Public outcry grows as residents urge Santa Cruz County to halt battery proposal amid Moss Landing disaster

Santa Cruz County government executives and elected officials had not planned for Tuesday’s regular supervisors meeting to feature any discussion of the $200 million lithium-ion battery facility proposed for just outside Watsonville. Yet, in the wake of the toxic Moss Landing battery plant fire — which sparked in January and flared up last week — several frustrated residents from across the county showed up anyway to oppose the still-nascent project and criticize their local leaders for what they view as a severe lack of engagement and information.  

Nearly 20 community members, from as far north as the Santa Cruz Mountains and as south as Watsonville, used Tuesday’s public comment period — which allows any and each willing person two minutes with a microphone to tell the board of supervisors almost anything they want — to plead with officials to block, at least temporarily, the battery facility proposed at 90 Minto Rd. in South County. 

Tuesday’s surprise testimony showed the Moss Landing disaster has created a deep skepticism that is reshaping public sentiment around battery storage facilities, a technology broadly viewed as critical in the push toward a clean energy revolution. This wave of objection has rippled beyond just Santa Cruz County. Last month, the Morro Bay City Council passed an ordinance blocking battery storage facilities within its city limits, citing the Moss Landing incident.

Residents who spoke to the Santa Cruz County supervisors Tuesday said they felt left in the dark, and criticized the government and elected leaders for not hosting any town hall meetings in the 40 days since a toxic fire broke out at the Vistra Corp. battery storage facility not far south of the Santa Cruz-Monterey county line in Moss Landing, nor proactively engaging county residents about the new lithium-ion battery facility proposed by Massachusetts-based New Leaf Energy.  

Gregory Audino, who lives 2 miles from the proposed Minto Road site, urged the supervisors to pass an immediate moratorium on new battery energy storage systems. His call was echoed several times throughout the meeting by other concerned residents. 

“I’m not saying we cancel it, I’m saying we need to figure out the right solution that won’t hurt us a year down the line, five years down the line,” Audino said. “We need to be very concerned about this.” 

In the weeks after the fire consumed a 300-megawatt lithium-ion battery facility, San Jose State University researchers found high levels of highly toxic heavy metals in the soil at the nearby Elkhorn Slough Reserve. Yet, test results released by Monterey County — where the battery plant is located — on Feb. 12 showed no elevated levels of metals in “soil samples [taken from] directly north from the location of the fire and up to four miles away, including at residences, schools, and community parks.”

Santa Cruz County’s own test results, released last week, “do not suggest elevated public health risks or food safety concerns,” according to a release from the county government. 

Still, some Santa Cruz residents have complained about irritation and health issues that they relate to the fire. Watsonville resident Omar Diaz told supervisors that he had “the taste of metals in my mouth and felt irritation in my eyes.” He said he ended up in the hospital twice after the original fire broke out. 

“I know I’ve breathed in chemicals unknowingly,” Diaz said. “Take full consideration before you bring these kinds of companies into our communities.” 

Earlier this month, four Monterey County residents who live near the Moss Landing facility filed a lawsuit against the owner, Vistra Corp., as well as battery manufacturer LG Energy Solution and power provider Pacific Gas & Electric for damages, including the health impacts, related to the fire. 

Although few public details exist about the $200 million, 200-megawatt battery storage facility proposed for South County, there are known critical distinctions between it and the facility that erupted into 100-foot-tall flames and toxic smoke in January. 

The top-line difference is the chemical composition of the batteries. The Moss Landing facility used nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries, known as NMCs — early-stage versions known to be more volatile — while the South County project proposes to use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, a more modern and stable battery type. 

The other main distinction is how the batteries are stored. In Moss Landing, all of the batteries were stored under the same roof in a single cement chamber, which made it vulnerable to the chain reaction that ended up torching the entire facility. 

New Leaf’s project divides the battery packs into a series of separated storage containers. If a battery overheats and catches fire, it would likely be contained to a single, compact storage container, not the entire facility. 

Still, residents on Tuesday urged the supervisors to consider passing a moratorium, schedule town hall meetings, and form and appoint a technical advisory committee so that a panel of experts could analyze the battery proposal. 

“I’ll remind you that you all work for us, and I request that you listen carefully to all the people who voted for you,” one speaker said, an older man who identified himself only as someone who graduated from Stanford University’s engineering program before advocating for a moratorium. “This is dangerous. I’ve met probably a dozen people in the last week who are complaining of and reporting breathing and health issues.” 

Initially, New Leaf Energy estimated its South County proposal, nicknamed “Seahawk,” could be voted on later this year. However, after the Moss Landing incident, supervisors said the project would meet more scrutiny. The county has not released an official timeline for when the project could come before the supervisors for final approval.

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