Accelerating Renewables: Strengthening California’s AB 205 Opt-In Process

Accelerating Renewables: Strengthening California’s AB 205 Opt-In Process

On paper, the wind project slated for Bear River and Monument Ridges in Humboldt County made perfect sense. Strong environmental benefits, a solid technical design, and a location aligned with California’s clean energy ambitions. Yet after hours of public testimony and expert analysis, the project was ultimately halted, its momentum stopped not by technical flaws, but by deep-rooted community concerns. This is not an isolated story. Across the state, ambitious clean energy proposals stall in regulatory bottlenecks or are derailed by public opposition, despite offering tangible climate and economic benefits.These projects, essential to meeting California’s clean energy goals and delivering local community benefits, can quickly slip into a tug-of-war, with their fate depends on how those competing interests are balanced.  

AB 205: Catalyst for Local Permitting Pathway Development

California’s Assembly Bill 205 (AB 205) represents a critical step toward addressing permitting bottlenecks that have slowed clean energy deployment. The law creates an optional, accelerated (270-day decision timeline after application is deemed complete) permitting pathway for wind and solar projects over 50 MW and storage projects over 200 MWh, allowing developers to choose a streamlined state-level process administered by the California Energy Commission (CEC). The intent of AB 205 is both necessary and commendable: to catalyze the swift deployment of clean energy infrastructure needed to meet California’s climate goals. The law’s ultimate efficacy hinges less on its declarative ambitions and more on the robustness of its procedural architecture in grappling with on-ground realities that shape the fate of energy projects. And these realities extend well beyond the perfunctory box-ticking of environmental compliance and job creation metrics –  they delve into the realms of equity, trust, and meaningful participation, intangibles that often determine a project’s tangible success. 

Fundamentally, the existence of a state permitting pathway acts as an incentive for local governments to establish their own streamlined permitting procedures and standards for large scale clean energy projects. Generally speaking, local permitting authorities do not like to lose their local permitting authority. As such, local permitting authorities that might otherwise oppose clean energy projects are put in a difficult position due to the existence of a state permitting pathway that exempts projects from seeking any local permits. Instead of adopting overly restrictive standards intended to ban projects, or adopting moratoriums and bans, local permitting authorities are now incentivized to develop fair and balanced land use standards that address and mitigate community opposition. This incentive provided by the state permitting process will not continue to exist if the law is repealed or will be diminished if the pathway is restricted (as is proposed in AB 303). As such, state lawmakers seeking to maintain streamlined permitting pathways for clean energy projects while building public goodwill in host communities should seek to strengthen AB 205. 

Opportunities for Strengthening AB 205

AB 205’s current framework presents three opportunities for improvement that could enhance community trust in the process and build long-term goodwill. Implementing these enhancements would require the California Legislature to pass amending legislation that establishes specific standards for community benefit plans, mandates emergency preparedness assessments using existing UL 9540A test data, and authorizes state agencies to provide technical and financial support for local permitting processes. Although the original AB 205 passed through the Assembly Committee on Budget and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee as a budget trailer bill, these amendments would likely need to navigate the standard policy committee process through the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee and Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, requiring careful stakeholder engagement with local permitting authorities, developers, environmental groups, and emergency response agencies to build the necessary political consensus before opposition efforts like AB 303 can undermine the pathway’s effectiveness:

1. Enhanced Community Benefit Plan Standards

AB 205 currently requires developers to include a “community benefits plan” in their project applications, but the legislation lacks specificity regarding content, enforceability, geographic scope, or minimum standards, leading to inconsistent implementation and benefits that may not adequately address local needs. Strengthening these requirements would ensure more consistent and meaningful benefits for host communities, as advocated by organizations like Rural Communities Rising, which has emphasized the importance of locally driven benefit frameworks. 

To achieve this, AB 205 should establish clear minimum thresholds for monetary contributions that scale with project size and anticipated impacts, ensuring that larger projects provide proportionally greater community benefits. Additionally, the legislation should mandate geographic targeting of benefits to directly impacted communities, preventing the dilution of resources across broad regions and ensuring that those bearing the project’s land use burdens receive its benefits. The law should also include robust enforcement mechanisms to guarantee that commitments are fulfilled throughout the project’s lifespan, such as performance bonds, third-party audits, and penalty provisions for non-compliance. 

Community benefits should also include the option for developers to fund community resilience projects such as microgrids that provide local energy security and emergency backup power, as demonstrated by the Clean Coalition’s successful community microgrid installations that deliver both climate and resilience benefits directly to host communities. 

Finally, AB 205 should require that any Community Based Organization (CBO) partners involved in developing or administering community benefits operate within the directly impacted communities, ensuring authentic representation and accountability to local residents rather than external organizations with limited connection to the host area. Together, these enhancements would transform community benefits from vague requirements into enforceable commitments that genuinely support community well-being and build public trust in the clean energy transition.

2. Emergency Preparedness Information 

Local governments and first responders bear the fundamental responsibility of protecting their communities from potential emergencies, including those that may arise from BESS. The current AB 205 process falls short of providing the detailed emergency preparedness data that local governments need to adequately protect their communities. For example, the Darden Clean Energy Project’s environmental analysis under CEQA does not include specific assessments of how a thermal runaway event would affect nearby communities, leaving local first responders without essential information needed for emergency planning and response protocols. Without access to project-specific emergency impact data, local first responders are forced to prepare for emergencies at BESS sites while operating in an information vacuum, which can lead to either inadequate emergency preparedness or the overallocation of emergency resources based on worst-case assumptions (EPA).

AB 205 should be reformed to mandate emergency impact assessments that utilize existing standardized testing data, representing the most cost-effective approach to addressing emergency preparedness needs. This proposal requires no additional testing costs or delays for developers, as it leverages UL 9540A large-scale fire test results that most modern BESS projects already complete for safety compliance. The recommended reform would require that once a BESS project application is deemed complete, applicants must submit their existing UL 9540A test results to CEC staff, who would then conduct a streamlined analysis to translate these existing test results into site-specific emergency impact assessments for nearby communities. This approach represents the lowest-cost option in terms of both monetary expense and time requirements, as it builds upon data already generated during the normal development process rather than requiring new studies, and can be incorporated into the existing CEQA review process within the 270-day AB 205 timeline without extending the approval window.

By requiring that CEC staff provide detailed, site-specific emergency impact assessments based on standardized testing data already in developer possession, AB 205 would empower local governments to fulfill their core responsibility of community protection while enabling more efficient and targeted emergency preparedness. Such site-specific impact assessments should include modeling of potential thermal runaway plumes based on the UL 9540A test data, allowing local agencies to then develop plans for evacuation zones, required emergency equipment and personnel, and coordination protocols with state and regional emergency response systems. This approach ensures that local emergency response agencies have the technical information necessary to develop appropriate response protocols, allocate resources effectively, and coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and state agencies when needed, all within the existing regulatory framework and timeline.

3. Support for Streamlined Local Permitting

Having multiple permitting pathways (state and local) gives developers the most flexibility to select the permitting pathway that meets project timeline and budgetary needs. This dual-pathway approach maximizes California’s clean energy deployment capacity by leveraging the distinct advantages each level of government brings: local permitting costs less but with a potentially longer approval timeline. Opposition to and misinformation surrounding clean energy projects are only further entrenched when unpopular projects are seen as a top-down mandate from Sacramento, despite safe technology. State agencies providing the support, resources, and funding to local permitting authorities can act as a catalyst, supporting the development of streamlined local permitting pathways. Local governments should advocate for this support because it enables them to retain decision-making authority over projects in their jurisdictions while capturing direct economic and tax benefits through faster project approvals and reduced administrative costs.

The July 2021 emergency proclamation directed the three agencies—CEC, CPUC, and CAISO—to work with the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GoBiz) forming the “Tracking Energy Development (TED) Taskforce,” to accelerate the deployment of clean energy projects, mitigate the risks of capacity shortages, engage with stakeholders about project challenges, and coordinate assistance requests for specific projects. In the same ethos, GoBiz is currently providing support to local jurisdictions through the development of toolkits, guides, and model ordinances. These resources are designed to help local governments streamline their own permitting processes, build capacity, and address renewable energy projects more efficiently without sacrificing local engagement or oversight. State agencies should take the following actions to support the development of streamlined local permitting processes:

• Technical Assistance and Capacity Building: Providing direct funding, training, and technical support to local governments to enhance their permitting expertise and staffing, as recommended by the California State Association of Counties.
• Model Ordinances and Best Practices: Disseminating standardized permitting templates and best practice guides to reduce administrative burdens and promote consistency. While American Clean Power has published Model Ordinances for wind, solar, and storage, state-developed resources would carry greater credibility with local governments and ensure alignment with state climate objectives.
• Incentivizing Local Approvals: Offering financial incentives or revenue-sharing mechanisms to local governments that approve renewable projects, aligning local interests with state climate goals. This creates a compelling reason for local governments to advocate for this framework: direct financial benefits that support local priorities. For example, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Host Community Benefit Program requires developers of renewable energy projects larger than 25 MW to pay at least $500 per megawatt per year to the host municipality for a period of 10 to 20 years, depending on the project. 

Protecting the AB 205 permitting pathway through bolstering its requirements will ensure that project benefits will continue to reach host communities:

• Job Creation: Large-scale renewables often generate significant construction and operational employment, with prevailing wage and labor union agreements required for approval, as outlined by the CEC.
• Economic Development: Host communities may receive economic benefits through tax revenues, infrastructure improvements, and local contracting opportunities.
• Clean Energy Access: Projects contribute to California’s climate goals, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions statewide.

 Key Takeaways from Existing Projects

The Darden Clean Energy Project and the Fountain Wind Project are the first two developments to advance through California’s AB 205 Opt-In permitting pathway, offering early insight into the process’s impacts and stakeholder reactions. The Darden Clean Energy Project, located on 9,500 acres of retired agricultural land in western Fresno County, proposes 1,150 megawatts (MW) of solar power and up to 1,150 MW of battery energy storage. The project has committed $2 million in community investments over the next decade, including an initial $320,000 to Centro La Familia Advocacy Services, and is projected to generate over 2,000 prevailing-wage construction jobs and an estimated $169 million in local economic benefits over its 35-year lifespan. The California Energy Commission (CEC) staff assessment found that, with proposed mitigation measures, project impacts could be reduced to less than significant. Fresno County’s fire and emergency services introduced mandatory “fire mitigation payments” for BESS projects, reflecting lingering apprehensions about risk management and fiscal protection for local agencies.

The Fountain Wind Project, which also utilized the AB 205 Opt-In process, encountered substantial opposition from both the local government and community organizations. Critics argued that the project’s approval by the CEC, despite prior rejection by Shasta County, would have exemplified the Opt-In pathway’s circumvention of local decision-making and disregard for community-specific concerns. Stakeholder reactions highlighted frustration over the perceived lack of meaningful local input, insufficient community benefit agreements, and unresolved issues related to wildfire risk and environmental impacts. California Energy Commission (CEC) staff denied the Fountain Wind Project application because their analysis concluded that the project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, including wildfire hazards, permanent damage to forest lands and wildlife habitats, conflicts with local zoning laws, and adverse effects on tribal cultural resources. These early cases suggest that while the Opt-In process can accelerate project timelines, its long-term success will depend on how effectively it balances state goals with local priorities and protections, and how much developers engage with impacted communities.

Taken together, California’s AB 205 opt-in permitting process represents a bold attempt to accelerate renewable energy deployment by streamlining state-level approvals. Yet, its lack of specificity regarding community benefits and limited information provision to local first responders pose a threat to the longevity of the permitting pathway. Actions to support the development of streamlined local permitting processes, such as those supported by GoBiz, will help create flexibility for developers to choose between permitting processes. As California continues to refine its clean energy permitting landscape, balancing speed with equity, transparency, and local participation will be critical to ensuring both the success and public acceptance of the state’s renewable energy transition.