Coastal SLO County city may temporarily block future battery plant permits. Here’s how
Morro Bay may temporarily block new battery energy storage facilities starting next year.
On Tuesday, the Morro Bay City Council voted 4-0 to direct staff to develop an urgency ordinance to pause the city’s ability to process new battery plant development permits for up to two years.
“None of us want to see this next to our home,” Mayor Carla Wixom said during the meeting. “I think our community is certainly on board with renewables, but it’s about location, location, location.”
Council member Jen Ford recused herself from the item because her employer, California State Assembly Member Dawn Addis, co-authored a bill that required battery energy storage facilities to develop an emergency response plan. Ford saw this as a potential conflict of interest, she said.
The council will officially vote on the urgency ordinance in January.
If passed, the ordinance would not impact the 600 megawatt battery energy storage facility proposed for the Morro Bay Power Plant property. Texas-based energy company Vistra Corp. applied to the city in 2020 to build the plant, but the corporation paused its application on Nov. 4.
Instead, Vistra plans to apply to the California Energy Commission and Coastal Commission to consider the project and bypass the city’s jurisdiction.
The urgency ordinance would only prevent the city from reviewing new applications, Morro Bay community development director Airlin Singewald said.
The city has not received any other applications to build a battery plant at this time, he said.
The urgency ordinance follows a citizen effort to block Vistra’s battery project. The grassroots organization Citizens for Estero Bay Preservation collected the necessary signatures to place Measure A-24 on Morro Bay’s ballot.
If passed, the measure would freeze the land use on the Morro Bay Power Plant property as visitor serving-commercial, blocking the city’s ability to approve permits for the battery plant. Because Vistra is applying to the state for project approval, however, the impact of the ballot measure remains to be seen.
As of Friday, the measure was poised to pass with 59% of voters saying yes, according to the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder’s Office’s most recent ballot count update.
Does Morro Bay need an urgency ordinance to stop battery plant permits?
City staff must next prove that processing battery plant permits would cause an immediate threat to public health, safety or well being to justify an urgency ordinance, Singewald said.
Urgency ordinances like this are trending in California. Other cities such as Escondido and Vacaville passed a similar temporary ban on processing permits for battery storage facilities earlier this year.
Council member Cyndee Edwards was skeptical that the issue qualified as an “immediate threat” to the public, as no other companies had applied to the city build a battery plant.
Edwards said she expects other developers to follow Vistra’s lead and apply for project approval through the state process instead, she said.
“That has already set a precedent,” she said. “I’m just not seeing the justification for the urgency aspect of this.”
However, she said she is glad to give the incoming City Council the opportunity to discuss the issue in January.
“I feel like it is important that we have this discussion,” Edwards said. “It would be good for us to have guidelines and standards with regards to these types of projects.”
Permitting pause offers time to set permanent rules for battery plants
While the city grapples with Vistra’s proposal, another developer could apply to the city to build a battery plant — especially as the state pushes for more battery energy storage, Singewald said.
California aims to have the infrastructure to store 52,000 megawatts of electricity by 2045, but on Tuesday, the state only had enough battery storage to hold 10,000 megawatts of electricity, Singewald said.
The urgency ordinance would give the city time to craft a permanent ordinance to regulate battery energy storage in the city, Singewald said.
As of Tuesday, the city’s zoning code did not have specific standards for a battery energy storage facility. If a developer were to apply to build a battery plant under current laws, the project would likely be judged as a standard public works and utilities project such as an electrical substation.
A permanent ordinance would offer specific guidelines for developing a battery plant.
The City Council will have two options for a permanent ordinance: ban all future battery energy storage systems in the city, or set development standards for future battery plants, Singewald said.
Development standards could require companies to get a conditional use permit to build a battery plant, identify zoning districts where battery plants are allowed, establish setback requirements from residential areas and set safety standards.
“This option would provide battery energy storage system projects a local path for approval, set clear guidelines to protect public safety and ensure the city has a seat at the table to negotiate for community benefits,” the staff report said.
However, it would not prevent developers from bypassing the city and applying to the California Energy Commission for project approval, he said.
City staff advised the City Council to not pursue an outright ban on battery energy storage systems, “as it would effectively force (battery energy storage system) developers to use the AB 205 opt-in certification program, bypassing local control and limiting the city’s influence on the outcome of the project and its community benefit,” the staff report said.
