On Election Day, Morro Bay voters approved Measure A-24, a land-use measure designed to block the construction of a proposed battery storage facility at the decommissioned Morro Bay Power Plant.
According to the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder, nearly 60% of voters voted “yes” on the measure, reflecting community concerns about the proposed facility.
The purposes of Measure A-24 are to “prevent the visual and physical degradation of Morro Bay’s natural environment” and “preserve Morro Bay as a world-renowned tourist destination,” Resolution No. 61-23 from the Morro Bay City Council stated.
Measure A-24 does not explicitly name the battery storage facility; however, the measure addresses land use on either side of Embarcadero Rd. to Morro Rock through Plan Morro Bay, the City of Morro Bay’s general land-use plan. This land use determination implies that the measure impacts the site of the old power plant along Embarcadero Rd.
The resolution argued that the 107-acre property the plant sits on should be used to support industries more aligned with Morro Bay’s identity as a coastal town.
However, Morro Bay resident Jacob McLoughlin sees the positives of repurposing the old power plant.
“Morro Bay won’t have to outsource power and will provide a safety net in a natural disaster,” McLoughlin said. “Plus, the battery storage facility should only take a small fraction of the old plant.”
Vistra Corp., the Texas-based company behind the proposed 600-megawatt battery storage facility, decided to withdraw its application with the city and seek approval directly from the California Energy Commission, a state agency with the authority to bypass local opposition.
“The city is disappointed to learn of Vistra’s intent to bypass local zoning,” the City of Morro Bay stated on its website.
Morro Bay resident Judy Sestrom voiced her support for the measure and opposition to Vistra’s decision. Sestrom said she voted for the A-24 measure, believing it would be the best way to prevent the project from moving forward.
“A-24 is supposed to be for the people,” Sestrom said, “I am going to further my investigation, because I am not happy about [Vistra Corp.] going through the state.”
Correction: This article was updated on Dec. 6 to correct an incorrect fact