DIG INTO THE DETAILS

A-24 will NOT stop the battery plant, but if it passed it would make it almost impossible to have developers convert the power plant land into productive, revenue-enhancing businesses. There's a reason we have representative democracy and not direct democracy. Elected officials are charged with taking the time to research and understand complex issues. Most citizens do not have the luxury of time to do this. A-24 bypasses the City Council we elected and requires an expensive and time-consuming voting process instead. Vote No on A-24.

It simply states that the old power plant site zoning will remain visitor-serving/commercial and the Measure D area will remain restricted to commercial/recreational fishing unless overturned by a vote of the people. Read the whole ballot measure here. But there is no process for “the people” to vote, except the costly, time-consuming procedures of another citizen initiative, which involve gathering signatures, getting the initiative placed on the ballot, and financing a campaign to educate the voters. That is the reason that most ballot initiatives are initiated by special interest groups that can’t get their way through the legislative process.

The real impact of A-24 is that it would take the battery plant out of the hands of local decision makers and give it to Sacramento. Vistra will get its battery plant one way or the other. A state law passed in 2022 (AB 205) gives Vistra an alternative route to get a permit approved by the California Energy Commission regardless of the wishes of the City or its citizens.

The site where the battery project is planned for is contaminated and unfit for any visitor-serving purposes. The old oil tanks on the 24-acre site have been removed, but the State Department of Toxic Substances Control has declared it cannot legally be used for human-related activities without further remediation (which would be costly). See here for the order. The Governor and the Legislature are committed to the Senate Bill 100 goal of achieving 100% renewable energy by 2045. And they enacted the state-level alternative permit process in AB 205 specifically to override local opposition and prevent NIMBYism. The State's commitment to projects like Vistra's is solid.

The Coastal Commission declined to issue an opinion on the Moss Landing battery plant even though it is adjacent to the Elkhorn Slough, one of California's last great coastal wetlands. It's important to note that the members of the Coastal Commission are appointed by either the Governor or the leaders of the Legislature (4 by the Governor; 4 by the Senate Rules Committee; 4 by the Assembly Speaker). All of these are fully committed to the State's formally adopted renewable energy goal of 100% renewable by 2045. Grid-scale battery storage is a top priority. Will the Commissioners go against their political allies?  Not likely.

Every subsequent buyer and owner of the site has accepted these deed restrictions (read them here), including Vistra. Morro Bay zoning is irrelevant to these restrictions. They could be lifted but only if a future owner or developer is willing to pay for it and assume liability for any damages at a visitor-serving or commercial project due to contamination. These costs and risks reduce the incentive for any developer interested in visitor-serving business.

The City has been trying to sell 781 Market Street (next to Dorn's) for years and there are no takers even though it's in a prime location.  And the old power plant is in a perfect location too--but the Brattle Report (read it here) says Vistra estimates it will cost at least $30 million to take it down. There is no developer who would eat that much money BEFORE beginning to build a project.

The State-level permitting process in AB 205 gives the California Energy Commission (CEC) control over the environmental review of the project. As part of that, the CEC does have to ensure that Morro Bay would benefit economically by the project, but the law does not set out specifically what that would mean in this one case--the law requirements would be satisfied with just the basic property tax benefits without any additional needed benefits. Community benefits could include taking down the old power plant and stacks, constructing a road through the property that would greatly improve circulation for safety, making investments in the fire department, and any number of other important things. The City Council is best placed to negotiate for these specific items. It is highly unlikely that the CEC would care sufficiently about Morro Bay to order the same level of benefits.