Power facilities: emergency response and action plans.
- Mandates emergency response plans in facility and ESS applications funded by the applicant.
- Requires coordination with local emergency management and unified program agencies.
- Requires post-2026 ESS setbacks at least as protective as NFPA 855, with local agency feedback.
- Maintains regulator authority over rates, services, and safety.
With Davies forging the path alongside coauthors Dixon and Strickland, the measure foregrounds emergency preparedness by mandating a formal emergency response and action plan as part of every energy project application, to be funded by the applicant and coordinated with local emergency management agencies, unified program agencies, and local first responders. This core change enshrines emergency planning as a defined element of project review, applicable to both traditional energy facilities and energy storage system proposals, and preserves the regulator’s existing authority over rates, services, and safety practices.
On the mechanisms side, the general facility application would be expanded to require the emergency plan alongside design, safety and reliability information, site data, and economic details, with explicit coordination obligations for the surrounding-area impacts. For energy storage systems, the measure creates a parallel requirement that also calls for analysis and feedback from a local emergency management agency on the plan, including whether greater setbacks might be advisable for the proposed facility; in both cases, the plan must be paid for by the applicant. Beginning after January 1, 2026, facilities meeting the ESS criteria would be subject to setback protections that align with the most current industry-standard guidance for stationary energy storage installations.
In terms of implementation and context, the changes would rely on the existing certification process to enforce the new requirements, without creating a new state appropriation, though they would likely increase regulatory and local-government workload and project-delivery considerations. By integrating local emergency capacity into project planning and tying post-2026 ESS siting to a standards-based setback benchmark, the measure broadens the regulatory framework governing energy infrastructure and strengthens coordination between developers and local responders, while preserving the regulator’s core oversight of utility rates and safety practices.
 Tony StricklandR Senator | Bill Author |  Not Contacted | |
 Laurie DaviesR Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted | |
 Diane DixonR Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted |
Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.
Introduced By
Latest Voting History
| Ayes | Noes | NVR | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | 0 | 2 | 79 | PASS |
- Mandates emergency response plans in facility and ESS applications funded by the applicant.
- Requires coordination with local emergency management and unified program agencies.
- Requires post-2026 ESS setbacks at least as protective as NFPA 855, with local agency feedback.
- Maintains regulator authority over rates, services, and safety.
Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.
Introduced By
With Davies forging the path alongside coauthors Dixon and Strickland, the measure foregrounds emergency preparedness by mandating a formal emergency response and action plan as part of every energy project application, to be funded by the applicant and coordinated with local emergency management agencies, unified program agencies, and local first responders. This core change enshrines emergency planning as a defined element of project review, applicable to both traditional energy facilities and energy storage system proposals, and preserves the regulator’s existing authority over rates, services, and safety practices.
On the mechanisms side, the general facility application would be expanded to require the emergency plan alongside design, safety and reliability information, site data, and economic details, with explicit coordination obligations for the surrounding-area impacts. For energy storage systems, the measure creates a parallel requirement that also calls for analysis and feedback from a local emergency management agency on the plan, including whether greater setbacks might be advisable for the proposed facility; in both cases, the plan must be paid for by the applicant. Beginning after January 1, 2026, facilities meeting the ESS criteria would be subject to setback protections that align with the most current industry-standard guidance for stationary energy storage installations.
In terms of implementation and context, the changes would rely on the existing certification process to enforce the new requirements, without creating a new state appropriation, though they would likely increase regulatory and local-government workload and project-delivery considerations. By integrating local emergency capacity into project planning and tying post-2026 ESS siting to a standards-based setback benchmark, the measure broadens the regulatory framework governing energy infrastructure and strengthens coordination between developers and local responders, while preserving the regulator’s core oversight of utility rates and safety practices.
Latest Voting History
| Ayes | Noes | NVR | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | 0 | 2 | 79 | PASS |
Tony StricklandR Senator | Bill Author | Not Contacted | |
Laurie DaviesR Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted | |
Diane DixonR Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted |