The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Spotlight

Is the California Battery Fire an East Palestine Moment?

Moss Landing is turning into a growing problem for the energy storage industry.

Moss Landing in the crosshairs.
Heatmap Pro/Getty Images

The Moss Landing battery fire now may be the storage industry’s East Palestine moment – at least in California.

In the weeks since Vistra’s battery plant south of San Francisco caught fire on January 16, at least two lawsuits have been filed against Vistra, PG&E, and battery manufacturer LG Chem by people and business owners claiming damages from the blaze. I have learned at least one more will be filed by individuals who’ve conducted headline-grabbing soil samples that found toxic metals.

Meanwhile, towns and counties up and down the California coastline have banned new battery storage projects and requested more control from the state over permitting and operating them.

At the granular level, circumstances look even more tense. Santa Barbara County this week voted to proactively plan for the potential enactment of legislation before the California state assembly that would let localities be the decider on battery storage, instead of state authorities. The bill is scheduled for its first hearing in the assembly’s utility committee in early April. County officials voted to act essentially like it will become the law of the land, despite testimony from local community services staff noting how unique the Moss Landing event was.

What was especially stark to me: Robert Shaw – CEO of local utility Central Coast Community Energy – spoke before the supervisors and made it clear lots of additional storage would be required for the company to meet its 2030 climate commitments. He explained that storage has to be close to where the energy load is in order to avoid costly transmission lines, telling the board that “in order to operate, they’ve got to add reliability to the grid – but they’ve also got to be affordable.”

Now, today, we’re expecting new regulations arising from California’s battery fire fears: the Public Utilities Commission will vote to adopt proposed recommendations for battery storage siting requirements. This will include requirements for emergency response and action plans after battery fires and new standards for safe operation. A vote to adopt these recommendations is scheduled later this afternoon and advocates in California tell me they anticipate no hiccups.

So why such a profound local revolt? How did California rapidly deploy battery storage only to veer into possibly emboldening local control, which certainly may make residents feel better but would also stall the pace of the energy transition?

I’ve spent the last week looking into it and the simplest explanation is this: Moss Landing still feels like a disaster zone. Residents miles away from where the blaze occurred are suffering mysterious illnesses, like random bloody noses and headaches, and medical issues they suspect is related to the fire, such as a random metallic taste. I’ve seen the pictures of skin that looks burned and heard the voices of people who say they no longer have most of their voice after inhaling airborne substances after the event. Locals are routinely posting online about how they’re extremely disappointed with the government’s response, especially state and federal officials, and at the end of the day, no matter the cause, word of such profound and lasting suffering can spread across the internet like, well, a wildfire.

The industry also clearly believes opposition is growing because of misunderstandings about how Moss Landing was a singular incident – most battery storage sites are outdoors and use battery chemistries that offer less risk of a “thermal runaway” event, which is the term of art used to describe the uncontrolled fire spread that can occur at a battery storage site.

Renewables trade group American Clean Power gathered media last week for a virtual briefing to discuss battery safety, during which the group’s vice president of energy storage Noah Roberts sought to reassure the public and said the organization is “working to ensure that an event like this doesn’t happen in the future and do not anticipate an event like this will happen in the future.”

“This battery storage project was located within a retrofitted power plant from the 1950s and very much represents a global anomaly,” Roberts said, adding that “this incident and its impact is not something we have previously seen.”

None of this is stopping Moss Landing from becoming a galvanizing event. I’ve learned that activists on the ground and their attorneys are receiving a flood of inquiries from individuals fighting battery projects elsewhere in the United States.

“You’re going to feel absolutely like guinea pigs — and, unfortunately, you are because protocols weren’t in place,” environmental activist Erin Brockovich told affected residents at a public virtual town hall I attended late Tuesday night. Brockovich encouraged anyone who believes they were impacted by the battery fire to work publicly and behind the scenes to get the local control legislation in the state assembly passed. “Your input, hundreds and hundreds of you, on this legislation can help change the course for many communities in California in the future, on where [BESS] is built, how far away. Are they not going to be built?”

Knut Johnson, an attorney who is representing victims in one of the lawsuits, told me he believes this story should ultimately go national with seismic ramifications for the storage industry. He also told me he’s “curious to see how the Trump administration responds to this.” Johnson put the webinar on with Brockovich, who, he told me, is acting as a paralegal assisting with the case.

“This was so sudden and unexpected and following several years of magical thinking where they weren’t preparing for this possibility,” he said of the developers and state officials.

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Meta’s Bacterial Mystery Could Poison the Data Center Well

Water pollution in Wyoming has big implications for the future of data center development.

A data center and water pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Did a Meta data center introduce a rare, dangerous bacteria into the sewers system of Wyoming’s capitol city? It’s an environmental pollution mystery with an answer that could decide the future of American AI infrastructure development.

Our drama begins in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where the city’s board of public utilities just wrapped up a lengthy investigation into the presence of Cupriavidus gilardii, a potentially lethal bacteria resistant to heavy metals, in the city’s wastewater treatment systems. Apparently, in February, board staff detected the contamination and shut off public access to the city’s water reuse system, a supply of treated non-potable water fed with treated wastewater and used for lawns, athletic fields, and other green spaces. Officials were worried that spraying this water could release into the environment a bacteria found to cause fatal health outcomes in immunocompromised or elderly people who are infected by it.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How Big of a Problem Is Data Center Noise?

A conversation with Ross Marchard of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Ross Marchard, executive director for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a center-right advocacy group that focuses on what it sees are onerous policies potentially hindering responsible collection and use of tax dollars. TPA’s position on AI clearly skews pro-free market, as they’ve recently defended Anthropic from Trump administration attacks. TPA also recently took on the mantle of defending data centers from noise complaints, publishing a paper on Tuesday “debunking myths about data centers being excessively noisy.” The paper references various analyses of data centers by state legislators and local regulators to argue that claims the sector is generally noisy are false.

I asked TPA’s executive director to chat with me about why and how the organization will try to quell these fears. The conversation was really interesting so I decided to share it with you in full, sans light editing for clarity and consistency.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Electro-Magnetic Freakout on the Cape

And more of the week’s news around project development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Barnstable County, Massachusetts – I have a whopper of an update on the Vineyard Wind project, which might be in operation but risks becoming fodder in the fight against offshore wind.

  • Like all offshore wind projects, Vineyard Wind has to send power to the coastline via cable. One of the three sites where these giant power lines land is Barnstable, a small shore community, where longtime residents for years have voiced concerns about electromagnetic fields or EMF.
  • Concerns about EMF are comparable to those about infrasound from data centers. We do not know whether these concerns are really rooted in legitimate health impacts, as I have written, but regardless this remains a common concern raised around large high-voltage power lines, including those for offshore wind projects.
  • On June 30, the town’s board of health heard from a group of Barnstable residents who claim to have measured EMF from the town’s wind cable. The same group, Save Greater Downes Beach, had unsuccessfully sought to stop the cables through litigation and public pressure.
  • This board of health meeting was controversial: Ahead of the meeting, the director of Sierra Club’s Massachusetts chapter wrote the board of health requesting their testimony be limited and no action be taken on the findings. “Concerns being raised about electromagnetic field exposure associated with Vineyard Wind 1’s underground export cables are not only invalid but outside of the Board of Health’s jurisdiction,” wrote chapter director Vick Mohanka, according to a copy of the letter posted to Facebook by anti-wind activist Susanne Conley.
  • This Sierra Club chapter was right to be concerned about how this meeting would affect Vineyard Wind. I watched the lengthy testimony before the board of health. Activists presented a case that the town should implore regulators with authority to deeply study the wind farm cables. They asked the board of health to back a state study on EMF and put the question before the Massachusetts permitting regulator, the Energy Facility Siting Board.
  • “We’re not asking the board to place any restrictions or limitations on the project at this time,” Gary Peters, a local medical professional and member of Save Greater Dowses Beach, told the board. “We’re asking you to put that ball in the court of EFSB.”
  • The board was receptive to this request. Board chair F.P. Lee told the group he would “take this under advisement” and said he’d talk to their legal department about it. Daniel Luczkow, the board’s vice chair, said he agreed with activists’ feelings that Barnstable residents were “guinea pigs.”
  • “It sounds like the contention is that these levels we’re measuring are much, much higher than the information given when the project was started,” Luczkow said. “We’re the only place on the planet, maybe, that actually runs these [cables] through a populated area and we have no idea what type of damage they’re causing?”
  • Should Barnstable strenuously take this issue up, I would predict it only be a matter of time before it’s also raised by organs of the federal government. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last year asked the Centers for Disease Control to study negative health impacts from precisely this infrastructure. This kind of hyperlocal squabble is often what manifests as conversation in anti-wind opposition circles, and Vineyard Wind was already causing PR headaches for the energy transition.
  • Avangrid did not respond to a request for comment.

2. Prince William County, Virginia – Northern Virginia is officially hostile territory for data center developers, and I learned about it through a call from my mom.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow