Legislation approved by the Virginia General Assembly could change how battery energy storage systems (BESS) are sited across the Commonwealth, allowing them to be developed by right alongside previously approved solar facilities.

BESS benefits solar projects by allowing operators to store excess energy and dispatch it when needed. Currently, localities have authority over whether or not to allow energy storage.

Identical bills — SB 443 sponsored by Senator Jeremy McPike and HB 891 introduced by Delegate Irene Shin — would make BESS a permitted accessory use when a commercial solar facility has a special exception.

Under the legislation, BESS installations could be built within the boundaries of those approved solar parcels without requiring additional local land-use approvals. Local governments would be prohibited from mandating special exceptions or other discretionary permits, provided they comply with applicable safety, fire, and environmental regulations.

The bills say localities retain authority to enforce safety codes and ensure proper operation.

VACo Concerns The Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) has come out in opposition to the legislation, arguing that it removes local decision-making authority, effectively bypassing local review processes. VACo also argues it creates fiscal and public safety challenges.

The organization claims changes made in 2021 to Virginia’s siting agreement law specifically aimed to allow localities to use battery storage projects as a mechanism to offset declining local tax revenues due to state-mandated exemptions on machinery and tools taxes. Those exemptions reduce taxable value by 80% in the first five years, 70% in years six through 10, and 60% thereafter, the organization said.

Although developers may still voluntarily negotiate siting agreements for BESS, if they aren’t required to do so, VACo argues, it creates a risk for emergency services.

“Without the requirement for an applicant to seek a host siting agreement, and because of loss in revenue due to state-mandated exemption from local taxes, counties cannot adequately address limited resources of their fire departments and public safety operations, who must be familiar with the layouts and protocols for each site and have adequate resources to respond to fire and emergency calls,” the organization said.

Fiscal Impact & Locality Feedback A fiscal impact statement for the legislation reports limited but notable feedback. Of the 17 respondents, estimated impacts ranged from $2,000 to $200,000 in additional expenditures and $300,000 to $750,000 in reduced revenue over the biennium.

In King George, Supervisor Cathy Binder called out the pending legislation during a March 17 meeting.

“I’m really concerned about some of the bills that passed and the costs that could come to our locality,” she said, adding that one example was the BESS legislation. “Any solar project that we pass has battery energy storage by right, which means it takes the decision-making out of the locality.” She said lobbyists were going strong pushing this measure.

Numerous responses reported in the fiscal impact expressed opposition for reasons beyond finances.

A representative from Pulaski County noted, “Although Pulaski County does not support the premise of the bill, I cannot estimate any direct expenses associated with its enactment.”

Officials in Manassas raised concerns about potential impacts on nearby properties, stating, “Staff will need to evaluate the potential impact on adjacent properties from unrestricted battery storage development. The city has already investigated large-size battery storage facilities and received negative adjacent property owner feedback related to known health and environmental issues associated with fires or lack of maintenance of battery systems. Battery systems typically have an impact area of one-half mile for direct impact during fires.”

Gloucester County emphasized concerns about local authority, stating, “The main impact I understand from this is the loss of zoning enforcement for these types of facilities. No.”

Awaiting Spanberger With passage in both chambers, the legislation is now before Governor Abigail Spanberger for consideration. VACo has formally urged a veto, arguing that the bills disrupt the balance between energy development and local oversight.

“VACo strongly supports Virginia’s continued energy development and storage innovation. However, such progress must remain balanced with meaningful local oversight and community engagement. Senate Bill 443 disrupts that balance,” wrote executive director Dean Lynch in a letter to the governor.