Citing safety concerns, Santa Cruz County supervisors delay new battery storage law for up to three months

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday afternoon to put off passing new rules regulating battery storage facilities for as long as three months, after supervisors raised concerns with a proposed ordinance drafted by the county. 

The unanimous decision by the five-member board will require staff to incorporate safety and environmental recommendations into the draft of the ordinance. County staff will bring back a new version of the proposed legislation at or before the board’s second meeting in March.

MORE ON BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE: Read Lookout’s past news and Community Voices opinion coverage here

The supervisors’ decision comes less than a year after a blaze just over the Monterey County line in Moss Landing 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.

However, the county has also faced pressure to approve a local ordinance quickly.  Representatives of New Leaf Energy, a Massachusetts-based developer proposing to build a 200-megawatt facility near Watsonville, have urged elected officials to move forward with adopting the ordinance. The company has said that while it wants to pursue a local approval process, it’s facing financial pressure to push forward with its project and previously told Lookout it has the option to seek approval through the state if the county’s ordinance stalls. 

“One of the things that is really important in terms of the decision we’re making today is, do we want to keep local control over battery energy storage facilities being developed in our community, or do we want to leave it to the state?” said Supervisor Justin Cummings. 

Cummings and the rest of the board emphasized the need for local control over the regulation of battery storage facilities, but not without raising concerns about the current draft of the county’s ordinance. 

Elected officials provided county staff with a long list of requirements that they would like to see added to a new version of the ordinance that addresses additional safety and environmental concerns not already included in the proposed law.

Some of those recommendations include ongoing soil and water quality monitoring. Under the current draft ordinance, county staff would require developers to submit baseline data on air quality, surface water, groundwater and soil, which can be compared with post-fire environmental data if a blaze were to occur at the facility. However, the current ordinance would require developers to regularly monitor only air quality, not soil and water.

“The Moss Landing fire showed what can happen when systems fail,” said Supervisor Monica Martinez. “The draft ordinance currently includes stronger fire codes, setbacks and monitoring standards, but I want us to explore whether or not that’s enough.” 

Cummings suggested that staff include standards for how battery storage facilities are operated, as the ordinance only addresses the building of the facilities. He also tasked staff with updating the local law to require that contractors hire union labor to work on these projects. 

Supervisors had already delayed a discussion on the local law twice. First, county officials said they wanted to wait on environmental tests after the Moss Landing fire. Then, they opted to wait on a battery storage safety bill authored by state Sen. John Laird to make its way through the legislature in Sacramento — it was signed into law in October by Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

A previous draft of the ordinance, first introduced to elected officials last fall, primarily focused on finding suitable land parcels close to electricity substations, with an eye toward improving electrical service for the region and supporting green energy sources. Stephanie Hansen, the county’s assistant director of community development and infrastructure, told Lookout in September that the legislation has since shifted to prioritize safety standards for the facilities. 

Under the current draft, county staff have increased setback rules for facilities, requiring 100-foot setbacks from property lines and a 1,000-foot setback from “sensitive receptors,” which includes schools, day care centers and residential care facilities. It also will require that batteries be stored in dedicated buildings or containers, or that they be located outside. 

Developers will also need to consult with local fire districts prior to submitting their application or within a month of the ordinance adoption, under a current version of the draft ordinance. 

Facilities will also be required to comply with National Fire Protection standards, along with local and state fire code standards. 

Martinez suggested that county staff look into requiring a facility’s owner pay additional fees for testing and hazard mitigation efforts, along with charging developer fees to address road maintenance and infrastructure. 

The board of supervisors requested that county staff try to include the concerns listed in a recent letter from the Watsonville City Council about the ordinance and the proposed project on Minto Road. Watsonville officials previously told Lookout they’d like to be included in the conversation about the ordinance because the city’s residents and emergency resources would be directly affected if a fire were to occur at a battery storage facility in the area. 

Supervisor Felipe Hernandez —whose District 4 is where New Leaf is proposing to build its battery storage facility — suggested that county staff include a rule that makes developers use the safest and latest battery technology. 

Hansen told Hernandez that county staff held off on adding further restrictions to the ordinance on the type of batteries that can be used because the technology is constantly changing. The ordinance currently restricts developers from using batteries containing nickel manganese cobalt — chemicals that were used in batteries at the Moss Landing facility. She added that the ordinance will require developers to submit an analysis looking at different types of technology that can be used for a facility. 

Other concerns supervisors brought forward to staff on Tuesday were how the ordinance might address hazard mitigation — where batteries would be disposed of and how to prevent chemical runoff — and ensuring access to battery storage facility sites, specifically the Minto Road site, for emergency vehicles, in case a fire breaks out. 

But the bigger concern for the board is the possibility of New Leaf Energy opting to seek approval of its project through the state instead of waiting for the county to pass its own local rules. John Swift, a representative of New Leaf present at the meeting Tuesday, told elected officials that the company would like to see the county move forward with adopting its ordinance. 

He added that New Leaf would be open to waiting for the county to pass an ordinance as late as March, but could not commit at that moment. “I know that they are under tremendous financial pressure,” Swift said of the company. “They have spent enormous amounts of money with the state and with this process so far, and at some point they’ve got to make a decision to move on.” 

In response to Swift’s comments, Cummings also suggested that Hernandez, as the board chair, send a letter to New Leaf expressing the county’s intention to move forward with a local ordinance as a way to prevent the company from further considering state approval for its project. 

“I’m hoping that through the motion on the floor today, we’re demonstrating that we are taking positive momentum towards maintaining local control over the future of [battery storage] in our county,” Martinez said.

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