Are battery markets entering a new level of maturity?

State regulators, local communities, and project developers are challenging the traditional narrative around battery storage.

From investigating data center power provisioning to exploring the impacts of tariffs on batteries, the Forum has worked to follow what the recent battery boon means for the United States power market. Despite opposition from the Trump administration, 2025 saw consistent growth across residential and utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS)[i]. The preservation of the investment tax credit (ITC) for storage has helped maintain this boom, yet increasingly stringent sourcing requirements from 2026 onwards may offset this initial incentive. Regardless, the widespread deployment of batteries is helping to remake the grid—less than ten years ago BESS was a very marginal resource[ii]. In absolute terms, batteries still power a very small percentage of the grid at any given moment. However, in specific and influential markets—such as Texas, California, and New York—enough batteries have come on to challenge the status quo. 

These impacts are diverse and far reaching. Gridstatus’s nodal power market monitoring platform has documented the capacity of batteries to limit grid stress and price hikes during periods of extreme heat in CASIO and ERCOT. Additionally, the alignment of cheap batteries and extreme weather events has fueled the expansion of microgrids in the American South and the exploration of non-wire alternatives by utilities[iii]. However, this expansion has not been without complications. 

Increasing adoption has been met with mounting local backlash and opposition. The extensive built out of Tesla batteries in State Island and Long Island have led many residents to express concerns about fire, resulting in moratoria for energy storage in both jurisdictions[iv]. Moreover, the January 2025 fire of the Moss Landing facility in California also led to increased pressure on the governor to give local jurisdictions more control over battery siting[v].

More batteries, and more opposition, has resulted in a distinct tool for facilitating BESS project development in certain states with a commitment for storage targets: the model ordinance. Model ordinances are not a novel concept, but organizations promoting clean energy and state siting authorities have adopted these tools to help preempt local opposition. 

Model ordinances are drafted overviews for what a municipal government could adopt to guide the siting and permitting of BESS. These ordinances are purposefully vague, offering guidance for how to regulate topics like setbacks or site plan review, while at the same time leaving room for communities to rewrite the ordinance to their specific needs. For example, including additional community benefit agreements or avoiding prime agricultural lands. New York State was one of the first siting authorities to propose a model ordinance. In the past three months, California and Massachusetts have proposed ordinance guidebooks for siting storage projects[vi]. These new guidebooks go beyond past ordinances, expanding the breath and content of how model laws can support projects. For example, the inclusion of permitting timelines, explanations of code and zoning interactions, and resource libraries. These recent ordinances reflect a slowly changing power system. Over time communities are adapting old, outdated fire and building codes, paving the way with the support of regulators to encourage safe BESS deployment. 

How have developers reacted to mounting BESS opposition and the need to comply with local ordinances of varying favorability? Examining materials from the largest Independent Power Producers (IPP) reveals variable approaches to community engagement. In examining publicly available materials promoting their work, few IPPs completely ignore the need for community or stakeholder engagement. However, few IPPs offer an official organization wide community or stakeholder engagement policy. Developers typically take a measured approach to engagement. Visiting most developer sites will reveal a list of general priorities or highlights from local projects to demonstrate community engagement. 

There’s also an important distinction here in considering community engagement policy: stakeholder support vs. community investment. Community investment may not directly involve the parties participating in the project but may instead offer payment or a grants program for the surrounding community. Whereas stakeholder engagement refers more specifically to how the developer interacts with parties directly affected by the project. Stakeholder engagement models can vary considerably, and it is relatively uncommon for IPPs to publicly offer a model for how to engage and compensate stakeholders involved in a project.

 Moreover, developers may choose to have distinctive roles with their organizations dedicated to effective community engagement or instead choose to incorporate engagement responsibilities into existing teams as part of the development process. The reality is that clean energy developers are hesitant to make project information publicly available—therefore there may be considerable internal processes dedicated to community engagement even if there appears to be no community engagement policy or stakeholder engagement model. Ultimately, surveying methods for community engagement among developers reveals the diverse approaches of quite careful actors.  

It remains unclear whether community concerns for fire and safety will translate to a push for greater adoption of stakeholder engagement materials by project developers. Model ordinances and statewide clean energy siting authorities could act as an alternative or complementary approach to developer-led community engagement. For example, Massachusetts’ proposed model BESS bylaws include provisions recommending community benefit agreements, which could include topics overlapping with community engagement policies[vii].

As more batteries are built, communities, regulators, and developers are adapting to one another and the changing needs of the market. Regulators in certain states are opting to encourage deployment while helping communities address their concerns. Renewable energy developers are increasingly adopting community engagement policies, albeit somewhat quietly. Maybe as developers and regulators adapt, local opposition will shift in support of greater BESS deployment. Initially, advocates feared that mounting opposition to storage would have a lasting impact on the market. However, the reality is more complicated—with the developers, communities, and states reacting to one another, sometimes together and at other times opposed. Ultimately, perhaps this reflects a trend toward a more mature market for energy storage in the United States.