Ask Lookout: Is Santa Cruz County considering additional locations for battery storage facilities?

Following a massive fire that broke out at a battery storage facility in Moss Landing in January, some Santa Cruz County residents have raised concerns about what they say are plans to build more battery storage facilities in the county. 

Last December, Massachusetts-based renewable energy developer New Leaf Energy submitted an application for a 200-megawatt battery storage facility — which it’s calling “Seahawk” — near Watsonville. The $200 million project, according to developers, is expected to help reduce rolling blackouts in the county and provide renewable energy to the existing electrical grid. 

While the project, located at 90 Minto Rd., has yet to go before the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors for a vote, some residents say they are worried that this facility will not be the only battery storage site in the county. 

They point toward two additional locations — in Aptos and Live Oak — that they believe county officials are also eyeing for battery storage facilities. 

Both of these locations were identified by county planning staff last fall in the first draft of an ordinance to regulate battery storage facilities in Santa Cruz County. In addition to 90 Minto Rd., county staff identified two parcels of land, behind Dominican Hospital and across the street from Aptos High School. 

The purpose of identifying those locations in the draft ordinance was to zone unincorporated areas within the county for the possibility of having battery storage facilities sometime in the future, said county spokesperson Jason Hoppin. However, he added that there are no plans for any other battery storage facilities in the county anytime soon.

“There are no proposals for the other two sites,” Hoppin told Lookout. The Minto Road project is the only pending application being reviewed by county planning staff.

Like the Minto Road proposal, the Aptos and Live Oak parcels are both near or adjacent to a Pacific Gas & Electric substation. In order for these types of facilities to serve the electrical grid, they need to be located close to a substation to transfer energy to the grid, said Stephanie Hansen, assistant director of community development and infrastructure for the county. 

Hansen told Lookout that the board of supervisors directed county staff last fall to create a zoning overlay of land parcels that were at least 10 acres in size and adjacent to a substation that could potentially house battery storage facilities. The first draft, presented to the board of supervisors months before the Moss Landing fire, primarily focused on land use and zoning requirements, she said. 

Under the draft ordinance, energy storage systems “shall be set back 100 feet from all roadways and property lines,” with the exception of substations that require no setbacks. The facilities should be located outside the coastal zone. All three parcels identified in the draft ordinance meet  these requirements. 

Hansen added that the ordinance would help maintain local control over how these facilities are developed and include certain regulations, such as setbacks and fire safety plans, intended to protect residents’ safety. 

However, according to Max Christian, New Leaf’s energy storage developer, the Aptos and Santa Cruz sites are not viable options for battery storage facilities. 

He argues that while both locations are adjacent to substations, there’s not enough room, nor is the topography suitable for these types of facilities. The Aptos location, just across from the high school, is on a hillside, which is not the ideal landscape for batteries, he said. The Live Oak location behind Dominican Hospital is a very urban area, and the site is not big enough to develop.

Additionally, the two sites are situated within urban areas of the county, near schools, residential areas and hospitals, while the Minto Road site is away from those things — which works better for New Leaf’s project, Christian said. 

“I need a minimum of 15 acres of flat, open land,” said Christian. The Minto Road site, he said, is perfect for New Leaf’s project because it sits on a large plot of agricultural land just outside of Watsonville. 

Originally scheduled to be discussed by supervisors in April, the ordinance was delayed until August. At its Aug. 19 meeting, the board of supervisors postponed its decision again, until on or before August 2026. Supervisors argued the delay would give the county enough time to conduct public hearings, incorporate safety lessons from Moss Landing and to see whether the state Legislature will pass a bill by Sen. John Laird that would require new storage facilities to meet national fire safety standards and obtain local fire department inspections before operating.

While officials from Santa Cruz County and New Leaf Energy have both emphasized that there is only one pending application for a battery storage facility in the county, some residents still believe that the two other properties identified in the draft ordinance are also being eyed for similar facilities. 

The delay in approving the county’s ordinance concerns those like Watsonville resident Nina Audino for several reasons. Audino has organized groups in opposition to facilities using lithium-based batteries, such as the project proposed by New Leaf. She said she believes county officials are not being transparent with the public about the two additional sites identified in the ordinance. 

“The public needs to know whether the other two sites are still being included in the new [battery storage] ordinance,” Audino told Lookout. The ordinance would regulate not just the battery storage development for New Leaf, but also any future renewable energy developments in unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. 

Currently, there’s still nothing concrete on whether the other two locations will be included in a final draft of the ordinance, said Hoppin.  

Hansen told Lookout that following the Moss Landing fire in January, the ordinance shifted to be more focused on facility standards, such as coordinating with the local fire districts on safety plans in case of a fire. She added that county planning staff are thinking about adding additional setbacks near vulnerable areas, such as hospitals and schools, which could weed out the other two locations as possible options for future facilities if added to the ordinance. 

But if all three sites are still included in the final ordinance as viable options under the county’s regulations, a developer could submit an application to the county for a battery storage facility and go through the permitting process, said Hansen. 

If all three sites are still being included in the final draft, then the Aptos and Live Oak locations are not off the table just yet, Audino argues. She also points out that she hasn’t seen any analysis proving whether the three sites are feasible for a battery storage facility, and stresses that industry professionals should not be the ones determining the suitability of the sites. 

“They’re not the ones who decide that,” she said. That determination should be a result of the county planning department working through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, which involves extensive public comment, Audino said. 

Hansen told Lookout that the county’s planning department does not look into the feasibility of a land parcel – that’s up to the property owners or developers to prove whether a site is viable for a certain project. She added that her department does look into the environmental impacts of a project site under the CEQA process. “There is more analysis to come, but it’s not feasibility, that’s [on] developers,” she said. 

Another big concern for Audino is the possibility that New Leaf might take a different route to get its project permitted, by going to the California Energy Commission, instead of following a local process that’s still to be determined by the county. 

If New Leaf chooses to withdraw its application and go through the commission process to acquire approval for its project, it would have to abide by the state’s safety standards, completely overriding any local ordinance, should the county eventually approve one, said Hansen. While the county will reference the same safety standards as the state commission, the ordinance aims to add additional safety elements, things like increased setbacks and protective measures, she said. 

“We want to make sure there’s a lot of room for response if there’s an incident,” Hansen said. “That’s one of the areas where there’s a big difference in how it might look and feel, or what gets developed.”  

Christian told Lookout that his team is evaluating whether or not they want to go through the California Energy Commission or wait it out until the ordinance is heard by the board of supervisors. Before New Leaf’s application is presented to the board, the ordinance needs to be finalized, if the developers want to go through the local route, said Hoppin. 

While New Leaf is committed to the local permitting process, Christian told Lookout last week he thinks that losing local control would be a terrible outcome for Santa Cruz County. He added that the company has had to pay millions of dollars in non-reimbursable deposits to the California Independent System Operator — which manages the flow of electricity in the state — to hold its place in the long line of projects waiting to be connected into the grid. 

“The state option is something that has been open to us that we have chosen not to do, and don’t want to. But we might have to be forced into it,” Christian said. 

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