But Coastal Commission may stand in the way
No matter how the November ballot measure on the Morro Bay battery plant turns out – the controversial power project may still be built.
Scores of ‘Yes on Prop A-24’ signs already dot the front yards of homes in Morro Bay allowing locals a chance to voice a up-or-down vote on the planned 600MW battery storage facility being proposed by Vistra Energy at the vacant 3-stack power plant site.
Some locals worry the renewable energy facility could hinder tourism, industrialize the waterfront and pose a danger of toxic fires and vow to “Save Estero Bay.” A citizen group collected more than 1000 signatures to put the issue on this November ballot, a measure designed to block construction of the battery plant by changing a proposed local zoning rule.
In the meantime, the company backing the project, Vistra has pushed forward with a full environmental impact report through the city that says the operation of the battery storage facility would not result in air, water or noise pollution. Comments on the draft EIR just closed a few days ago. The facility, located on 22 acres of the 107-acre mothball power plant site, would connect to a PG&E substation next-door and allow storage of renewable energy like wind and solar to be distributed across California. The vacant area where the 35 ft two-story battery buildings would be built was where the 1950s power plant stored oil in large oil tanks before they were removed.
Now proponents of ballot measure A-24 are actively campaigning to convince Morro Bay voters to vote yes in November to “keep the Embarcadero and beaches open for all to enjoy.” Those opposed say the city and county need the $10 million in annual tax monies and suggest negative impacts of the BESS- Battery Energy Storage System, have been overblown.
Opt-In provision
But what is not widely appreciated is the fact that back in 2022 the California legislature added an optional state level permitting process to qualify renewable energy and storage projects despite any barrier that had been erected by local jurisdictions. In June 2022 Assembly Bill 205 became a law, allowing developers of energy projects to apply to the California Energy Commission(CEC) for their permit to build and operate a renewable energy facility rather than going through local permitting.It is called the Opt-In provision that allows the CEC to fast-track certain energy projects and promise developers an environmental review decision within 270 days, much faster than most reviews are typically conducted.It eliminates the need to obtain local approval but requires oversight from state agencies responsible for protecting water, land use, endangered species and disadvantaged communities.
Reports at the time recall a number of local decisions that had thwarted renewable energy projects in different parts of the state, potentially threatening the California plan to generate 100% of our electricity from renewable sources, it was argued.The state now requires that all retail electricity sold must come from renewable resources and zero-carbon resources by 2045. A similar response came in the 1970s when local decision-makers delayed energy projects and it resulted in the actual formation of the California Energy Commission to approve large power plants despite “Not In My Backyard” sentiments. With the new 2022 legislation, the CEC expanded their jurisdiction to proposed battery storage facilities above 200 MW and other categories.
Examples of local campaigns that led to the new regulations include renewable project opposition in Humboldt County’s denial of the 200+MW Humboldt Wind Project on privately owned timberlands in 2019, Shasta County’s denial of the 200+MW Fountain Wind Project on privately owned timberlands in 2021, Shasta County’s pending amendment to its zoning ordinance to prohibit most new wind energy development in the County, Solano County’s moratorium on new wind development, San Bernardino County’s significant restriction on new PV solar energy and Los Angeles County’s prohibition on utility scale wind energy projects.This according to the Cox Castle law firm.
Not that the new legislation that appeared to usurp local decision making did not face opposition at the time.
Multiple city and county governments protested the inclusion of the opt-in provision for certifying new types of renewable energy facilities that was included in AB 205, given that it took permitting power away from local governments and placed it into the hands of the Commission. The League of California Cities voiced opposition to AB 205’s “usurpation of local permitting authority,” and the Rural County Representatives of California criticized the bill as being “overly broad, usurp[ing] local control, [and] exclud[ing] local governments from meaningful involvement in major development projects within their jurisdictions,” among other things. Had the bill undergone the traditional legislative process and the County been afforded time to review AB 205, the County would have participated in the process and formally opposed AB 205.””
But the new legislation became law.
Under Opt In, the Commission is still required, among other determinations, to take into account the traditional ecological knowledge of tribes, hold extensive public outreach, and refrain from certifying an application unless the applicant has “entered into one or more legally binding and enforceable agreements with, or that benefit, a coalition of one or more community-based organizations.” The Commission must also find that the project has a net positive economic benefit.
Coastal Commission approval?
Jeff Eckles, a proponent of the Morro Bay measure argues in one press account that if the BESS facility is built it would turn their tourist town into an industrial hub.“I think most people that I’ve spoken with, myself included, in the city are all for renewable energy and we’re for battery storage plants in the appropriate location,” said Eckles. “We just feel that this is not the appropriate location at all.”
As far as the possibility that the Energy Commission may take the matter out of local hands and approve the project,Eckles is skeptical, since the proposed BESS is in the coastal zone under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. He says he doesn’t believe the Coastal Commission would approve the project, and the CEC would not move forward.
It happens at the California Coastal Commission is in Morro Bay this week to discuss other projects and A-24 advocates plan to speak against the BESS plan during public comment time.
The California Wind Energy trade group argues that the Opt-In legislation is good policy due to the crisis we are facing under climate change and the need to move quickly to reduce carbon emissions. In arguing for one project in Shasta County the group states that” 100,000 MW of other clean energy resources — including out-of-state wind and offshore wind, solar energy, and energy-storage projects – will also be needed to meet the state’s goals. This is a daunting task, one that demands that renewable energy projects be rejected only for various serious impacts.” The project, Fountain Wind, is expected to get a final OK from the CEC this coming July despite county opposition.
California grid operators claim that rapid expansion of battery storage statewide allows the storage of solar energy to meet consumer demand when the sun does not shine and help “keep the lights on.” Developers are set to install 6,813 MW of battery power storage within the California System Operators jurisdiction this year.
So now what?
Opposed by the Morro Bay citizens group is a planned Master Plan that would be developed in accordance with the requirements of Plan Morro Bay Policy LU-5.4 which would apply to the entire Power Plant Property and would change the land use designation of the BESS Site from Visitor Serving Commercial to General (Light) Industrial and the zoning from Visitor Serving Commercial to Industrial-General.Instead, changes would have to be approved by voters.
Proponent of the local measure Gail Johnson argues that industrialization of the site ignores the fact there are sensitive environmental areas impacted and there are “better places to put a BESS.” The site is not far from the local high school. A similar drama is playing out in a number of California communities including Vacaville. In San Diego County last month a battery fire at an energy storage facility in Otay Mesa continued to smolder, leaving firefighters contending with the blaze for a sixth days but there was no impact to the neighborhood.
Location?
But opponents to Prop A-24 say the battery plant location makes sense next to the big PG&E substation and connected to transmission towers already. There’s another location factor that is the battery storage plant and substation are directly in line to offshore wind cables coming ashore, expected to bring in more renewable power in the future. Many opponents of the BESS project also oppose offshore wind, fearing the same industrialization scenario. A Morro Bay group recently marched in town opposing offshore wind.
Writing in the Estero Bay News this month Morro Bay resident Marlys McPherson reasons that moving forward with the local proposition ignores the fact that Vistra can apply to the state for approval anyway eliminating local input on the future of the site through the city council.Marlys points out that the site is contaminated and may be unfit for visitors service uses unless contamination is removed. She worries any agreement in the works to remove the old power plant at Vistra’s expense could be in jeopardy. She also reminds us that PG&E has deed restrictions on the entire 107 acre site that prohibits visitor services to avoid liability. In the end, passage of A-24 could mean the site stays the way it is but with a battery plant on a part of it and no local input on what happens to the rest, she writes.McPherson was on the Morro Bay City Council from 2016 to 2020.
One local official acknowledges that Vistra could apply to the state if the November ballot measure outcome ties their hands although they are now working with the city.
Quoted in a recent Inside Climate News article “The applicant says they’re committed to the city’s process, and we’re working with them in good faith on that,” said Michael Codron, the city’s interim director of community development. “If the city’s process results in a denial or if the ballot measure precludes the ability of the city council to approve the application, I would think they would avail themselves of the CEC process.”
_