Carson council approves 100 MW battery storage project after heated public hearing; vote 3–2

The Carson City Council approved, on a 3–2 roll‑call vote, a development agreement and the first reading of ordinance 26‑2608 that clear the way for a proposed roughly 100‑megawatt battery energy storage system at 18800 Broadway.

The motion, offered as a substitute after deliberations, includes an updated package of community benefits and safety conditions negotiated following the planning commission’s earlier denial. Council members Deer, Dr. Hilton and Roas voted in favor; Mayor Pro Tem Cedric Hicks and Mayor Lula Davis Holmes voted no.

The project—filed as DR‑1935‑23/CUP‑1128‑23 and appealed to the council—would site a group of fenced battery enclosures adjacent to a substation in northwest Carson. Planning Manager McKina Alexander told the council staff and the applicant had proposed a mix of one‑time and annual community payments, and additional safety and financial protections. “For instance, having a one‑time fee for a high school summer internship of $40,000, another one‑time fee for the local elementary school for $25,000… and another one‑time fee of $35,000 for youth sports programming,” Alexander said during staff’s presentation. Staff recommended converting some of those onetime items to annual payments and adding measures including a $500,000 refundable incident deposit (maintained at a $250,000 minimum), a point‑of‑sale payment to the city of $1.50 per megawatt‑hour, participation in investment‑tax‑credit sharing, and a decommissioning security equal to estimated removal costs.

Supporters at the public hearing emphasized jobs, apprenticeships and grid resiliency. “We strongly support item 36 and encourage you to approve the BEST project on Broadway,” said Joe Sullivan of IBW Local 11, who told the council the projects create “high‑road careers” and local hiring opportunities. Labor leaders and carpenters’ union representatives said the developer had committed to union construction jobs and pre‑apprenticeship opportunities.

Opponents pressed for a full environmental review, saying new information warranted rescinding the council’s earlier SEQA exemption. “Please make a motion tonight to include a full SEQA EIR before proceeding with this project,” said Lauren Miles, who cited concerns about the applicant’s corporate history and the limitations of the exemption analysis. Residents repeatedly raised proximity concerns—schools, homes, a medical clinic and neighborhood parks are nearby—and asked for stronger guarantees that the parent company would be liable in the event of a major incident.

Council deliberations centered on three tensions: safety (fire and toxic‑smoke risk), local control and leverage versus state preemption, and what the city should demand in community benefits. Fire‑safety experts and the applicant’s technical witnesses told the council that modern code and product testing reduce propagation risk compared with earlier incidents elsewhere. A fire protection engineer summarized the county’s review and testing: the county conducted a plume analysis and determined nearby “sensitive receptors” would be outside the modeled plume for the proposed site and technology; the product targeted for the Griffith site, the Tesla Mega 2XL, had UL‑9540A testing showing non‑propagation in those tests.

Council member Dr. Hilton framed a local‑control argument for approving the DA: if the council rejected the project now, he warned, the developer could take the application to the state and the city would lose negotiating leverage. “If I vote no, the project could still be green‑lighted by the state of California,” he said, arguing that council approval with added conditions preserves Carson’s ability to require community benefits and safety commitments.

The substitute motion that passed incorporates the council’s enumerated community benefits (the internship, school, youth‑sports funds, and an added $100,000 one‑time payment for the city’s Carson Experience program), safety conditions (annual safety meetings, pre‑operation safety review, emergency‑evacuation planning, on‑site monitoring staff), a requirement to maintain a refundable incident deposit, and a perimeter wall increase from 10 to 13 feet. The motion also records an agreement by the developer to target 150 union construction jobs on the project and to include a point‑of‑sale mechanism for battery sales in Carson. The development agreement was the version the developer submitted to staff prior to the vote; the council directed staff to return with clean ordinance language reflecting those commitments for second reading.

The vote does not end the regulatory path. Several opponents said they would pursue further administrative or legal steps, and some council members asked staff to ensure parental company liability and decommissioning guarantees are explicit in final documents. Council directed staff and the city attorney to finalize the DA language and to post the final agreement for public review before the next hearing step.

What’s next: staff will prepare the final ordinance for second reading, incorporate the clarified community‑benefit and safety terms into the DA, and post the final agreement and associated documents in the city clerk’s office for public inspection. The project remains subject to the permitting processes of affected agencies, including the Los Angeles County Fire Department for operational permitting and safety checks.

Reporting note: quotes are from the May 20, 2026 council meeting public transcript and are attributed to speakers who spoke on the record during the hearing.