It’s looming large on Morro Bay’s horizon and now the Coastal Commission has begun weighing in on a project that’s billed as the “world’s largest” Battery Energy Storage System or BESS.
Vistra Energy has proposed building a 600 megawatt BESS on a portion of the old power plant property, which Vistra owns but hasn’t produced power since it was shuttered in 2014.
The BESS has been controversial since it was proposed a few years ago and right now, comments are being taken on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that the City has produced through a consultant. On May 24, the Coastal Commission staff sent in its official comments on the DEIR and they appear to be leery of several aspects of the project.
“We recognize that a project of this sort invariably raises questions and issues regarding potential impacts to coastal resources,” reads the letter from Commission Coastal Planner Sarah MacGregor addressed to Kim Fowler, the City’s planning manager, “and we appreciate the role of the CEQA process for developing supporting information and in identifying and resolving those questions and issues at the earliest time possible so as to facilitate the Coastal Commission’s review of the project.”
MacGregor goes on to say that the letter “is not intended to call into question the DEIR’s consistency with CEQA, but rather to help identify information needs so as to resolve potential coastal resource impacts that will need to be addressed under the LCP [Local Coastal Program] and Coastal Act.”
A Birds-eye View
In the letter, MacGregor recommends that the City, which is following a split path with regards to planning the power plant property’s future — there’s the BESS project and a “Master Plan” for the remainder of the roughly 100-acre site — using a “more global and holistic view” of the overall property. “Think through what type of uses make sense in this coastal locale,” MacGregor said, “including how Coastal Act and LCP-priority land uses such as visitor-serving uses, public parks/recreation, and open space be provided, and how a battery storage facility of some scope may impact/interrelate with such uses.”
She said the Master Plan needs to do a “classic constraints analysis that looks at the site’s sensitive habitats, flood risks, and other concerns and then identify places off limits to development and the footprint of where such development can be safely located.”
What she’s getting at is that a master plan doesn’t have to go to the minutiae of exactly how much area should be reserved for any particular use, rather it should identify the “developable envelope, and the potential for various types of uses within that footprint.”
Permitting, Jurisdiction
The Commission’s letter points out that the DEIR and the Master Planning documents both have to be approved by the Coastal Commission in the form of an LCP Amendment, as well as a penciled-in multi-use path that’s part of the Master Plan.
Indeed, the entire property and surrounding areas are under Coastal Commission jurisdiction through appeal. They also want to City to include “all CDPs previously issued by the City, or any future CDPs that the City expects to review, for any development at the Vistra power plant site, including any authorizations for the removal of the fuel oil storage tanks.”
That last bit is somewhat confusing, as it was Duke Energy that began the process of removing the storage tanks, back when it was trying to get approval for a replacement plant.
Duke started by removing asbestos that was covering all of the pipe system connecting the tanks to the plant, an involved process that required some ingenuity to handle safely, as asbestos is a potential carcinogen.
The tank removal was completed around 2011, under the ownership of Dynegy, which merged into Vistra.
Though initially built to burn fuel oil, diesel and kerosene, which were tankered in and uploaded to the storage tanks. The plant switched over to natural gas in the mid-1990s and the storage tanks hadn’t held any fuel for over a decade. Two other giant tanks were removed from a hilltop tank farm off Hwy 41 east of town, and they were also removed.
Project Description
The Commission even has an issue with the project description in the DEIR. Since the idea is to handle the property in two parts — the BESS project and Master Plan — the Commission letter said, and it’s impossible to study any particular uses when no projects have been proposed, still, “the Master Plan project description raises questions for us as to whether it is meeting the requirements of the LUP policy,” MacGregor’s letter reads, “which requires the Master Plan.”
She acknowledges the Master Plan is supposed to include “consideration of site constraints and what range of uses can be accommodated here.” But, “A critical piece is to also understand, including in conjunction with a battery storage facility or not. In other words, the Master Plan should not presume a battery storage facility must be cited here, but rather fully explore how/whether various other potential uses meet applicable Coastal Act and LCP requirements for appropriate siting and design.”
Coastal Hazards
An old nemesis “coastal hazards,” is raising its head once again with the Coastal Commission; the same argument it made when it forced the City to move its new sewer treatment plant project inland, away from the Coast.
“The EIR should evaluate what uses would be permitted at the stacks and existing power plant building based on hazards [flooding and sea level rise], required buffers from the BESS facility, and other site characteristics, and should also evaluate what soil/groundwater remediation measures would be needed to accommodate those uses.”
She said the Master Plan should create a vision for the entirety of the site and analyze the best uses “in line with the City’s community character and existing development.”
She adds that the Master Plan should also consider future uses for the BESS site (roughly 22 acres), when it’s lifespan is over, which had been announced as 20 years by Vistra, but the Commission said 40 years.
MacGregor also points out that the City will have to do a Master Plan for its old sewer treatment plant site on Atascadero Road, which lies across Morro Creek from the BESS site, and suggests the City combine the two, focusing on “increased bicycle and pedestrian circulation between the two sites and should evaluate other public access and recreation connections for the sites.”
Uptake on the Intake
Among the facilities no longer in use is the power plant’s old seawater intake building, which sits at the edge of the bay across the Embarcadero from the power plant. It’s a huge building that frankly, considering its size and height, probably couldn’t be built now, given the current limits in the City’s zoning ordinance.
“Please identify the current uses of the building,” MacGregor said, referring to the “Cooling Water Intake Screen House” (intake building). That’s where seawater was brought into the plant via several huge pumps, piped underground into the power plant’s basement, where it was put through a heat exchanger to cool steam for reuse.
The cooling water was then discharged via underground tunnel to Morro Rock, day lighting at the outfall canal at the base of the Rock, and emptying into Estero Bay.
“The Master Plan,” MacGregor’s letter said, “should evaluate potential reuse or removal of this building, with priority on removal given the prime location of the building along the waterfront and the Embarcadero.”
And if the City finds a reuse for the Intake Building, it “must be consistent with the waterfront and public access policies in the Morro Bay LCP.”
She also mentions the “Harbor Department Boat House Facility,” a Quonset hut out next to Morro Creek where the Harbor Department stores equipment.
She also wants to know about the “Pacific Wildlife Care Rehabilitation Center,” which sits on a side portion of the property, accessed off Main Street at the back of the plant. PWC has plans to move out someday, and build a new rehab center on property out by the County Airport. The group’s application has already been submitted to the County Planning Department.
And next to PWC is a triage facility for the Marine Mammal Center, which takes in and treats sick and injured marine mammals — mostly seals and sea lions — in conjunction with the MMC’s main facility in Sausalito, Calif. No plans for relocating that facility, which was founded during Duke’s time in Morro Bay, have been announced.
MacGregor’s letter said the Master Plan should “identify the current uses of these buildings and should evaluate the potential for relocation of these uses and restoration of these sites.”
Protected Areas
The Commission had its biologist, Dr. Rachel Pausch, look at the project, and that may also pose some issues for the BESS project, as well as the Master Plan. Seems over the past decade, the dune scrub plants have retaken some of the old tank farm site.
“Mitigation measure BIO-1(l), calls for a botanical survey for silver dune lupine scrub and the mixed dune habitats onsite,” the letter reads, “and to avoid impacts ‘to the maximum extent feasible.’
“Any areas of this scrub, or other rare or special status species, will likely be considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas [ESHA] and thus have very limited allowable uses [e.g. habitat restoration, low impact public recreation, etc.].”
MacGregor adds that while the maps in the DEIR don’t identify any ESHA on the plant property, “given the species composition and proximity to a coastal dune system, it is highly likely that there will be ESHA present within the project site.”
They’ve already found one of these rare plant species. “The presence of Blochman’s leafy daisy,” the letter said, “within the former tank area suggests that site may be well-suited as a permanent restoration area.”
There’s even more environmental issues identified. “Additionally, the surrounding riparian areas, [night] heron rookeries, and monarch overwintering sites will require appropriate buffers from development and construction disturbance. In short, the EIR should evaluate habitat types and explain why or why not such habitats rise to the level of ESHA under the Coastal Act and LCP.”
Public Access Required
The Commission’s letter delves into public access and recreation uses, and points out the project will have to address these requirements in the law which are supposed to be “maximized.”
“The proposed project will need to incorporate some sort of public access component to meet the requirements of the policies in the LCP.”
Hazards a Hazard
Potentially the biggest issue facing the project is also the city’s old nemesis, climate change and sea level rise. “The project site is located entirely in the tsunami hazard zone and the site is located within the 100- and 500-year flood hazard zones,” MacGregor’s letter said. “The EIR states that the existing earthen berms that surround the former tank farm area would remain intact to provide protection from sea-level rise and tsunami risk.” She added that the BESS facility “would be built on 3-foot thick concrete platforms placed on pilings sunk into the underlying substrate.”
The BESS will have to anchor its foundation on bedrock, which is estimated to be about 40-feet underground, to meet earthquake standards. That entire property is the historic route that Morro Creek took until the Army Corps of Engineers dug the current creek channel from Hwy 1 out to the beach and drained the old delta initially to build a submarine base which morphed into a WWII Naval training base. The power plant was built in the mid-1950s and early ‘60s, after the Navy base was closed.
The commission has a potential problem with the foundation work. “Both the berms and the raised platforms would qualify as a shoreline armoring device under Coastal Act Section 30235, where shoreline armoring is only permitted when required to protect a coastal-dependent use or to protect existing structures.”
She lays out the four criteria that would allow coastal armoring — there is an existing structure; the structure is in danger form erosion; shoreline-altering armoring is needed to protect the existing structure; and, “the required armoring is designed to eliminate or mitigate shoreline sand supply impacts and avoid and mitigate other coastal resource impacts (i.e. public access, public views, etc.).”
She adds that the berms were built to contain any pol spills from the tanks and “it is not clear that these earthen berms would provide the needed level of structural integrity to protect the BESS facility from the site hazards.”
