
Developers and owners applying for certification of power plants and energy storage systems, local emergency management and first‑response agencies that must be consulted, and the commission which must ensure NFPA‑level setbacks for qualifying facilities filed after Jan 1, 2026.
Why It Matters
It formalizes local coordination and funds the emergency planning work through applicants, while tethering setback policy to an evolving private consensus standard (NFPA 855). That combination raises upfront costs and alters siting risk for battery storage projects, and forces regulators to monitor a moving standard.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 615 inserts new procedural and substantive safety requirements into the commission’s certification process. Any application for certification must now include an emergency response and action plan that anticipates impacts to surrounding areas in the event of an emergency.
The plan must be developed in coordination with local emergency management agencies, unified program agencies (which typically oversee hazardous materials and similar programs), and local first responders. The bill explicitly makes the applicant responsible for paying for that planning work.
For energy storage systems the bill adds a specific obligation: the emergency plan must include analysis and feedback from the relevant local emergency management agency. That feedback is not merely advisory paper; the statute expressly contemplates that local agencies may recommend stronger protective measures such as greater setbacks for the proposed installation.
By requiring that input in the application packet, the bill elevates local operational knowledge into the formal certification record.AB 615 also instructs the commission to ensure that qualifying facilities that submit applications after January 1, 2026 comply with setback requirements that are at least as protective as the most recent edition of NFPA 855. NFPA 855 is the industry standard for stationary energy storage installation, and the bill’s language ties the commission’s setback floor to whatever NFPA publishes most recently.
That creates a dynamic compliance baseline: applicants and the commission will need to track NFPA updates and apply the “most protective” setback language in effect when the application is considered.The bill preserves the Public Utilities Commission’s authority over rates, services, and safety practices for utilities and generating asset owners under its jurisdiction, so it does not displace other regulatory oversight. Practically, developers should expect earlier and deeper engagement with local responders, additional upfront costs for producing a defensible emergency plan, and potential site adjustments if local agencies recommend expanded buffers or if NFPA publishes a more protective setback regime after the application is filed.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 25520 now requires every certification application to include an emergency response and action plan that is developed and coordinated with local emergency management agencies, unified program agencies, and local first responders.
The bill makes applicants pay for the emergency response and action plan—costs are explicitly placed on the project applicant rather than the commission or local agencies.
New Section 25545.21 requires energy storage system applications to include analysis and formal feedback from the local emergency management agency; that feedback may recommend larger setbacks.
New Section 25545.22 directs the commission to ensure qualifying facilities submitting applications after January 1, 2026 meet setback requirements at least as protective as the most recent edition of NFPA 855.
The legislation leaves the California Public Utilities Commission’s rate, service, and safety jurisdiction intact—AB 615 does not reassign PUC authority.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Require applicant‑funded emergency response and action plans for all certification applications
This amendment makes an emergency response and action plan a mandatory component of every certification application the commission reviews. The provision specifies coordination partners—local emergency management agencies, unified program agencies, and local first responders—making those entities part of the expected consultation loop. Practically, applicants will need to budget for plan development, document coordination steps, and resolve any substantive local recommendations before or during the certification review. The section also reiterates that the PUC’s existing oversight of utilities is unchanged, limiting any argument that this is intended to displace PUC safety authority.
Energy storage applications must include local emergency management analysis and feedback
This new provision applies specifically to energy storage system certification applications and requires the plan to incorporate analysis and direct feedback from the local emergency management agency. That installation‑specific review can include recommended mitigations such as increased setbacks. Because the feedback is part of the statutory application packet, the commission will receive local operational input as part of its record, rather than as external commentary. The statute also repeats the applicant‑pays rule here, so energy storage projects face both the planning cost and the possibility of design changes driven by local recommendations.
Commission must ensure NFPA 855‑level setback protections for qualifying facilities
This section tells the commission to ensure that facilities meeting the criteria set out in the existing Section 25545(b)(2) and filing after January 1, 2026, comply with setback requirements at least as protective as the most recently published NFPA 855. Instead of specifying a numeric buffer, the bill uses NFPA 855 as a moving reference point; the commission will need procedures to determine what the current NFPA edition requires and how to translate that into enforceable setback distances during certification. The provision effectively raises the regulatory floor for siting certain energy storage facilities, with the NFPA standard acting as the minimum acceptable protection.
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
- Local emergency management agencies — receive formal status in the certification record and the ability to provide analysis and recommend mitigations (including setbacks), which strengthens local influence over site decisions.
- First responders and nearby communities — benefit from mandated, project‑specific emergency planning that anticipates impacts to surrounding areas and improves coordination before a facility is operational.
- Neighbors and land‑use planners — gain a statutory mechanism that can produce larger protective buffers if recommended by local agencies or reflected in updated NFPA 855 guidance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Project applicants and developers — must pay for emergency response and action plans, absorb the cost of additional coordination, and potentially redesign sites if local feedback or NFPA setbacks require changes.
- State Energy Commission staff and local agencies — face increased administrative workload to review plans, provide feedback, and monitor NFPA updates without additional funding mechanisms in the bill.
- Owners of constrained sites or smaller projects — may find compliance with NFPA‑level setbacks economically or physically infeasible, increasing the risk that projects become less viable or require costly mitigation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between raising community safety through standardized, externally developed protections and imposing new, potentially variable costs and delays that complicate siting and development. AB 615 privileges local operational expertise and an evolving consensus standard (NFPA 855) to tighten protections, but doing so shifts time, money, and regulatory uncertainty onto applicants and forces regulators to manage an inherently moving policy benchmark.
The bill ties safety outcomes to two different levers: (1) a mandatory, applicant‑funded emergency response planning process that formalizes local agency input, and (2) a dynamic setback floor anchored to NFPA 855. Those choices create three practical implementation questions.
First, the statutory requirement that local emergency management agencies provide analysis and feedback presumes those agencies have capacity and technical expertise to assess complex energy storage risks; many jurisdictions lack staffing or resources to perform that work on project timelines, which could delay certifications or push costs back onto applicants. Second, the clause requiring compliance with the "most recently published edition" of NFPA 855 delegates substantive siting policy to a private standards body and creates a moving target for applicants and regulators.
NFPA updates could tighten setbacks after an application is filed, and the bill does not specify how the commission will treat mid‑application standard changes. Third, the statute increases upfront costs without creating a permit streamlining or funding offset, which may shift project economics and favor larger developers who can absorb planning and redesign expenses.
The bill also leaves some legal and operational gaps. It requires the commission to "ensure" compliance with NFPA‑level setbacks but does not specify enforcement tools or appeal processes for applicants who dispute a local agency’s recommended setback.
Nor does it define metrics for when local recommendations should control the final siting decision versus when the commission can override them on technical or statewide policy grounds. Those gaps mean implementing regulations or guidance will be necessary to operationalize the statute, and those subsequent steps will shape how burdensome the new requirements become in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.