Quick Take
New Leaf Energy, the developer behind the proposed battery storage facility near Watsonville, tells Lookout that the company is hopeful the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will move ahead on new regulations for battery plants on Tuesday.
The developer behind a proposed battery storage facility near Watsonville says it is hopeful Santa Cruz County officials will approve new regulations for how these facilities are built and operated because the new rules would open a path for its proposed project.
Max Christian, a senior developer for New Leaf Energy, which is proposing a 200-megawatt facility outside of Watsonville, told Lookout last week that county staff have written a “very good” draft ordinance that would allow the company to stay on its planned schedule to power up the plant in 2029.
MORE ON BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE: Read Lookout’s past news and Community Voices opinion coverage here
The new rules, which the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss on Tuesday, would further limit where battery storage facilities can be built, mandate bigger setbacks from sensitive areas such as schools, ban certain kinds of batteries and require reporting on air and water quality — in addition to other permitting requirements.
“It looks to be a good ordinance that would help ensure the proper siting and safety” for these facilities, Christian said. He added that county staff had the benefit of being able to reference new state regulations that were passed in the wake of the Moss Landing fire.
Christian said he is hopeful that elected officials approve the ordinance come Tuesday, not just for the future of New Leaf’s project, but for the sake of maintaining a local approval process for battery storage technology, which is an important part of the transition to green energy.
He said New Leaf is committed to going through the local permitting process, despite the fact that the company could bypass local laws by seeking approval for its South County project directly from the California Energy Commission.
Christian previously told Lookout in August that New Leaf would pursue the state approval route if elected officials delayed the first hearing of the ordinance until next fall. Delays cost the company money because it has paid millions of dollars in 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 energy projects trying to connect to the state’s power grid.
If the ordinance is approved this week, New Leaf can work with the county’s timeline, Christian said. The battery storage facility isn’t scheduled to go online until 2029, which allows time for an environmental review process with public input.
“That’s why we’re hopeful for an approval Tuesday, giving the project a path towards local permitting, which we’ve been committed to since the beginning,” he said.
The new regulations are more stringent than a previous ordinance first brought to elected officials in 2024. According to a county staff report, the legislation would make New Leaf’s pending application incomplete, as there are additional requirements it must meet. The report did not detail which requirements developers have and haven’t met. Once those requirements are met and the application is complete, it will be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The parcel of land on 90 Minto Rd. where New Leaf is proposing its facility is near an elementary school and a residential area. But Christian said the proposed project already meets the updated setback requirements in the new draft ordinance, which mandates 100-foot setbacks from property lines and a 1,000-foot setback from “sensitive receptors” — schools, day care centers and residential care facilities.
Christian said his team is assessing the proposed ordinance’s newer testing requirements, like baseline soil and water testing, but added that the company has met similar requirements for other projects. Air quality monitoring was already included in the proposal, he said.
As for the ordinance’s requirements that projects have an emergency response and evacuation plan, Christian said he’s been having conversations with local fire districts for more than a year, so New Leaf already has a draft in development. He plans to schedule conversations with local law enforcement agencies in the future.
If the county supervisors vote to approve the new regulations, county staff will conduct an environmental review of the ordinance by next summer. The ordinance would then go back to the board and the county’s planning and environmental commissions for further review before being adopted as early as next fall.
Once the ordinance is approved, New Leaf will be able figure out its own timeline for when it will be able to complete its project application, Christian said.
“We’re very hopeful for this vote on Tuesday and really want to see Santa Cruz County maintain local control over these types of projects because it’s the right thing to do,” he said.
Supervisors were scheduled to review the regulations in April, but that hearing was delayed twice – first, shortly after a massive fire at a similar facility in Moss Landing, and later in August, pending the approval of a state law governing battery storage facilities authored by state Sen. John Laird. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the statewide battery storage regulations into law last month.
The blaze just over the Monterey County line intensified concerns about battery storage facilities in Santa Cruz County. The 300-megawatt facility owned by Texas-based Vistra Corp. — the largest battery facility in the world — caught fire on Jan. 16 and burned for three days. It flared up again a month later, on Feb. 18, and was finally extinguished a day later.
Meeting details
- When: 1:30 p.m. Tuesday
- Where: County Government Center — Community Room (located in the basement), 701 Ocean St., Santa Cruz
- Livestream: Here via Zoom or on the county’s Facebook page or meeting portal website
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.