“I think it’s time to pump the brakes a little bit here … to ensure that battery storage projects are designed and located in the safest way possible,” District 5 Supervisor Jim Desmond said.
The board approved the motion 4-0, with District 1 Supervisor Nora Vargas absent.
As for what those standards entail, the board directed its chief administrative officer to come up with guidelines and options that could go before supervisors for a vote as early as late August. Staff will consider input from community members living near proposed sites, industry experts and other stakeholders.
Going into Wednesday’s meeting, Desmond called for regulations that, “at minimum,” make sure battery energy storage systems avoid being located in residential areas or near schools, day care centers, senior living facilities and hospitals.
He also called for incentivizing projects located in commercial and industrial zones, near existing utility infrastructure and electrical substations (except in residential areas) and creating regulations for things like building height and setbacks, among others.
Wednesday’s motion also proposed issuing a pause on any new applications for future battery projects until standards are adopted.
But District 3 Supervisor and vice chair Terra Lawson-Remer said she was concerned that “placing a blanket moratorium” could lead to “a big problem to meeting our local energy needs if we couldn’t build any battery sites at all” until standards are put into place.
Lawson-Remer proposed an amendment that Desmond and the other supervisors approved that makes a moratorium merely one of a number of options.
“It was a compromise,” Desmond said after the meeting. “I’m glad (a potential moratorium) is still on the table.”
The county estimates that establishing standards for battery projects will cost $1.25 million.
Wednesday’s motion comes after a fire May 15 at the Gateway Energy Storage facility in an industrial park in Otay Mesa. The blaze was centered in one of the seven buildings at the 250-megawatt site that stores lithium-ion batteries that help bolster the state’s electric grid.
Firefighters and a county hazardous materials crew responded quickly and evacuation orders and warnings were put into effect in the immediate vicinity out of concerns about the potential release of toxic gases. The batteries kept reigniting and it took nearly 17 days before the last unit left the facility, which is owned and operated by LS Power and its subsidiary, Rev Renewables.
Fire officials said the lithium-ion batteries experienced “thermal runaway” — a condition in which excessive heat results in a chemical reaction that spreads to other batteries.
In September 2023, a battery fire broke out at the Valley Center Energy Storage Facility, operated by renewable energy company Terra-Gen.
While fire officials said the fire was put out in about 45 minutes and extinguished by the site’s internal fire prevention system, businesses and the small number of homes within a quarter-mile of the industrial park where the facility is located were evacuated and shelter-in-place orders were in effect within a half-mile of the site out of an abundance of caution.
The 139-megawatt, 560 megawatt-hour Valley Center facility was back in operations the next day.
Battery storage is considered a crucial piece in California’s policy goal of deriving 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045.
Storage systems take solar power generated during the day and discharge the electricity later, especially from 4 to 9 p.m. when California’s grid is under the most stress. Batteries can help reduce the risk of rotating power outages and replace natural gas “peaker plants” used during those critical hours when customers crank up their air conditioners.
Whatever standards the county puts into place, they will not apply to some battery projects already under consideration within the board’s jurisdiction — including the Seguro Energy Storage Project that Fortune 500 company AES wants to build in Eden Valley, between San Marcos and Escondido.
That’s because state code stipulates that projects are subject to the rules and regulations in place when the projects were formally submitted for approval — and the AES Seguro project has already been submitted.
“It’s already in the pipeline and the county has an ordinance specific to grandfathering projects where applications have been submitted,” said AES director of permitting Corinne Lytle Bonine.
But opponents of the project at Wednesday’s meeting said they hope whatever standards are adopted can be applied if Seguro goes before the full Board of Supervisors.
“The only thing we can do is emphasize all the negativities of why this should never be approved,” said Cory Depietro, an Eden Valley homeowner. “If we can push this up to the board level, we feel more confident we can kill this.”
AES wants to build the Seguro project on a 22.5-acre plot. The company considers the site an excellent location because it’s close to an existing San Diego Gas & Electric substation, so it can feed into the state’s power system without requiring miles of overhead transmission lines.
If approved, the facility would generate 320 megawatts and 1,280 megawatt-hours of electricity that would flow to California’s electric grid — enough to power about 240,000 homes for four hours.
The decision to accept or reject the Seguro project will eventually go before the seven members of the San Diego County Planning Commission. A vote has yet to be scheduled.
©2024 The San Diego Union-Tribune, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
