The company behind a controversial battery energy storage project near Watsonville has changed, but plans to seek state approval for the facility—and the opposition surrounding it—remain.
Chicago-based Invenergy has acquired the proposed Seahawk Energy Storage Project at 90 Minto Road from New Leaf Energy and will become its owner and lead developer, the company announced in an Aug. 26 letter to Santa Cruz County Executive Officer Nicole Coburn.
New Leaf will remain involved while the project goes through the California Energy Commission’s permitting process, which Invenergy expects to conclude by the end of 2027.
The proposed 200-megawatt battery energy storage system, or BESS, would be built near College Lake and adjacent to PG&E’s Green Valley Substation.
The project has drawn fierce opposition from nearby residents and groups including Stop Lithium BESS in Santa Cruz County and Never Again Moss Landing, which have raised concerns about fire hazards, toxic emissions, emergency access and the facility’s proximity to homes, farmland and College Lake.
Invenergy says the project will use newer technology and meet modern fire and safety standards.
The ownership change comes several months after New Leaf withdrew its application from Santa Cruz County and instead sought approval through the California Energy Commission’s Opt-In Certification Program. County records show New Leaf withdrew its county application May 7. The company applied to the state May 27.
Invenergy plans to continue down that path.
“We recognize and respect the extensive work Santa Cruz County put into proposing a new ordinance to protect your residents,” the company said in written responses to The Pajaronian.
Invenergy said it supports the draft BESS ordinance presented to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in January, but also agrees with New Leaf’s decision to pursue approval from the state.
The company said it anticipates that the CEC will honor provisions of the county’s proposed ordinance.
That decision has been a major point of contention surrounding Seahawk.
Santa Cruz County had been developing an ordinance that would establish local regulations for utility-scale battery storage facilities when New Leaf moved its application to the state. Under the opt-in process, the CEC becomes the permitting and California Environmental Quality Act review agency for the project.
The CEC is currently reviewing Seahawk. Its online docket shows that the change in ownership was formally filed Aug. 27 and that residents continue to submit comments opposing the project.
Invenergy says acquiring Seahawk fits into its broader push to develop energy infrastructure in California.
The company says it has developed more than 230 projects totaling more than 38 gigawatts worldwide, including more than 25 energy storage projects totaling more than 1,250 megawatts. Invenergy owns or operates six projects in California and has a pipeline of prospective solar, geothermal and storage projects in the state totaling more than 1,700 megawatts.
“Utility-scale battery energy storage systems like the Seahawk Energy Storage Project are critical to help meet rising energy demand and address the energy affordability crisis in California,” the company told The Pajaronian.
But the proposed location has made Seahawk a flashpoint.
More than 150 people attended a February meeting at Pinto Lake City Park organized by Stop Lithium BESS in Santa Cruz County. Residents and speakers raised concerns about fire, environmental contamination and evacuation routes, particularly following the January 2025 fire at the Vistra battery storage facility in Moss Landing.
The opposition group says the Minto Road facility would be about 500 feet from the nearest residences and uphill from College Lake, and has raised concerns about narrow roads that could complicate evacuation and emergency response. It also points to surrounding farmland and nearby wetlands as reasons the location is inappropriate.
The group also disputes claims that lithium-iron-phosphate technology eliminates the danger of major fires, pointing to fires involving LFP battery systems elsewhere.
Nina Audino, founder of Stop Lithium BESS in Santa Cruz County, said the change in ownership has done nothing to alleviate the group’s concerns about the project.
“My concerns with this technology are the same,” she said.
Audino said there is still too little information available about how Invenergy might change Seahawk, including what battery system will replace the one previously proposed.
She said she supports moving away from fossil fuels and believes electrification will be an important part of that transition, but argues that large lithium-based battery facilities are the wrong approach.
“The carbon footprint has to stop,” she said. “We have to learn to live differently. And I believe electrification in part or in large part is part of the solution, but not using this technology, not with this particular kind of battery.”
She also said opposition to Seahawk reflects a larger debate playing out across California over where utility-scale battery facilities should be located. Audino said projects proposed near residential and agricultural communities have encountered significant opposition, while large energy developments in more remote portions of the state present a different land-use question.
“It’s one thing to place these facilities in half semi-desert arid areas like in Kern County or in Fresno County, miles away from residential areas,” she said. “And it’s another thing to try to pack them in coastal counties, in rural areas that are heavily agricultural.”
Invenergy, however, says Seahawk would differ significantly from the Moss Landing facility.
The company said the project would use containerized batteries with greater thermal stability and a lower fire risk than the nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries used at Moss Landing. Invenergy says the batteries will be housed in separate outdoor containers rather than inside a building.
“What happened at the Moss Landing battery storage facility in 2025 cannot happen at a modern energy storage site,” Invenergy spokesman Jefferson Caves said, citing changes in technology, regulations and industry standards.
The company says Seahawk will comply with NFPA 855, the International Fire Code and SB 38, along with other applicable state and national requirements.
Invenergy also says the project would bring more than $50 million in economic benefits to Santa Cruz County over its projected lifespan of more than 20 years.
According to Caves, that includes more than $2 million annually in property tax revenue, more than $8 million in sales and use taxes associated with construction and equipment purchases and $150,000 for training and contributions to the local fire protection district. Invenergy estimates construction would employ as many as 50 workers at its peak and that the completed facility would support five permanent operations and maintenance jobs.
It is not yet clear how the specifics of the project will change under the new ownership. Caves said those details will become clear in the coming months in a “transparent, community-focused transition.”
The company plans to switch from batteries supplied by China-based Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited, or CATL, because they are no longer compliant with federal regulations, Caves said.
“Invenergy will employ a different battery model that is proven, reliable, and complies with current rules on country of origin,” he said, but stopped short of naming the model the company plans to use.
Audino said changing manufacturers or battery models would not resolve the group’s broader concerns about placing a large lithium-based storage facility near homes and agricultural land.
She argues that the risks associated with lithium batteries are significantly different when thousands of batteries are concentrated at a utility-scale storage facility. She pointed to potential failures involving not only battery cells but also components of the battery-management system.
“It is a risk that’s not necessary,” she said.
Invenergy says it intends to continue the community outreach begun by New Leaf and meet with local leaders and residents as the CEC review proceeds. New Leaf will remain involved during that process.
Opposition, meanwhile, is continuing. Recent filings in the CEC proceeding include comments raising concerns about emergency access, fire protection, battery testing, environmental impacts and the project’s proximity to nearby residents.
Invenergy says its lead developer for Seahawk will reach out to county and community leaders in the coming months.
“We look forward to working with you to create a safe project that benefits Santa Cruz County while meeting growing energy demand and supporting the climate action goals” of the county, Central Coast Community Energy and California, Invenergy Senior Vice President Laura Miner wrote to Coburn.
