.jpg)
The Colorado County Commissioners Court failed to approve a motion to grant Mission Clean Energy a tax abatement for the development of a battery storage facility, Monday, July 14.
Mission Clean Energy, a threeyear old renewable energy and storage developer, requested the abatement on May 22 for the construction of its Cottontail Energy Center. The commissioners’ court voted to designate the land as a reinvestment zone to consider the abatement on June 23. The commissioners cited concerns about the safety of the location at the June 23 meeting and revisited them at the July 14 meeting with Mission Clean Energy Development and Operations Manager Will Corvin.
“To me, it’s the location that you haven’t frankly chosen correctly, in my opinion, in our county for us and our citizens and their protection,” County Judge Ty Prause said to Corvin. “I don’t think that you have done the legwork that you should have done in the community and with the local fire departments and any first responders to prepare potentially for an event.”
Mission Clean Energy intends to construct the battery storage facility on an 18.3-acre property northwest of state Highway 71 and Interstate 10. The property is in close proximity to numerous homes, Glidden Baptist Church, Colorado County Emergency Medical Services and the Colorado County Precinct 1 Constable’s Office.
The commissioners voiced concerns over the potential for a fire or another emergency that could threaten the safety of residents, drivers on the highways and government operations. Prause referenced a battery storage facility fire in Moss Landing, California, that resulted in an evacuation of 1,500 residents. However, Corvin said Mission Clean Energy’s facilities are constructed with different chemistry and under new safety codes.
“[Moss Landing’s] batteries were powered by nickel manganese cobalt, which is a more volatile chemical than what we are using and proposing lithium iron phosphate, which has a much lower chance of thermal events,” Corvin said.
Corvin said Moss Landing’s facilities were placed inside a building not originally designed for battery storage. Mission Clean Energy plans for an outdoor facility with no structure to catch and spread fire with improved safety systems. Corvin said that specific details on emergency response would be outlined later, specifically by the facility’s operator. Corvin clarified that Mission Clean Energy would not be operating the facility and will later sell the development to another company to operate and construct the facility.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Ryan Brandt said he prioritizes the economic benefits of companies requesting tax abatement.
“I try to take into a lot of consideration about the economic impact that that entity would provide for the community and the county, and I don’t see that with a battery storage facility,” Brandt said. “You’re not bringing in 50 new employees. You’re not dumping back into the economy here in the community. This is an 18-month, at the most, long-term project to have been built and then it’s done.”
Corvin said that the facility’s economic benefits are its tax revenue for the county and stabilization of local electricity. According to Mission Clean Energy’s presentation at the June 23 meeting, the facility would have generated an estimated $6.4 million in tax revenue with 100% abatement over 10 years.
“This is an incredibly tax capital intensive project, and I don’t think the county would see anywhere close to the level of tax revenues from this particular parcel from any other project even if we were to receive a full abatement,” Corvin said.
For stabilization, Corvin said that the facility would help balance out the pricing spikes and power failures in the state’s electrical grid during inclement weather. However, the distribution of electricity would be controlled by the Lower Colorado River Authority, not the operator of the facility.
Right before the failed motion, Prause recognized that the commissioners’ court does not have the authority to prevent the construction of the facility. At the beginning of the meeting, Corvin said that not receiving an abatement would not necessarily stop the facility’s development and construction.
“There is a large number of projects that are being proposed and being built, and in order for one to be built in Colorado county and for the county in particular to benefit from these tax revenues, there will need to be competitive,” Corvin said. “It falls to be incorrect to say that this project won’t be built without a tax abatement. I think that the chances of it getting built and operational with the support and benefit of the community increase significantly with even a partial abatement.”
Prause encouraged Corvin and Mission Clean Energy to rethink their development planning with the community’s input. None of the commissioners moved to approve the application for abatement resulting in its failure and denial.
