Fire broke out again at the fire-scarred Moss Landing battery storage facility Friday morning, prompting a brief shelter-in-place order in Monterey County and reviving concerns about the safety of large-scale battery installations across California — less than two years after the same site suffered one of the worst battery storage fires on record.
Crews with Vistra, the Texas-based company that operates the plant, spotted a new flare-up early Friday near a wall of the building that burned in the original January 2025 blaze. According to North County Fire Protection District Chief Jess Cortez, the likely cause was roughly 1,200 battery modules that had remained inaccessible since the first fire — still holding a charge — which spontaneously ignited.
“They’re in the smoldering stage right now,” Cortez told reporters Friday afternoon, noting there was no active flame at that point. “The incident is very dynamic. There could be possible flare-ups.”
County officials lifted the shelter-in-place order later that day. But the renewed activity at the site has reignited debate over the safety of battery storage systems even as California leans more heavily on them to support its power grid. The state now boasts the largest battery energy storage fleet in the nation, according to an August announcement from the California Energy Commission.
“If we had only known the worst-case scenarios of how not to build batteries, we wouldn’t have built Moss Landing,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a professor in San Jose State University’s school of planning, policy and environmental studies. “Because it keeps coming back to haunt us.”
The latest incident also highlights growing friction between Gov. Gavin Newsom’s efforts to speed up permitting for energy projects and the concerns of communities living near them.
A recurring problem
In January 2025, thick plumes of smoke rose from Vistra’s 300-megawatt battery storage facility at the Moss Landing Power Plant, alarming residents across the region. It marked the fourth safety incident at the site since 2019 — the third involving Vistra’s operations — according to a letter from Assemblymember Dawn Addis, D-San Luis Obispo, to state regulators. That fire burned for days before being brought under control, then flared up again briefly the following month.
Newsom called for a state investigation shortly after the blaze, and the California Public Utilities Commission opened its inquiry with a site visit that same month. Nearly two years later, that investigation remains unfinished. A root-cause analysis is still underway with input from Vistra and an independent consultant, according to commission spokesperson Terrie Prosper.
Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church said the delay has been frustrating.
“Why it takes a year and a half to come up with an answer when everything is just about near the end of being cleaned up, I don’t know,” he said, adding that regulators should understand what caused the fires before approving any new battery storage projects.
Outdated design, new rules too late
Unlike newer battery storage sites, the Moss Landing facility was built inside an older, enclosed building using outdated battery technology packed tightly together — a combination that allowed the original fire to spread rapidly, Mulvaney said.
Denise Grab, director of the Clean Energy Law and Leadership Project at UCLA’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, agreed that the facility predates many of today’s safety standards. Still, she noted that battery storage remains far less harmful overall than fossil fuel power plants, which are linked to serious health problems including asthma and heart disease.
In response to the 2025 fire, California lawmakers passed several new safety measures, including bills introduced by state Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, focused on fire prevention and emergency planning for battery facilities. A 2022 law authored by then-Sen. Ben Hueso required the Public Utilities Commission to establish new safety standards and strengthen oversight of emergency response plans at these sites — but the commission didn’t finalize that proposal until after last year’s fire had already occurred.
“We should have never built Moss Landing the way we did,” Mulvaney said. “We were too late with coming up with the standards and certifications, which make batteries much safer today.”
Lingering health questions
Vistra maintains that the cause of the original fire remains undetermined. The company commissioned a study concluding that chemical levels in nearby soil and water posed no significant risk to human health or the environment, stating that “no further human health or ecological risk evaluation” was necessary.
Independent researchers and residents have pushed back on that conclusion. During the days-long blaze in January 2025, many residents reported symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, headaches and eye irritation. At a public symposium last month, a UC Santa Cruz researcher presented findings showing elevated levels of battery-related materials in residents’ hair samples.
Separately, scientists at San Jose State University’s Moss Landing Marine Laboratories detected elevated concentrations of nickel, manganese and cobalt in soil surrounding the facility. Ivano Aiello, who led that research, said Vistra’s later report examined potential contamination months after the fire had already been contained — raising questions about the timing and completeness of the company’s findings.
The long-term health effects of any exposure remain unclear, and researchers say further study is needed.
Richard Stedman, air pollution control officer for the Monterey Bay Air Resources District, said monitors placed around the Vistra site — four at the fence line and two nearby — had not detected unhealthy particulate levels as of Friday’s briefing.
Still, for many nearby residents, the renewed fire has deepened distrust in the agencies and officials responsible for oversight.
“We’ve had 20 months to prepare for this,” said Brian Roeder, founder of the community group Never Again Moss Landing. “Here we are again, right back where we were before, knowing this could happen.”
Original source: CalMatters
