By Jon Chown
Santa Cruz County Supervisors opted to not approve an ordinance on battery energy storage systems on Nov. 18, instead deciding to send the ordinance back to staff for improvements. They will vote again on Jan. 13.
Battery energy storage systems allow solar and wind energy to be stored and used later — helping stabilize the electrical grid, lower energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The new ordinance will guide how and where these systems can be built in unincorporated Santa Cruz County. Named the Energy Storage Combining District Ordinance, it defines eligible sites, safety and environmental requirements, application procedures, and oversight responsibilities. It includes environmental review to assess potential risks, public review and hearings for proposed projects, and mandates regular updates on safety research and technology improvements.
However, the ordinance was viewed to not adequately address issues concerning ingress and egress during emergencies, requiring skilled labor, water runoff during a fire, soil and water analysis and other issues. For these reasons, the board delayed approval.
With this in mind, supervisors wrestled with an ordinance that much of the public, and many supervisors, saw as too weak, but far better than nothing at all. During the discussion on Nov. 18, Supervisor Kim De Serpa (District 2) presented several improvements she had in mind, including requiring certified electricians be hired.
“I’ve done some research and can see that many of the fires happened due to improperly installed batteries,” she said. However, she added that she was prepared “to hold my nose and vote ‘yes’” due to the timeline.
“Hopefully, if we need to make some changes we can expedite those because I really want to retain local control,” she said.
The proposed Minto Road project would consist of about 300 containers, each with 40 batteries inside, that would be placed several feet apart. Each would have its own fire-suppression system. A rubber bladder would be placed underneath the entire site to prevent any liquids from leaking into College Lake. Once the permits are in place, the project would likely be sold to PG&E or another entity to build and operate.
Dave Martone, speaking on behalf of the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District, the fire agency with jurisdiction over the proposed site, urged the supervisors to adopt the ordinance on Nov. 18.
“Without a Santa Cruz County ordinance in place, our community will be subject to the decisions of state agencies, resulting in a significant loss of local control,” he said. “This is particularly concerning should this potentially hazardous facility move forward. The ability to regulate and respond at the local level is crucial.”
Many others urged the board to adopt the ordinance as it was on Nov. 18, including former supervisor Bruce McPherson and Casey Van Den Heuvel, vice president of the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council. However, there were also quite a few people asking the supervisors to slow down and improve the ordinance.
Corralitos resident Karrell Reader, who doesn’t live far from the proposed site on Minto Road, presented a range of issues the ordinance still needed to address, the first being protecting sites from vandalism or sabotage.
“I think we need to put something down about making that site hardened,” she said, pointing out that all it would take is one angry, mentally unstable person to do a lot of damage. Other issues she had concerned water runoff, and how the soil, water and air would be tested for pollution.
Some wanted it to basically ban the technology all together. However, if local regulation is deemed too strict, AB205 allows the California Energy Commission to override local rules due to “public convenience and necessity.”
“It’s clear that if you make efforts to outlaw sites like the one we’re looking at on Mento Road with a local ordinance, the local terms will just be circumvented through the state process,” said Supervisor Manu Koenig of District 1.
After hours of discussion on the ordinance, the supervisors voted to send it back for revision. Due to the timeline, it was later announced that a vote on the revised ordinance was set for Jan. 13.