Home Business How Angelo Zandona Helps Developers Choose the Fire Safety Consultant That Moves...

How Angelo Zandona Helps Developers Choose the Fire Safety Consultant That Moves Projects Forward

By
user
-
131
0
Introduction In the battery energy storage space, the gap between a generalist fire protection firm and a specialist BESS consultant can be measured in months of project delays and millions of dollars in cost overruns. The market is growing fast enough that this distinction matters urgently. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, solar and battery storage are expected to account for 81% of all new U.S. utility-scale generating capacity in 2025, with a record 18.2 GW of battery storage projected to be added to the grid. Each of those projects requires fire and life safety documentation before it can be permitted. Escalating permitting costs are among the key risks offsetting hardware cost declines in the BESS industry alongside interconnection delays, revenue volatility, and rapid technology cycles. Poor documentation quality is one of the primary drivers of permitting delays, and those delays translate directly into cost. Angelo Zandona, the founder of Keystone Fire Consultants, brings deep expertise in BESS fire and life safety from hands-on work across California, Texas, Arizona, and other grid-stressed markets. His perspective on what separates strong consultants from ineffective ones is informed by direct experience on both sides of the AHJ review desk. Why BESS Is Different From General Fire Protection Fire protection engineering is a broad field. A qualified fire protection engineer can design suppression systems for warehouses, hospitals, data centers, and hundreds of other facility types. But a BESS project presents a specific and technically demanding fire and life safety challenge that general fire protection experience does not automatically address. Thermal runaway in lithium-ion battery cells is fundamentally different from conventional combustion. It is driven by exothermic chemical reactions that produce heat, flammable gases, and toxic byproducts regardless of whether external ignition sources are present or eliminated. Suppression strategies that work for conventional fires may be ineffective or even counterproductive for lithium-ion battery fires. Ensuring BESS safety requires a multi-layered strategy that includes compliance with recognized standards like UL 9540, UL 9540A, and NFPA 855, selecting appropriate battery chemistries, managing thermal conditions effectively, detecting fires early, and preparing comprehensive emergency response protocols. A consultant who has not worked extensively with these standards, who has not studied UL 9540A test data, who does not understand the propagation mechanics of lithium-iron-phosphate vs. NMC chemistries, and who have not engaged AHJs on BESS-specific documentation requirements, are not positioned to produce the documentation those projects need. The Credentials and Experience That Matter When evaluating a fire safety consultant for a BESS project, procurement teams and project managers should look for a specific set of qualifications: ● Direct BESS project experience - Ask how many utility-scale BESS projects the consultant has worked on, in which states, and at what scale. A consultant who has produced HMAs, FMEAs, and ERPs for 20 MW projects in a single jurisdiction is differently positioned than one who has worked across dozens of projects ranging from commercial-scale to multi-hundred MWh utility installations in multiple states with different code environments. ● NFPA 855 and IFC fluency - NFPA 855 is the primary national standard governing the installation of stationary energy storage systems. The International Fire Code contains parallel requirements. A consultant should be able to discuss these standards in specific technical terms. ● UL 9540A integration capability - UL 9540A test data is the technical foundation of the fire propagation analysis that AHJs in California, Texas, and other leading markets now require. UL 9540A outlines test methods for evaluating thermal runaway fire propagation in BESS, essential for gaining installation approval. Standards like NFPA 855, NFPA 70, and NFPA 70E are enforced by local AHJs to ensure ESS safety. A consultant who cannot integrate UL 9540A test results into their HMA and FMEA analysis is producing documentation that will not hold up to expert AHJ review. ● AHJ relationships and jurisdictional knowledge - This is harder to quantify, but it matters. A consultant who has worked repeatedly with specific AHJs in California, Texas, or Arizona knows what those reviewers look for, how they weigh different types of technical evidence, and what communication approach they respond to. That kind of institutional knowledge shortens review cycles in ways that raw technical qualifications cannot. ● Deflagration analysis capability - NFPA 68 and NFPA 69 compliance is required where enclosed or semi-enclosed battery installations present deflagration risks. Not all fire protection engineers are qualified to perform this analysis. It requires specific knowledge of gas dispersion, vent sizing, and explosion protection engineering. A consultant who cannot perform this work in-house will either subcontract it or omit it from the package entirely, which is a permitting risk. Red Flags to Watch For Just as important as the positive qualifications are the warning signs that indicate a consultant is not the right fit for a BESS project: ● Template-based documentation - If a consultant's initial proposal includes sample documents that are clearly generic that is a significant warning sign. NFPA 855 and most experienced AHJs require site-specific documentation. A consultant whose work product starts from a generic template rather than the actual project details will produce documents that do not survive careful AHJ review. ● No demonstrated AHJ engagement experience - Some consultants produce reports but do not engage with the review process. They submit documentation and then step back, leaving the developer to navigate comment letters and revision requests without technical support. For BESS projects in complex jurisdictions, that approach is inadequate. The consultant should be willing and able to participate in pre-application meetings, respond to AHJ comments directly, and attend site visits if required. ● Inability to discuss chemistry-specific failure modes - A fire safety consultant working on BESS projects should be able to discuss the specific fire safety implications of LFP vs. NMC chemistry, the difference in thermal runaway behavior between different cell form factors, and how UL 9540A test results differ across systems. Vague or generic answers to these questions indicate a generalist who is applying conventional fire protection logic to a technology that requires specialized knowledge. ● Unfamiliarity with state-specific code environments - California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada each have distinct regulatory environments for BESS siting. A consultant who cannot articulate the specific code requirements and AHJ expectations in the states where the project is located is likely to produce documentation that needs significant revision before it meets local standards. The Cost of Getting This Wrong The financial case for choosing the right consultant is direct and quantifiable. Permitting delays on major energy infrastructure projects have pushed costs up by tens of millions of dollars, increasing total project budgets by double-digit percentages. At the utility scale, a BESS project that is delayed by six months due to inadequate fire safety documentation is losing real revenue for every week of delay. The cost of a specialist fire and life safety consultant is a fraction of those delay costs. The return on that investment is the avoidance of revision cycles, resubmission fees, financing cost escalation, and in some cases, the loss of interconnection queue position. Each correction cycle costs EPCs and installers between $2,000 and $5,000 per rejected project. On projects tied to financing timelines or investment tax credit construction deadlines, a documentation-level permit rejection has real financial consequences. At utility scale, multiply those direct costs by orders of magnitude, and then add the opportunity cost of delayed revenue. What to Ask in the Selection Process Procurement teams evaluating fire safety consultants for BESS projects should ask the following questions as a minimum: ● How many utility-scale BESS projects has the firm completed in each of the states where the project is located? ● Can the firm provide references from AHJs in those jurisdictions? ● Does the firm produce all required documentation in-house, including deflagration analysis under NFPA 68/69? ● How does the firm approach pre-application AHJ engagement? ● Will the principal consultant be the primary author and technical lead on the project? ● What is the firm's approach when an AHJ requests additional information or sends a deficiency letter? Conclusion The choice of a fire safety consultant is one of the most consequential decisions on a BESS project, and it is often treated as a commodity procurement. It is not. The documentation produced by the fire and life safety consultant determines whether a project moves through permitting in six months or two years. It determines whether the AHJ's first review clears the project or sends it back for major revisions. It determines whether the developer has a credible technical partner during community meetings or is fielding concerns without expert support. Angelo Zandona and the team at Keystone Fire Consultants bring specialist BESS fire and life safety expertise to every project. Their work across California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and other high-growth storage markets reflects the kind of deep, jurisdiction-specific knowledge that separates a fast approval from a costly delay. For developers who need to move quickly in a competitive market, the right consultant is the most important schedule risk management tool on the project. FAQs What is the difference between a fire protection engineer and a BESS fire safety consultant? ANS: A fire protection engineer is qualified to design fire suppression and detection systems for a wide range of facilities. A BESS specialist consultant has additional expertise in the specific failure modes, chemical hazards, and code requirements associated with battery energy storage systems. The distinction matters because NFPA 855, UL 9540A, and BESS-specific AHJ expectations require knowledge that general fire protection practice does not guarantee. What documents should a BESS fire safety consultant be able to produce in-house? ANS: At a minimum, a site-specific Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA), a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), a Water Supply Analysis, and a deflagration analysis under NFPA 68 and NFPA 69 where applicable. Consultants who subcontract significant portions of this work add coordination risk and potential delays. How does consulting cost compare to the cost of permitting delays? ANS: The cost of a specialist fire safety consultant is typically a small fraction of the total project budget. A permitting delay of six months on a utility-scale project can cost significantly more in financing costs, missed revenue milestones, and potential ITC deadline risks. Investing in qualified consulting upfront is one of the most cost-effective risk management decisions a developer can make. What states currently have the most demanding fire safety requirements for BESS? ANS: California leads in regulatory stringency, particularly following the Gateway and Moss Landing incidents. Texas and Arizona are increasingly demanding as local AHJs gain familiarity with BESS risks. All three states, plus Nevada and New Mexico, have active BESS permitting environments where specialist consulting experience makes a measurable difference in project timelines.

Introduction

In the battery energy storage space, the gap between a generalist fire protection firm and a specialist BESS consultant can be measured in months of project delays and millions of dollars in cost overruns.

The market is growing fast enough that this distinction matters urgently. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, solar and battery storage are expected to account for 81% of all new U.S. utility-scale generating capacity in 2025, with a record 18.2 GW of battery storage projected to be added to the grid. Each of those projects requires fire and life safety documentation before it can be permitted.

Escalating permitting costs are among the key risks offsetting hardware cost declines in the BESS industry alongside interconnection delays, revenue volatility, and rapid technology cycles. Poor documentation quality is one of the primary drivers of permitting delays, and those delays translate directly into cost.

Angelo Zandona, the founder of Keystone Fire Consultants, brings deep expertise in BESS fire and life safety from hands-on work across California, Texas, Arizona, and other grid-stressed markets. His perspective on what separates strong consultants from ineffective ones is informed by direct experience on both sides of the AHJ review desk.

Why BESS Is Different From General Fire Protection

Fire protection engineering is a broad field. A qualified fire protection engineer can design suppression systems for warehouses, hospitals, data centers, and hundreds of other facility types. But a BESS project presents a specific and technically demanding fire and life safety challenge that general fire protection experience does not automatically address.

Thermal runaway in lithium-ion battery cells is fundamentally different from conventional combustion. It is driven by exothermic chemical reactions that produce heat, flammable gases, and toxic byproducts regardless of whether external ignition sources are present or eliminated. Suppression strategies that work for conventional fires may be ineffective or even counterproductive for lithium-ion battery fires.

Ensuring BESS safety requires a multi-layered strategy that includes compliance with recognized standards like UL 9540, UL 9540A, and NFPA 855, selecting appropriate battery chemistries, managing thermal conditions effectively, detecting fires early, and preparing comprehensive emergency response protocols.

A consultant who has not worked extensively with these standards, who has not studied UL 9540A test data, who does not understand the propagation mechanics of lithium-iron-phosphate vs. NMC chemistries, and who have not engaged AHJs on BESS-specific documentation requirements, are not positioned to produce the documentation those projects need.

The Credentials and Experience That Matter

When evaluating a fire safety consultant for a BESS project, procurement teams and project managers should look for a specific set of qualifications:

  • Direct BESS project experience – Ask how many utility-scale BESS projects the consultant has worked on, in which states, and at what scale. A consultant who has produced HMAs, FMEAs, and ERPs for 20 MW projects in a single jurisdiction is differently positioned than one who has worked across dozens of projects ranging from commercial-scale to multi-hundred MWh utility installations in multiple states with different code environments.
  • NFPA 855 and IFC fluency – NFPA 855 is the primary national standard governing the installation of stationary energy storage systems. The International Fire Code contains parallel requirements. A consultant should be able to discuss these standards in specific technical terms.
  • UL 9540A integration capability – UL 9540A test data is the technical foundation of the fire propagation analysis that AHJs in California, Texas, and other leading markets now require. UL 9540A outlines test methods for evaluating thermal runaway fire propagation in BESS, essential for gaining installation approval. Standards like NFPA 855, NFPA 70, and NFPA 70E are enforced by local AHJs to ensure ESS safety. A consultant who cannot integrate UL 9540A test results into their HMA and FMEA analysis is producing documentation that will not hold up to expert AHJ review.
  • AHJ relationships and jurisdictional knowledge – This is harder to quantify, but it matters. A consultant who has worked repeatedly with specific AHJs in California, Texas, or Arizona knows what those reviewers look for, how they weigh different types of technical evidence, and what communication approach they respond to. That kind of institutional knowledge shortens review cycles in ways that raw technical qualifications cannot.
  • Deflagration analysis capability – NFPA 68 and NFPA 69 compliance is required where enclosed or semi-enclosed battery installations present deflagration risks. Not all fire protection engineers are qualified to perform this analysis. It requires specific knowledge of gas dispersion, vent sizing, and explosion protection engineering. A consultant who cannot perform this work in-house will either subcontract it or omit it from the package entirely, which is a permitting risk.

Red Flags to Watch For

Just as important as the positive qualifications are the warning signs that indicate a consultant is not the right fit for a BESS project:

  • Template-based documentation – If a consultant’s initial proposal includes sample documents that are clearly generic that is a significant warning sign. NFPA 855 and most experienced AHJs require site-specific documentation. A consultant whose work product starts from a generic template rather than the actual project details will produce documents that do not survive careful AHJ review.
  • No demonstrated AHJ engagement experience – Some consultants produce reports but do not engage with the review process. They submit documentation and then step back, leaving the developer to navigate comment letters and revision requests without technical support. For BESS projects in complex jurisdictions, that approach is inadequate. The consultant should be willing and able to participate in pre-application meetings, respond to AHJ comments directly, and attend site visits if required.
  • Inability to discuss chemistry-specific failure modes – A fire safety consultant working on BESS projects should be able to discuss the specific fire safety implications of LFP vs. NMC chemistry, the difference in thermal runaway behavior between different cell form factors, and how UL 9540A test results differ across systems. Vague or generic answers to these questions indicate a generalist who is applying conventional fire protection logic to a technology that requires specialized knowledge.
  • Unfamiliarity with state-specific code environments – California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada each have distinct regulatory environments for BESS siting. A consultant who cannot articulate the specific code requirements and AHJ expectations in the states where the project is located is likely to produce documentation that needs significant revision before it meets local standards.

The Cost of Getting This Wrong

The financial case for choosing the right consultant is direct and quantifiable. Permitting delays on major energy infrastructure projects have pushed costs up by tens of millions of dollars, increasing total project budgets by double-digit percentages. At the utility scale, a BESS project that is delayed by six months due to inadequate fire safety documentation is losing real revenue for every week of delay.

The cost of a specialist fire and life safety consultant is a fraction of those delay costs. The return on that investment is the avoidance of revision cycles, resubmission fees, financing cost escalation, and in some cases, the loss of interconnection queue position.

Each correction cycle costs EPCs and installers between $2,000 and $5,000 per rejected project. On projects tied to financing timelines or investment tax credit construction deadlines, a documentation-level permit rejection has real financial consequences. At utility scale, multiply those direct costs by orders of magnitude, and then add the opportunity cost of delayed revenue.

What to Ask in the Selection Process

Procurement teams evaluating fire safety consultants for BESS projects should ask the following questions as a minimum:

  • How many utility-scale BESS projects has the firm completed in each of the states where the project is located?
  • Can the firm provide references from AHJs in those jurisdictions?
  • Does the firm produce all required documentation in-house, including deflagration analysis under NFPA 68/69?
  • How does the firm approach pre-application AHJ engagement?
  • Will the principal consultant be the primary author and technical lead on the project?
  • What is the firm’s approach when an AHJ requests additional information or sends a deficiency letter?

Conclusion

The choice of a fire safety consultant is one of the most consequential decisions on a BESS project, and it is often treated as a commodity procurement. It is not. The documentation produced by the fire and life safety consultant determines whether a project moves through permitting in six months or two years. It determines whether the AHJ’s first review clears the project or sends it back for major revisions. It determines whether the developer has a credible technical partner during community meetings or is fielding concerns without expert support.

Angelo Zandona and the team at Keystone Fire Consultants bring specialist BESS fire and life safety expertise to every project. Their work across California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and other high-growth storage markets reflects the kind of deep, jurisdiction-specific knowledge that separates a fast approval from a costly delay. For developers who need to move quickly in a competitive market, the right consultant is the most important schedule risk management tool on the project.

FAQs

What is the difference between a fire protection engineer and a BESS fire safety consultant?

ANS: A fire protection engineer is qualified to design fire suppression and detection systems for a wide range of facilities. A BESS specialist consultant has additional expertise in the specific failure modes, chemical hazards, and code requirements associated with battery energy storage systems. The distinction matters because NFPA 855, UL 9540A, and BESS-specific AHJ expectations require knowledge that general fire protection practice does not guarantee.

What documents should a BESS fire safety consultant be able to produce in-house?

ANS: At a minimum, a site-specific Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA), a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), a Water Supply Analysis, and a deflagration analysis under NFPA 68 and NFPA 69 where applicable. Consultants who subcontract significant portions of this work add coordination risk and potential delays.

How does consulting cost compare to the cost of permitting delays?

ANS: The cost of a specialist fire safety consultant is typically a small fraction of the total project budget. A permitting delay of six months on a utility-scale project can cost significantly more in financing costs, missed revenue milestones, and potential ITC deadline risks. Investing in qualified consulting upfront is one of the most cost-effective risk management decisions a developer can make.

What states currently have the most demanding fire safety requirements for BESS?

ANS: California leads in regulatory stringency, particularly following the Gateway and Moss Landing incidents. Texas and Arizona are increasingly demanding as local AHJs gain familiarity with BESS risks. All three states, plus Nevada and New Mexico, have active BESS permitting environments where specialist consulting experience makes a measurable difference in project timelines.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR