The $200 million Minto Road proposal is at least 18 months from potential construction, as it requires an environmental impact report and a county permit based on rules that county staff have not yet finalized. The Agricultural Policy Advisory Commission is expected to vote on it, and approvals are needed from the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission and Santa Cruz County Supervisors.

Jump to a section:

• Minto Road is ‘only viable site’
• County supervisors weigh in
• Differences in Moss Landing and Minto Road battery storage
• Health problems from Moss Landing fire
• Activism since Moss Landing fire

Minto Road is ‘only viable site’

Across Minto Road from a recently upgraded Pacific Gas & Electric Co. substation, the proposed lithium battery facility is intended to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, increase power reliability and make the electrical grid less susceptible to blackouts during high demand, according to county staff and New Leaf Energy.

New Leaf Energy filed an application with the county for 90 Minto Road in December. The site is the “only viable site in Santa Cruz County” for such a battery storage facility, New Leaf representatives wrote.

Because battery storage facilities for the electrical grid would be new to Santa Cruz County, county supervisors on Aug. 13 told county staff to craft new regulations and create a permit process for them. County staff have written about two other potential sites for battery storage, near other PG&E substations: 

• Houts Drive next to a parking lot of Dominican Hospital in Live Oak.
• Freedom Boulevard near Shadowmere Way, across Freedom Boulevard from Aptos High School. 

Both sites are also more than 10 acres and in the county supervisors’ jurisdiction. However, no proposals have been made to install battery storage facilities on the sites, and a New Leaf Energy representative said the sites are too hilly and did not have enough space to accommodate battery storage facilities. 

Santa Cruz County Supervisor Manu Koenig, whose district covers Dominican Hospital and Houts Drive, said that location “should be ruled out” for battery storage.

Nancy Faulstich, executive director of the Pajaro Valley-based climate justice group Regeneración, lives near Minto Road. She said, “There’s a lot of alarmism going on,” and that she would “like to help calm some of the fears around this.”

Faulstich has been pushing for a town hall meeting with Santa Cruz County Supervisor Felipe Hernandez, whose district includes the Minto Road site, where community members could get more information and ask questions. No meeting is set, and Hernandez did not respond to Santa Cruz Local’s requests for comment.

Faulstich said she recognizes the potential safety and environmental concerns of battery storage plants. But she added, “If we don’t stop using fossil fuels, we know that’s going to kill people, we know that’s going to wreak havoc on communities.” She said, “For me, it’s not a completely straight or clear issue.”

In recent years, hundreds of battery storage facilities for the electrical grid have popped up nationwide, helping to store solar and wind energy when those sources aren’t available. California is counting on such facilities to reach a state goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.  

Batteries are the only realistic way for Santa Cruz County and the state to reach their renewable energy goals, said San José State University environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. The trade-off, he said, is that all batteries present at least somewhat of a fire risk.

As far back as December 2022, Santa Cruz County supervisors initiated feasibility studies of potential installation of battery storage sites on county-owned land.

Several small buildings including an occupied farmhouse are at 90 Minto Road outside Watsonville. A 14-acre lithium battery storage facility has been proposed on the site. (Nik Altenberg — Santa Cruz Local)

County supervisors weigh in

Santa Cruz County Supervisor Justin Cummings said he hasn’t taken a position on the Minto Road project. “That being said, safe forms of renewable energy are critical and desperately needed to reduce the impacts of climate change and eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels,” Cummings wrote in an email. 

Koenig also said he has not yet taken a position on the Minto Road project. He wrote that more information is needed on the proposal before moving forward, including an environmental impact report and a report on the Moss Landing fire.

Santa Cruz County Supervisor Kim De Serpa, whose district covers the Aptos site, did not respond to Santa Cruz Local’s requests for comment.

Differences in Moss Landing and Minto Road battery storage

The Vistra Corp. lithium battery facility in Moss Landing that caught fire Jan. 16 was a converted, indoor facility that stacked 100,000 lithium-ion batteries. 

New Leaf Energy representatives noted some key differences in the Minto Road proposal. 

• New Leaf’s project would have hundreds of double-walled steel containers, each with 40 lithium-ion batteries divided among five racks. The shipping-like containers would be outdoors rather than in a large indoor facility, separated from each other and have cooling and fire-suppression systems onboard, said New Leaf representative Max Christian. 
• The chemistry of the batteries would be different. New Leaf’s project would use lithium-iron-phosphate, or LFP, batteries, which are “far more stable” than the nickel-manganese-cobalt, or NMC, batteries at Vistra’s facility, Christian said.

“They are both battery energy storage projects, and that’s where the similarities end,” Christian said. “Moss Landing was a failure. I’m with everyone who says, ‘never again.’”

Smoke is visible from a fire at a Moss Landing battery facility Jan. 17. (Nik Altenberg — Santa Cruz Local file)

Health problems from Moss Landing fire

After the Moss Landing fire, Santa Cruz County gathered information from medical providers and from a multi-county community health survey, said Dr. Lisa Hernandez, Santa Cruz County’s health officer. 

She said some county residents have reported symptoms including metallic tastes in their mouths, shortage of breath, watery eyes and nosebleeds. Still, “we don’t see any acute, longstanding concerns to the community from the fire,” Hernandez said. She added that the county needed to continue monitoring the situation to make sure there are no longer-term impacts. 

“People who feel like they are sick need to work with their health care providers to treat symptoms,” Hernandez said. “We want to know how people have been impacted and really approach this from a clinical, scientific perspective.”

Maria Cristina López and her family were told to evacuate their Castroville home during the fire, including her son who uses a wheelchair. Her whole family developed a strong cough that they still have, López said. 

“We haven’t heard much from anyone. No one has given us more information,” López said in Spanish. “We want to be informed. We want to know how hard it could be a bit down the road with our health.” 

Santa Cruz County staff tested for heavy metals in the air, water, soil and plants and did not detect public health or food safety concerns. Samples collected nearer to Moss Landing in Monterey County, on the other hand, showed higher amounts of heavy metals, Santa Cruz County staff wrote.

Vistra Corp. representatives said “environmental testing from multiple public agencies” — including the state and federal Environmental Protection Agency — “has repeatedly found that the fire did not result in risks to public health.”

Signs that oppose a proposed lithium battery facility are scattered in and around Watsonville, including on Corralitos Road near Freedom Boulevard. (Nik Altenberg — Santa Cruz Local)

Activism since Moss Landing fire

The Minto Road proposal originally attracted little attention. When New Leaf Energy held a community meeting in Watsonville in December, it was sparsely attended, Faulstich said.

After the Moss Landing fire prompted evacuations, school closures and contamination of Elkhorn Slough, a groundswell of activism began. The group Never Again Moss Landing formed in the wake of the fire. At a March 3 meeting at Salinas Valley Community Church, residents spoke of their health concerns. 

Cheri Garcia said she works across the street from the Moss Landing facility, which is in Monterey County not far from Santa Cruz County.

“People are really scared because they feel like no one is listening to them and no one is really showing up. It doesn’t feel like the county cares, it doesn’t feel like the state cares,” Garcia said. “This is real for us. We have real symptoms.”

Food Not Bombs co-founder Keith McHenry is among those suing over the Moss Landing fire. A petition to halt the establishment of battery storage facilities in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties gathered 4,728 signatures as of March 26. 

Never Again Moss Landing also organized a protest Tuesday against State Sen. John Laird, D- Santa Cruz, at Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The group accused Laird of not taking community concerns seriously regarding the Moss Landing fire.

Laird wrote it’s “important to acknowledge that no energy source is without risk, and that we must do everything we can to ensure communities stay safe.” Last week, he introduced state legislation to strengthen safety standards at battery storage sites.

Also this month, the California Public Utilities Commission strengthened safety standards at battery storage facilities. 

Another rally, featuring some Green Party political candidates and other opponents of battery storage facilities, is set for April 5 at the London Nelson Community Center in Santa Cruz.

Noticias Watsonville reporter Fidel M. Soto contributed to this report.

Questions or comments? Email [email protected]. Santa Cruz Local is supported by members, major donors, sponsors and grants for the general support of our newsroom. Our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Learn more about Santa Cruz Local and how we are funded.