Plan MB 

Residents in Morro Bay have been raising questions about Measure A-24 and Vistra's battery storage facility proposed for the current power plant site. The applicability of AB 205, a state law that allows fast-tracking of energy projects through the California Energy Commission, makes things even more confusing. Measure A-24, if it passes, will require a vote of the residents of Morro Bay to change land use (zoning) on the waterfront property from its current "visitor serving commercial" back to "industrial." Passing A-24 would send a message to respect the will of Morro Bay voters.

In 2014, the power plant was shut down. In 2018, Vistra, a Fortune 500 company based in Texas, took ownership. From 2018 to 2021, Morro Bay residents crafted a general plan for the city, Plan Morro Bay, outlining a vision for visitor-oriented land uses, fishing, and recreation, along with coastal resource protection for the waterfront. Plan Morro Bay was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the agency tasked with protecting the coast. But just a month after the plan was finalized in 2021, the City Council entered an agreement to assist Vistra in its application for a lithium-ion battery storage facility on the property. The movement for a citizens' initiative protecting the Plan Morro Bay vision, now Measure A-24, was born.

The battery energy storage system (BESS) environmental review process for the proposed project in Morro Bay is in its third year. More than 200 comment letters were submitted totaling more than 1,000 pages in response to the draft environmental impact report, with the vast majority opposed to the project. (The letters can be found on the city's website.) They wrote about their fears of an "Otay Mesa" incident, a recent weeks-long toxic thermal runaway fire at a BESS near San Diego. They described what a catastrophe it would be if such a fire occurred in Morro Bay and the impossibility of evacuation. They wrote about the impacts from years of construction noise and vibrations, as well as toxic plumes from fires on the estuary, home to protected sea otters and migrating birds. Scientists wrote about the chemical releases from a thermal runaway battery fire. Other hazards at that site include tsunami, flood, and earthquakes. The final environmental impact report, in which the city is required to respond to each comment, has yet to come.

Some people are concerned that the state, using Assembly Bill 205, will "take" the decision to approve or deny the project away from the city, and that voting yes on A-24 makes that more likely. AB 205 does fast-track energy projects by allowing a developer to bypass the city review process (the developer initiates this process, not the state) and apply for approval from the California Energy Commission (CEC). But whether the city of Morro Bay or the CEC is the lead agency on the project, any project in the coastal zone must also be approved by the California Coastal Commission.

What happens to the BESS when it reaches the Coastal Commission? And why bother with Measure A-24?

On Aug. 2, 2024, Coastal Commission planner Sarah MacGregor wrote a bombshell letter that would make any developer think twice about applying for an industrial project on coastal property. Her letter indicates that all roads lead back to the CCC and that development constraints under the Coastal Act—passed in 1975 to protect the state's coast from harmful development—would likely prohibit such a project. In that letter and her May 28, 2024, public comment letter to the BESS draft EIR, MacGregor identified development constraints for the BESS project, including the presence of dunes and environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) which would make the site "well suited for permanent restoration." She suggested that the BESS would likely not be an allowable use as it was not "resource-dependent" and would be "expected to significantly disrupt and degrade ESHA habitat values."

MacGregor also described the problem with siting any industry on waterfront property. Due to potential flooding and sea level rise, the project would need additional protection, or "shoreline armoring" (the practice of using physical structures, such as berms and seawalls, to protect shorelines from coastal erosion). But under the Coastal Act the project does not qualify for this, since the BESS is neither an existing structure nor coastal-dependent.

The potential of sea level rise and flooding take us back five years to the 2019 Coastal Commission decision on the placement of a wastewater treatment facility adjacent to the proposed BESS site. The Coastal Commission held that the coastal location did not "conservatively minimize hazard risk" because it was in tsunami and flood zones and subject to sea level rise.

The decision denying that location essentially held that a public infrastructure project should not be sited on waterfront property. In her comment on the draft impact report, MacGregor stated that the plan for development should create a vision for the entirety of the site, "analyzing the best uses of the site in line with the city's community character and existing development."

What exactly do the proponents of Measure A-24 hope to achieve? Its passage would tell decision-making agencies that residents want to develop the waterfront according to Plan Morro Bay. And if the plan ever has to be amended, a majority of Morro Bay voters and the Coastal Commission would need to approve the change.

Should a developer be able to force an industry on a community that doesn't want it? A-24 would send a message to the city to stop engaging with developers who want to undo the vision in Plan Morro Bay. Δ

Jeanne Marie Colby writes to New Times from Morro Bay. Send a response to [email protected].