San Diego County to adopt standards on future battery storage facilities – San Diego Union-Tribune
The Gateway Energy Storage System in Otay Mesa, California, experienced a catastrophic fire when its batteries went into thermal runaway. Firefighters were on the scene for 15 days, battling to contain the blaze. Learn about the incident, the risks involved, and what this means for the energy storage industry.
Summary
Here are some key steps San Diego County could take to enhance fire safety for large industrial lithium battery storage facilities beyond the requirements of SB 38:
1. Establish more stringent siting requirements:
- Require facilities to be located away from residential areas, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations.
- Incentivize locating facilities in industrial zones and near existing utility infrastructure.
2. Implement stricter design and engineering standards:
- Mandate more robust fire suppression systems tailored to lithium-ion battery fires.
- Require enhanced thermal management and monitoring systems.
- Establish minimum separation distances between battery units.
3. Enhance emergency response planning:
- Require more detailed emergency response plans specific to battery storage hazards.
- Mandate regular joint training exercises with local fire departments.
- Establish protocols for extended firefighting operations, as the Gateway fire lasted 15 days.
4. Increase inspection and maintenance requirements:
- Implement more frequent and thorough safety inspections.
- Require regular testing and maintenance of safety systems.
5. Improve community notification systems:
- Develop better alert systems for nearby residents in case of incidents.
- Require facilities to conduct community outreach and education on potential hazards.
6. Consider size and capacity limits:
- Establish maximum energy storage capacities for facilities based on location and proximity to populated areas.
7. Require third-party safety assessments:
- Mandate independent safety audits and risk assessments beyond what SB 38 requires.
8. Establish a county-level oversight committee:
- Create a dedicated group to monitor these facilities and update safety requirements as technology evolves.
9. Implement stricter permitting processes:
- Require more detailed safety plans and risk assessments as part of the permitting process.
- Allow for public input on proposed facilities.
10. Consider moratoriums on new projects:
- As mentioned in the article, the county could consider pausing new applications until comprehensive standards are developed.
These measures would go beyond SB 38's basic requirements for emergency response plans and coordination with local agencies, providing a more comprehensive approach to ensuring the safety of large-scale battery storage facilities in San Diego County.
San Diego County to adopt standards on future battery storage facilities – San Diego Union-Tribune
On the heels of two fires in recent months at separate battery energy storage facilities, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday directed staff to establish standards for future projects in unincorporated areas of the county.
“I think it’s time to pump the brakes a little bit here … to ensure that battery storage projects are designed and located in the safest way possible,” District 5 Supervisor Jim Desmond said.
The board approved the motion 4-0, with District 1 Supervisor Nora Vargas absent.
As for what those standards entail, the board directed its chief administrative officer to come up with guidelines and options that could go before supervisors for a vote as early as late August. Staff will consider input from community members living near proposed sites, industry experts and other stakeholders.
Going into Wednesday’s meeting, Desmond called for regulations that, “at minimum,” make sure battery energy storage systems avoid being located in residential areas or near schools, day care centers, senior living facilities and hospitals.
He also called for incentivizing projects located in commercial and industrial zones, near existing utility infrastructure and electrical substations (except in residential areas) and creating regulations for things like building height and setbacks, among others.Wednesday’s motion also proposed issuing a pause on any new applications for future battery projects until standards are adopted.
But District 3 Supervisor and vice chair Terra Lawson-Remer said she was concerned that “placing a blanket moratorium” could lead to “a big problem to meeting our local energy needs if we couldn’t build any battery sites at all” until standards are put into place.
Lawson-Remer proposed an amendment that Desmond and the other supervisors approved that makes a moratorium merely one of a number of options.
“It was a compromise,” Desmond said after the meeting. “I’m glad (a potential moratorium) is still on the table.”
The county estimates that establishing standards for battery projects will cost $1.25 million.
Wednesday’s motion comes after a fire May 15 at the Gateway Energy Storage facility in an industrial park in Otay Mesa. The blaze was centered in one of the seven buildings at the 250-megawatt site that stores lithium-ion batteries that help bolster the state’s electric grid.
Firefighters and a county hazardous materials crew responded quickly and evacuation orders and warnings were put into effect in the immediate vicinity out of concerns about the potential release of toxic gases. The batteries kept reigniting and it took nearly 17 days before the last unit left the facility, which is owned and operated by LS Power and its subsidiary, Rev Renewables.
Fire officials said the lithium-ion batteries experienced “thermal runaway” — a condition in which excessive heat results in a chemical reaction that spreads to other batteries.
In September 2023, a battery fire broke out at the Valley Center Energy Storage Facility, operated by renewable energy company Terra-Gen.
While fire officials said the fire was put out in about 45 minutes and extinguished by the site’s internal fire prevention system, businesses and the small number of homes within a quarter-mile of the industrial park where the facility is located were evacuated and shelter-in-place orders were in effect within a half-mile of the site out of an abundance of caution.
The 139-megawatt, 560 megawatt-hour Valley Center facility was back in operations the next day.
Battery storage is considered a crucial piece in California’s policy goal of deriving 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045.
Storage systems take solar power generated during the day and discharge the electricity later, especially from 4 to 9 p.m. when California’s grid is under the most stress. Batteries can help reduce the risk of rotating power outages and replace natural gas “peaker plants” used during those critical hours when customers crank up their air conditioners.
Whatever standards the county puts into place, they will not apply to some battery projects already under consideration within the board’s jurisdiction — including the Seguro Energy Storage Project that Fortune 500 company AES wants to build in Eden Valley, between San Marcos and Escondido.
That’s because state code stipulates that projects are subject to the rules and regulations in place when the projects were formally submitted for approval — and the AES Seguro project has already been submitted.
“It’s already in the pipeline and the county has an ordinance specific to grandfathering projects where applications have been submitted,” said AES director of permitting Corinne Lytle Bonine.
But opponents of the project at Wednesday’s meeting said they hope whatever standards are adopted can be applied if Seguro goes before the full Board of Supervisors.
“The only thing we can do is emphasize all the negativities of why this should never be approved,” said Cory Depietro, an Eden Valley homeowner. “If we can push this up to the board level, we feel more confident we can kill this.”
AES wants to build the Seguro project on a 22.5-acre plot. The company considers the site an excellent location because it’s close to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric substation, so it can feed into the state’s power system without requiring miles of overhead transmission lines.
If approved, the facility would generate 320 megawatts and 1,280 megawatt-hours of electricity that would flow to California’s electric grid — enough to power about 240,000 homes for four hours.
The decision to accept or reject the Seguro project will eventually go before the seven members of the San Diego County Planning Commission. A vote has yet to be scheduled.
Originally Published:
California introduces fire safety rules around booming battery storage sector
New legislation in California that requires battery storage facilities to put in place safety and communication protocols has been signed into law by state governor Gavin Newsom.
Newsom signed Senate Bill 38 (SB 38) earlier this month (7 October). It makes it a requirement for battery storage facilities in the state to put in place emergency response and emergency plans, in addition to existing requirements for their maintenance and operation to meet standards set by the regulatory California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The bill comes into force with California’s rapid deployment of battery energy storage system (BESS) assets continues. BESS resources help balance the grid, integrate growing shares of renewable energy, maintain electricity supply reliability in the face of load growth, wildfires and other causes of outages and enable thermal generation retirements.
SB 38 was introduced last December by Senator John Laird of Santa Cruz. Laird said at that time that an increase in battery storage “is essential to reaching our clean energy goals, but we also have to ensure that these facilities have safety systems in place to ensure the safety of workers and surrounding communities”.
Laird also acknowledged that BESS technology is playing a vital role in ensuring the reliability of the electric system, which in California means the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) grid for the majority of the state, in addition to pockets served by other system operators.
What is striking is that in December 2022, Laird noted that the 3,500MW of BESS investments made in the state had contributed to keeping the lights on during late summer heatwaves of September that year that had “put immense strain” on the grid.
Already since then, California’s investments in BESS have soared, with CAISO reporting that its service area surpassed 5,000MW of installed grid-scale battery storage in May this year.
Recent reports from research firms such as Wood Mackenzie and S&P Global Commodities continue to rank California as the top US state for BESS adoption, albeit Texas is running an increasingly close second and according to some sources could outpace its northwestern neighbour as early as the end of this year.
At the same time, the importance of battery storage safety, and fire safety in particular, is at the top of the agenda for many local authorities, lawmakers and the general public – as well as for the industry.
ESN analysis: California puts industry best practice on safety into law
This year has seen a handful of fires at battery storage facilities, which although rare in the big picture scheme of just how many new BESS assets are being installed, nonetheless reinforce the need to put rules and safeguards in place around this relatively new technology set.
New York’s governor Kathy Hochul convened a working group of multiple state agencies including fire respondents earlier this year in response to three fires which occurred just a few weeks apart. Like Senator Laird and her California counterpart Newsom, Hochul acknowledged a need for BESS uptake to continue, but similarly emphasised that it needed to happen safely.
For Laird, the bill’s introduction came after the overheating incident at utility Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E’s) Elkhorn BESS facility at Moss Landing which happened in September 2022.
The text of SB 38 states that the new requirements impose additional duties on local authorities, therefore a state-mandated programme will be created, with BESS owners or operators submitting their plans to county or city authorities.
In developing plans, owners or operators must coordinate with local emergency management, unified programme and first responder agencies.
These appear to be broadly in line with recommendations made by experts following a 2017 incident at a BESS in Arizona, and have already been adopted as best practice by some BESS companies, but are not thought to have been widely put into law in the US. Trade group American Clean Power Association (ACP) recently put out a battery storage safety guide for first responders.
The full text of Senate Bill 38 can be seen here.
SB 38: Battery energy storage facilities: emergency response and emergency action plans.
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the commission to implement and enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of facilities for the generation and storage of electricity owned by an electrical corporation or located in the state to ensure their reliable operation.
This bill would require each battery energy storage facility located in the state and subject to the requirement described above to have an emergency response and emergency action plan that covers the premises of the battery energy storage facility, as specified. The bill would require the owner or operator of the facility, in developing the plan, to coordinate with local emergency management agencies, unified program agencies, and local first response agencies. To the extent the bill would impose new duties on local government agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the owner or operator of the facility to submit the plan to the county and, if applicable, the city where the facility is located.
Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.
Because the above provisions would be part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing this bills requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
California introduces fire safety rules around booming battery storage sector
New legislation in California that requires battery storage facilities to put in place safety and communication protocols has been signed into law by state governor Gavin Newsom.
Newsom signed Senate Bill 38 (SB 38) earlier this month (7 October). It makes it a requirement for battery storage facilities in the state to put in place emergency response and emergency plans, in addition to existing requirements for their maintenance and operation to meet standards set by the regulatory California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The bill comes into force with California’s rapid deployment of battery energy storage system (BESS) assets continues. BESS resources help balance the grid, integrate growing shares of renewable energy, maintain electricity supply reliability in the face of load growth, wildfires and other causes of outages and enable thermal generation retirements.
SB 38 was introduced last December by Senator John Laird of Santa Cruz. Laird said at that time that an increase in battery storage “is essential to reaching our clean energy goals, but we also have to ensure that these facilities have safety systems in place to ensure the safety of workers and surrounding communities”.
Laird also acknowledged that BESS technology is playing a vital role in ensuring the reliability of the electric system, which in California means the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) grid for the majority of the state, in addition to pockets served by other system operators.
What is striking is that in December 2022, Laird noted that the 3,500MW of BESS investments made in the state had contributed to keeping the lights on during late summer heatwaves of September that year that had “put immense strain” on the grid.
Already since then, California’s investments in BESS have soared, with CAISO reporting that its service area surpassed 5,000MW of installed grid-scale battery storage in May this year.
Recent reports from research firms such as Wood Mackenzie and S&P Global Commodities continue to rank California as the top US state for BESS adoption, albeit Texas is running an increasingly close second and according to some sources could outpace its northwestern neighbour as early as the end of this year.
At the same time, the importance of battery storage safety, and fire safety in particular, is at the top of the agenda for many local authorities, lawmakers and the general public – as well as for the industry.
ESN analysis: California puts industry best practice on safety into law
This year has seen a handful of fires at battery storage facilities, which although rare in the big picture scheme of just how many new BESS assets are being installed, nonetheless reinforce the need to put rules and safeguards in place around this relatively new technology set.
New York’s governor Kathy Hochul convened a working group of multiple state agencies including fire respondents earlier this year in response to three fires which occurred just a few weeks apart. Like Senator Laird and her California counterpart Newsom, Hochul acknowledged a need for BESS uptake to continue, but similarly emphasised that it needed to happen safely.
For Laird, the bill’s introduction came after the overheating incident at utility Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E’s) Elkhorn BESS facility at Moss Landing which happened in September 2022.
The text of SB 38 states that the new requirements impose additional duties on local authorities, therefore a state-mandated programme will be created, with BESS owners or operators submitting their plans to county or city authorities.
In developing plans, owners or operators must coordinate with local emergency management, unified programme and first responder agencies.
These appear to be broadly in line with recommendations made by experts following a 2017 incident at a BESS in Arizona, and have already been adopted as best practice by some BESS companies, but are not thought to have been widely put into law in the US. Trade group American Clean Power Association (ACP) recently put out a battery storage safety guide for first responders.
The full text of Senate Bill 38 can be seen here.
Safe Storage of Lithium-Ion Batteries: Best Practices for Facility Managers
New codes and standards provide some guidance and requirements, but here is what facility managers should consider to ensure safe storage.
Early in 2024, the International Code Council published its International Fire Code (IFC) 2024. That code, like the International Building Code (IBC) 2024 and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855, provides updated guidelines for the safe storage of lithium-ion batteries. But unfortunately, these updated guidelines – although helpful – do not fully address all the questions facility managers may have.
Below is an overview of what the current codes cover and do not cover, and what facility managers should do to protect tenants, buildings, and communities while the industry awaits more comprehensive updates.
Codes and questions
The current codes and standards focus far more on energy storage systems (ESS) than indoor battery storage applications. As defined by the NFPA, an ESS is an assembly of devices capable of storing energy to supply electrical energy for future use. Indoor battery storage, on the other hand, simply refers to areas where lithium-ion and other batteries are housed for future use or disposal and does not include manufacturing or testing facilities.
Only the most recent codes from the NFPA, IBC, and IFC include additional requirements for ESS and indoor storage applications, but not to the level of specificity facility managers require. For example, NFPA 855 and IFC offer design criteria for sprinkler density for up to 600 KWH of electrochemical ESS within a fire area for segregated groups not exceeding 50kWh. But 600 KWH is much smaller than the large-scale applications that are becoming increasingly common. Furthermore, none of the codes define maximum allowed quantities (MAQ) and sprinkler densities for indoor storage applications when batteries exceed a certain state of charge.
The same problem arises in separation requirements. The guidelines suggest three-foot separations between each battery group for a given ESS, but again these separations are based on a MAQ for ESS and not for indoor storage applications.
Furthermore, the codes do not address variations from standards in testing. Some battery types and arrangements represent less of a fire hazard than others. Indeed, some manufacturers claim that their lithium-ion chemistries, along with their monitoring systems, greatly reduce the potential for thermal runaway, which is an uncontrollable self-heating state. Other variables, such as state of charge, cell capacity, types of packaging, and storage height, differ from one application to another. It therefore is unrealistic to classify all storage arrangements in the same way.
Best practices to follow
In the absence of comprehensive, detailed guidelines for indoor storage of lithium-ion batteries, facility managers and building owners can take steps to reduce the risk of fire. One option is to follow guidelines from insurance underwriters. These tend to be more comprehensive and stricter than the NFPA, IBC, and IFC codes and standards but still, these guidelines apply to very specific battery types and arrangements.
Testing is arguably the most important step, however, especially in situations where the variables don’t align with code standards. The NFPA, IBC, and IFC all mandate large-scale testing, but, as mentioned earlier, variables differ from facility to facility. Furthermore, there are exceptions to the large-scale testing standards, such as unit testing, that may be considered sufficient if the manufacturer can demonstrate a certain degree of cell-to-cell propagation resistance. For these reasons, even if one test yields a perfect result, one cannot assume that the perfect result will be replicated at another facility with a slightly different application. Therefore, facility managers should ask each prospective tenant whether the manufacturer has conducted testing and analysis for the specific, intended storage arrangement.
Related Content: 4 Killed in New York Fire Sparked by Lithium-Ion Battery
The manufacturer should have conducted testing and analysis to determine maximum allowable quantities and separation requirements for the facility’s sprinkler density or fire-extinguishing system. Alternatively, the manufacturer could recommend a fire suppression system based on their testing that the tenant or landlord could install. Manufacturers should also report the results of hazard mitigation analysis and evaluations of deflagration potential involving the off gassing of flammable gases during a thermal runaway. Only with such information can the facility manager, the building owner, and the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) confidently decide whether the tenant is taking sufficient safety measures.
It’s important to note that most AHJs in the United States have not yet adopted the latest codes; that will likely take a few years. Nevertheless, AHJs will want to know how a facility is ensuring safety. Consequently, whatever information the tenant shares with the facility manager and owner should also be shared with the AHJ as early during the leasing negotiations as possible. This will help ensure that any buildouts or installations are well positioned to meet not only current local codes, but also future ones, and it will speed up permitting processes when approvals are necessary.
Facility managers should not assume that a proposed design is safe because it is not fully addressed in the latest codes or even with an underwriter’s standard document. As stated earlier, most applications for the indoor storage of lithium-ion batteries greatly differ from one another. In addition, battery and EV manufacturers are investing heavily in R&D, so the variations and energy densities are likely to further increase in the coming years. Thus, it is critical for facility managers and owners to require tenants to provide testing data for specific, proposed applications. Such a requirement may delay lease signings and approvals, but it will keep tenants, buildings, and local communities safe.
Nickolas Patsios, PE, is Associate Partner at Syska Hennessy Group.
Comments
Post a Comment