Consultation on modernising environmental permitting for industry

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) are a key technology in delivering Clean Power by 2030 as part of making Britain a clean energy superpower. In the Clean Power Action Plan (published December 2024) the government set out that 23-27 GW of battery capacity could be needed by 2030. BESS help balance the electricity system at lower cost and maximise the output from intermittent low carbon generation (such as solar and wind) and thus minimise investment in new generation capacity and network upgrades to meet peak demand. Batteries also bring benefits for air quality as they accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to renewables – current significant growth in this sector is supporting this transition.   

However, if not managed appropriately, the lithium-ion batteries used at BESS sites have the potential to cause significant and lasting pollution to air, soil, surface and groundwater in the event of a fire due to the nature of the materials contained in them.  There is growing public concern about potential risks and the environmental and public health impacts from BESS fires. We have therefore reviewed regulatory options for BESS. Grid-scale batteries are already subject to safety checks and oversight, for example through planning practice guidance to encourage engagement between developers and local fire and rescue services; through the Health and Safety Executive’s enforcement of legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere Regulations 2002; and through a growing body of practice developed and disseminated by developers, insurers, and public institutions, which the government monitors and influences through the industry-led Health and Safety Governance Group. As part of this wider framework and in order to future-proof the system as we build towards a five-fold expansion of Great Britain’s installed battery capacity in the next five years that we are considering augmenting the regime with additional, national provisions on environmental and health safety. Regulatory certainty could be beneficial in supporting investment in the sector - clarity for businesses on regulatory arrangements could support securing project finance and reassure potential investors. 

We have considered a range of options with regards to further regulation of BESS. BESS facilities already require planning permission from local planning authorities to be built, and whilst planning practice guidance encourages engagement between developers, local planning authorities and local fire and rescue services to ensure that land-use planning matters such as siting and access are considered in this process, it is not the role of the planning system to regulate fire risk and there is limited provision through the planning system to ensure that measures are maintained. 

BESS sites are not regulated under the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations as COMAH is an inventory based regulatory regime for facilities which hold prescribed substances above specified quantities. Lithium-ion batteries are considered ‘articles’ and are therefore out of scope.  

Finally, the EPRs could provide a framework to manage potential fire risks and subsequent environmental and public health impacts through environmental permits. Permitting is a trusted and effective framework for controlling pollution from industry and energy sectors, with an inspection regime providing ongoing assessment of compliance. Standard rules permit conditions could be applied to BESS sites through the EPRs which would provide a transparent, proportionate, and consistent way of controlling the risks. The fact that we are currently reviewing the sectoral scope of the EPRs means that it would be the fastest route to achieve the desired outcomes around regulatory certainty and environmental and health protection. 

We would therefore like to test the principle that the EPRs provide the most suitable regulatory framework for BESS, prior to carrying out further policy development and consultation on this proposal.  

We have set out some further initial thinking below on key policy issues to inform responses.  

Development of standards 

Under the EPRs, there is an established process for developing the sectoral standards which are then implemented through environmental permits. As set out in the ‘Case for Change’ chapter, permit conditions are based on BAT (the available techniques and technologies which are best for preventing or minimising emissions and impacts on the environment). If it is decided that we should proceed further with proposals to include BESS in the EPRs, then the EA would work with industry, experts and other interested parties, through a Technical Working Group, to develop and agree standards, which will then be publicly consulted on. 

Thresholds 

We are not aware of a specific definition of ‘Grid Scale Storage’ but the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and DESNZ’s Health and Safety guidance refer to sites with 1MW or greater of installed capacity. We would like to test the appropriateness of this threshold (including both stand-alone open-air sites and those co-located with large scale generation or demand).   

Types of BESS in scope 

While lithium-ion batteries are currently the dominant technology and primary area of concern, our initial thinking is that the EPRs activity could cover all types of BESS to ensure regulation is future-proofed. Where a particular type of BESS technology would result in more limited or no significant environmental or health impacts, regulators could use the new flexibilities proposed in this consultation around exemptions and registrations to tailor regulatory approach to risk. 

Existing sites 

When new activities are added into the EPRs, permits are required for new and existing sites in order to deliver a level-playing field and ensure risks from all sites are managed. Existing sites are given an implementation period to apply for a permit and meet standards (typically 4 years) and standards can be varied for new and existing sites based on what is technically and economically feasible. Subject to further policy development we would likely propose aligning with this approach for BESS.