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

The post Moss Landing Battery Plant Fire Reignites, Stoking Fresh Safety Concerns Statewide appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SAN DIEGO, CA — Following last week’s lithium battery fire resulting in evacuation orders and warnings at a San Diego Gas & Electric battery storage facility in Escondido, the County Board of Supervisors will consider putting a pause on future such facilities.

The action in front of the supervisors on Wednesday will present several options to the board. The body can request additional fire suppression technical reports and/or include new disclosure requirements to make any new battery energy storage systems go “above and beyond” current code requirements.

Additionally, they will have the choice to put a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of new BESS applications or adopt an urgency ordinance requiring new facilities to use modular designs and follow National Fire Protection Association guidelines.

The item was already scheduled for the board but gained more urgency following the Thursday afternoon fire at the SDG&E facility. The fire was allowed to burn out by itself — per industry standard, a statement from the Escondido Fire Department read.

Just one of the site’s 24 cells caught fire.

While no one was injured by the fire, evacuation orders were issued to businesses in the largely industrial part of the city.

The moratorium the supervisors will discuss couldn’t come any sooner, some residents say.

“Area residents are renewing their call for the county to issue a moratorium on building new lithium battery storage facilities in neighborhoods,” reads a statement from a group of citizens, including JP Theberge of the Elfin Forest Harmony Grove Town Council and Joe Rowley, a retired engineer and battery storage facility developer.

“The Escondido battery fire is unfolding in an industrial area away from homes and residences. However, it reinforces the concerns of residents that a project that is 10 times larger (the Seguro project) is being proposed, which would be surrounded by hundreds of homes and upwind from a hospital in northern San Diego County, near Escondido,” they write. “Despite the current fire being in an industrial area, hundreds of businesses were evacuated and many more were told to shelter-in-place. Schools located downwind were closed today as well.”

Should the supervisors elect the moratorium route, it could freeze the proposed AES’ Seguro storage project in Escondido, not far from where Thursday’s fire took place. This project would be capable of storing up to 320 megawatts or 1,280 megawatt hours worth of energy — several times larger than the facility where the fire continues to burn.

Without the BESS facilities, the county could have a difficult time meeting its climate goals.

The battery storage facilities are a component of the county’s respond to green energy, storing energy from renewable sources such as solar or wind to use as needed. They are intended as an alternative or at least a supplement to fossil fuel energies such as natural gas and oil.

Since 2021, there have been 45 fires at similar BESS facilities, including one at the Otay Mesa battery storage earlier this year and one in Valley Center last year.

The post Board To Consider Battery Storage Site Pause Following Lithium Fire appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.