How Angelo Zandona Turns AHJ Reviews Into an Advantage for BESS Developers

Introduction

The single most common reason a BESS project stalls in permitting has to do with the relationship between the developer and the local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). That is a fixable problem. But fixing it requires understanding how AHJs think, what they need, and how to give them the information that moves a review forward instead of sending it back for corrections.

In New York alone, 108 AHJs had enacted moratoria or bans on grid-scale BESS development as of November 2025, covering a combined area representing 8% of the state,  reflecting how inadequate communication between developers and local regulators can become a structural barrier to deployment.

From California to Texas to Arizona, local fire marshals and building officials are being asked to evaluate a technology that many of them have never reviewed before. Many AHJs frequently lack the requisite permitting experience and knowledge to support BESS construction projects. BESS technology is a relatively novel concept to local municipalities, and AHJs often confront unique hurdles that can delay permitting and efficient project execution. Angelo Zandona, founder of Keystone Fire Consultants, works with developers in these markets every day. His perspective on AHJ collaboration is grounded in real projects, real rejections, and real approvals across the country’s fastest-growing storage markets.

How AHJs Approach BESS Reviews

Before a developer can communicate effectively with an AHJ, they need to understand what the AHJ is actually trying to accomplish. An AHJ’s core responsibility is public safety. They are doing their job by making sure that a technology with real fire and life safety risks is sited, designed, and operated in a way that protects the surrounding community.

For battery storage projects, the AHJ’s primary concerns center on thermal runaway, toxic off-gas release during a fire event, water supply adequacy for fire suppression, and the effectiveness of the Emergency Response Plan for their own fire department. Since 2020, BESS failure incidents have decreased, but some recent fires have gained significant media attention. On May 15, 2024, the Gateway Energy Storage Facility in San Diego, California, experienced a BESS fire with continued flare-ups for seven days following the initial event.

When an AHJ who has seen that media coverage receives a permit application for a new BESS project in their jurisdiction, they arrive at the review with a heightened level of scrutiny. The developer who anticipates that and addresses it proactively will move through review faster than the developer who submits a generic documentation package.

The Most Common AHJ Rejection Triggers

Understanding why submissions fail is the first step to avoiding those failures. Across projects in California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, the most consistent rejection triggers fall into a handful of categories:

• Missing or incomplete fire safety documentation – The HMA, FMEA, and ERP are the three documents that AHJs with BESS experience will examine most closely. If any of these are templates with placeholder text, reference equipment that is not the actual equipment being deployed, or fail to address site-specific conditions like topography, wind patterns, or proximity to occupied structures, the review will stop.
• Code version mismatches – Some AHJs are still on NEC 2017 while others have moved to NEC 2023. If a plan set references a different code edition than the one the AHJ has adopted, review comments are almost certain. NEC 2023 made significant changes throughout Article 690, and inconsistent terminology between drawings, placards, and installation notes creates confusion during review, even when the underlying design is code-correct.
• Inadequate water supply documentation – AHJs are required to confirm that adequate water supply exists for fire suppression at the site. A Water Supply Analysis that does not clearly document flow rate, pressure, hydrant locations, and adequacy for the specific fire scenario is one of the most common documentation gaps in BESS permit packages.
• Uncoordinated Emergency Response Plans – An ERP that has not been reviewed with the local fire department before submission is a significant red flag for experienced AHJs. The ERP should demonstrate that the first responders who would actually respond to an incident at the site have been briefed on the technology, the hazards, and their tactical priorities.
• Deflagration analysis gaps – Where the system design involves enclosed or semi-enclosed container configurations, AHJs may require a deflagration analysis under NFPA 68 or NFPA 69. Submissions that omit this analysis frequently come back with a request for additional information.

Best Practices for AHJ Engagement

The most effective approach to AHJ engagement starts when a submission goes in and a comment letter comes back. It starts months before the permit application is filed:

• Initiate pre-application meetings early – Most AHJs will participate in a pre-application meeting with the developer and their consultants before a formal submission is made. This meeting serves two purposes. It gives the AHJ a chance to signal their specific concerns and jurisdictional requirements. And it gives the developer a chance to understand the reviewer’s level of BESS familiarity so that the submission can be calibrated accordingly. Angelo Zandona and the team at Keystone Fire Consultants consistently recommend this approach for projects in California, Texas, and other high-scrutiny markets. The investment of a few hours in a pre-application meeting frequently saves months in review cycles.
• Bring fire safety documentation to the first conversation – Walking into a pre-application meeting with a draft HMA outline or an FMEA scope document signals to the AHJ that the developer is taking the fire safety requirements seriously. It also opens a productive dialogue about jurisdiction-specific expectations before the formal documentation is produced.
• Coordinate the ERP with the responding fire department before submission – This is one of the most consistently effective ways to build AHJ confidence. When the fire marshal can see that their department has been consulted, that their tactical concerns have been incorporated, and that the first responders who would respond to an incident are familiar with the site and the technology, the review process fundamentally changes character.
• Match code citations to the jurisdiction’s adopted versions – Before any submission goes in, a thorough audit of the jurisdiction’s adopted codes is essential. In California, the code environment is relatively standardized. In Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, local variations can be significant. Submitting a document that cites a code version the jurisdiction has not adopted is a preventable error that triggers immediate additional review.

Navigating Opposition in High-Scrutiny Jurisdictions

Some BESS projects face not just technical review challenges, but community opposition. This has been particularly visible in California, where high-profile incidents have made local governments and residents more cautious about new storage siting. Local siting and permitting decisions for utility-scale battery storage are increasingly challenged or delayed due to community concerns about safety and fire risks. Developers who share best practices report that project opposition tactics and the use of misinformation have become significant challenges in the permitting process.

When community opposition is likely, the quality of the fire safety documentation takes on additional weight. A thorough, credible, site-specific HMA and FMEA that clearly addresses evacuation distances, off-gas dispersion scenarios, and water supply adequacy gives the AHJ the technical foundation to defend an approval decision against community challenges. An AHJ who has reviewed incomplete documentation is in a difficult position when community members ask hard questions about safety. An AHJ who has reviewed thorough, expert documentation is in a position to respond with confidence.

Practical Communication Strategies That Work

Beyond documentation quality, the communication approach matters. AHJs are professionals under significant workload pressure. They respond well to developers who make their jobs easier.

Keep cover letters short and structured. A permit submission cover letter should clearly state what is included, where each required document is located in the package, and what codes and standards each document addresses. Reviewers should not have to search for the FMEA or guess which section of the HMA addresses the fire suppression design.

Respond to comment letters completely and quickly. When an AHJ sends a request for additional information, incomplete responses that address some comments but not others are almost as frustrating as no response at all. A complete response that addresses every comment, clearly marked, submitted promptly, signals the kind of project partner the AHJ wants to be dealing with.

Assign a single point of contact who knows the fire safety documentation. Nothing slows a permitting process more than AHJ questions being routed to someone who has to escalate to three different parties to get an answer. The developer should designate one person as the primary contact for all fire code questions.

Conclusion

Working with AHJs effectively is about understanding what AHJs need, giving them what they need in the right format, and building the kind of professional relationship that makes the review process a collaboration rather than a confrontation.

For developers active in California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and other high-growth storage markets, this means treating AHJ engagement as a core project management discipline. It means front-loading fire safety documentation, coordinating ERPs with local fire departments before submission, and approaching pre-application meetings as strategic investments.

Angelo Zandona and the team at Keystone Fire Consultants specialize in exactly this kind of AHJ engagement work. From pre-application strategy to final permit submission, their experience across the country’s most complex regulatory environments is what helps projects clear review faster and with fewer costly revision cycles.

FAQs

What is an AHJ and why do they matter for BESS projects?

ANS: An Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is the government agency or official responsible for enforcing building codes, fire codes, and safety standards in a specific locality. For BESS projects, the AHJ is typically the local fire marshal or building department. Their approval is required before construction can begin, which makes them one of the most important stakeholders in the project’s timeline.

How early should a developer engage with the AHJ?

ANS: As early as possible. Ideally during the project’s conceptual design phase, before a formal permit application is submitted. Pre-application meetings allow the AHJ to signal jurisdiction-specific concerns and give the developer an opportunity to tailor the documentation package accordingly. Developers who engage AHJs early consistently report shorter overall review timelines.

What do AHJs most commonly flag in BESS permit submissions?

ANS: The most common deficiencies include incomplete fire safety reports (HMA, FMEA, ERP), water supply analyses that do not address the specific fire scenario for the equipment being deployed, ERPs that have not been coordinated with the local fire department, and code citations that do not match the jurisdiction’s adopted code edition.

How does community opposition affect the AHJ review process?

ANS: Community opposition puts additional pressure on the AHJ to justify any approval decision. When documentation is thorough and credible, the AHJ has the technical basis to respond confidently to community concerns. When documentation is incomplete, community opposition can cause a review to stall indefinitely while additional studies are requested.

Should the fire safety consultant attend AHJ meetings alongside the developer?

ANS: Yes, in most cases. Fire marshals and building officials direct their most technical questions to the fire and life safety consultant. Having the consultant present at pre-application meetings and during formal review cycles ensures that technical questions get answered immediately and accurately, rather than generating written comment letters that add weeks to the process.