Supervisors move battery storage rules forward to environmental review; some residents are disappointed

New regulations for battery storage facilities in Santa Cruz County are closer to becoming law after a vote Tuesday by the county board of supervisors that came over the objections of residents organizing against a proposed plant near Watsonville. Now, the latest draft will undergo environmental review. 

The unanimous decision by elected officials follows pressure from potential developers which, under state law, could bypass local regulations by going directly to the California Energy Commission for project approval. 

“If this was a decision resting entirely within our control, then the conversation would be different,” said Supervisor Manu Koenig. But given that battery storage builders could apply directly to the state, he said he believes the county is “putting some really good safeguards in place” that are even stronger than the state standards. 

The environmental review of the ordinance is expected to be completed by the end of summer and be ready for supervisors to consider in August, according to Stephanie Hansen, the county’s assistant director of community development and infrastructure. The county’s planning and environmental commissions will also review the rules before the supervisors vote on whether to adopt them, no later than November, she said. 

The environmental review will analyze both the long-term impacts of the ordinance and a specific project proposed for 90 Minto Rd., just outside of Watsonville, Hansen said. The county will hire a consultant to conduct the review, but the developer, Massachusetts-based New Leaf Energy, will foot the bill. 

In a written statement to Lookout, Max Christian, a senior developer with New Leaf Energy, said Tuesday’s supervisors’ vote is a “significant step forward” toward building local renewable energy plants that can help the region transition to cleaner power. He added that the company will be taking a closer look at the regulations to evaluate if the Minto Road project “remains viable within the provisions of the ordinance.” 

“We remain optimistic that the project can move forward to environmental review and stay on track to meet state-mandated deadlines for progress,” Christian said. 

County officials first considered the ordinance last year, before the fire at a battery storage facility in nearby Moss Landing, and also before New Leaf submitted an application to build a battery storage plant on Minto Road. 

Supervisors asked county staff to make several changes to the ordinance to tighten the county’s regulations for battery storage facilities.

The latest version of the proposed law will require developers to use the safest and latest technology available commercially. Following the blaze in Moss Landing, where the batteries were made of nickel, manganese and cobalt, community members have continued to push future facilities to use safer alternatives, like sodium-based batteries, to help mitigate fire risk. 

Applicants are “strongly encouraged to select technologies with no or low thermal runaway risk,” the ordinance reads. The language is non-binding so developers would be more likely to work within the county rules and wouldn’t turn to the state for approval, county staff said at a previous hearing. The regulations also require a third-party evaluation of the fire risk of any proposed technology. 

Under the ordinance, battery storage facilities will need to comply with not only the county’s requirements, but also standards set by the state and the National Fire Protection Association for setbacks from property lines and schools, hospitals and day care facilities. 

County staff increased the setback requirement to 300 feet, from 100 feet previously. However, the board of supervisors can decide to increase that distance based on technical studies, which are a mandatory part of the application. 

Residents voiced their opposition to battery storage facilities and the New Leaf proposal, asking for additional revisions to the ordinance, and pointing out that the proposed rules violate Measure J, a voter initiative passed in 1978 that protects agricultural land by directing growth to urban areas. The site of the proposed project on Minto Road is a former apple orchard adjacent to College Lake. 

County counsel present at Tuesday’s meeting dismissed this concern and said there are no potential violations of the measure. “It’s a little bit like searching for a needle in the haystack,” he said. 

Supervisor Justin Cummings requested that county staff continue to analyze impacts to agriculture land and the recently added requirement to the ordinance of a 3-to-1 ratio, which would require three new acres of agricultural land protected for every one acre removed from agricultural production. 

“This is a very long process,” he said. “This is going to go to many other committees, so there’s time for us to continue doing these analyses.” 

Supervisor Felipe Hernandez, who represents District 4, where New Leaf Energy is proposing to build, emphasized that formally adopting the ordinance will be a long process, with community meetings and hearings to allow for public input. 

“Ultimately, what the board is asking for in these components of an ordinance is stronger and better than what we would get through a state process,” said Supervisor Monica Martinez. “I feel like the board has done a good job in directing staff to move forward with the next steps.”

Soquel resident Carol Bjorn said that she and many others at the meeting were disappointed in the decision to move forward with environmental review. 

“We feel like there should be more safeguards in place,” she said following the vote. “Non-agricultural sites should be considered first, instead of agricultural land.” 

Bjorn said some community members feel if developers went the state route, as opposed to the county process, there would be a much more rigorous process for a project to get approval.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.