Battery Energy Storage
Deployment and Safety
Scott Murtishaw,
Executive Director
Clean Power Alliance Board Meeting
November 6, 2025
Agenda
▪ Energy Storage Deployment
▪ Project Design: Containers vs Buildings
▪ Public Health Impacts of Energy Storage Incidents
▪ Legislative Energy Storage Safety Activity
▪ Statewide Regulatory Activity
▪ Local Ordinance Development
2 3
Energy Storage Deployment and Design
Energy Storage Deployment
4 • California leads the US in energy storage capacity
• As of April 2025, California had nearly 16,000 MW installed, up from 600 MW at the end of 2018
• 214 utility-scale projects account for 85% of the capacity • Over 250,000 residential and commercial systems account for the rest
• According to CPUC data, 14,000 MW of additional utility-scale storage is under contract and expected to be online by 2028 5 Growth of Energy Storage in California
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2007-16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cumulative Additions of Storage Through April 2025, MW
Utility
Residential
Commercial
Source: CEC California Energy Storage System Survey.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-storage-system-survey 6 Reliability Value of Energy Storage
Year Peak Load, MW Blackouts Flex Alerts Summer Energy Storage, MW
2020 47,121 2 5 763
2022 52,061 0 11 3,465
2024 48,323 0 0 9,883
7 Evolving Energy Storage Standards,
Technologies, and Project Design
8 Newer Standards and Technologies Reduce Risks
• As an early adopter, some facilities in CA were designed and permitted before the creation of national manufacturing and installation standards
• The National Fire Protection Association issued its first 855 standard in 2020, which is updated every three years
• California Fire Code lags NFPA by three years – updates this summer adopted the 2023 code
• UL 9540 listing only began requiring burn testing in 2022 • Products must show that thermal runaway will not propagate beyond a single unit (cell, module, rack, or container)
• The lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistries now dominant are more stable than nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) chemistries 9 Outdoor Project Design Reduces Scope of Incidents
• In the 2010s, two competing approaches to
energy storage design:
• Indoor, building-based with racks of batteries
housed in warehouse-like buildings
• Outdoor, container-based designs with batteries
housed in modular containers
• Cost and quality control advantages led to
dominance of containerized configurations
• Only ten of California’s 214 utility-scale projects
are in buildings
• Container fires rarely propagate to other
units, and only to immediately adjacent units
• This feature limits the BESS capacity at risk to
less than 2% of the capacity consumed by
thermal runaway at Moss Landing
10 Energy Storage Incidents and Public
Health/Environmental Impacts
11 Energy Storage Safety Incidents
• Lithium-Ion Batteries Are Susceptible to Overheating
• In some cases, overheating results in thermal runaway, a chemical reaction that does not require oxygen
• Eleven Thermal Incidents Have Occurred in CA Since 2021 • About Half of These Incidents Have Involved Thermal Runaway • No Injuries Have Occurred at Thermal Incidents in California • No Fires Have Ever Propagated Beyond Energy Storage Facility Boundaries
12 Public Health Impact of Energy Storage Incidents
• When lithium-ion batteries burn or overheat, they can produce several pollutants of potential concern
• Toxic gases: carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)
• Particulate matter (PM), including metals
• Hydrofluoric acid
• House fires also produce CO, HCN, HCl, and PM
• Air, water, and soil samples collected at several incidents have never detected concentrations of pollutants of concern for public health
13 Findings from Incidents in CA and NY
• Elkhorn (2022): HF was below detectable limits during the incident
• New York (2023): Following three incidents, the state reported no harmful levels of toxins in air, water, or soil samples tested • Gateway (2024): No toxic gases detected, even as close as 15 feet
• Escondido (2024): Air monitoring found zero emissions of HF, HCl, and HCN. Trace levels of CO found may have been due to ambient conditions. No hydrofluoric acid detected in the runoff water
14 Findings from Moss Landing
• Dozens of air quality monitors detected no emissions of CO, HCN, or HCl, and PM 2.5 concentrations were “good” to “moderate,” similar to other Bay Area locations
• Two monitors briefly detected HF, but the levels were far below CA’s stringent exposure limits
• Surface water samples in the area found no effects from the fire • Of 2,200 soil samples taken, only 11 exceeded an exposure limit, but many were either not associated with an Li-NMC fire (lead) or were contradicted by subsequent re-analysis
• Two studies of agricultural soil samples found that levels of metals associated with Li-NMC batteries were indistinguishable from or only slightly higher than background levels, and well below exposure limits 15 Energy Storage Safety Legislative and
Regulatory Activity
16 CESA and ACP Safety Recommendations
• After Moss Landing, CESA and American Clean Power
developed a set of safety recommendations for consideration by the Legislature, regulators, and local jurisdictions.
• Accelerating the adoption of the latest National Fire Protection Association standards into the CA Fire Code,
• Prohibiting indoor configurations for new facilities, • Inspecting existing facilities and requiring new hazard mitigation analyses and emergency response plans for certain facilities, • Establishing a public-private energy storage safety consortium, • Creating a new utility-scale version of the state’s existing energy storage permitting guide for customer-sited storage, and
• Providing more training for local and state officials. 17 Legislative Action
• SB 283 (Laird)
• Requires project developers to conduct pre-construction consultation and post-construction inspections with local fire departments • Requires the State Fire Marshal to consider whether to limit future energy storage project design: either to outdoor configurations only or to include indoor facilities in noncombustible, dedicated-use buildings • AB 841 (Patel)
• Requires the State Fire Marshal to form a working group to study personal protective equipment needs for different types of lithium-ion fires
18 State Regulatory Action
• SB 1383 (Hueso, 2022) required the CPUC to update its General Order 167 power plant inspection program to include energy storage facilities • The CPUC adopted an inspection and auditing program in March • Staff released the results of an initial survey of energy storage facilities in July with information on chemistry and configuration
19 Model Ordinance Underway
• To assist local governments, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) began working on a model ordinance and “toolkit” for renewable energy and energy storage at the start of 2025
• A draft model ordinance was released in September, and comments were due October 10
• The draft recommends ministerial permits for Industrial, Commercial, and degraded Agricultural parcels and discretionary for all other classifications
• GO-Biz plans to release a final model ordinance and toolkit in November
CESA Contact Info
Scott Murtishaw, Executive Director – [email protected] Karolina Maslanka, Policy Director – [email protected] Safety Resources
CESA: https://storagealliance.org/safety-resources
ACP: https://www.energystorage.org/safety
Select References
https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Newsroom/2023-Announcements/2023-12-21-Governor-Hochul-Announces-Results-of-Fire-Safety-Working-Group https://voiceofsandiego.org/2024/09/09/dispelling-disinformation-on-battery-fire-in-escondido/ https://www.readymontereycounty.org/emergency/2025-moss-landing-vistra-power-plant-fire 20 Resources
Clean Energy
Community
Risk
Reduction
County of Los
Angeles Fire
Department
Richard
Stillwagon
VISION STATEMENT
Our vision is to lead the nation in
community risk reduction by promoting
safety and prevention by empowering
businesses, residential communities
towards a more resilient future and
partnering across Los Angeles County to
help create a safer energy sustainable
future.
PURPOSE
To be the trusted fire regulatory partner
that ensures clean energy projects succeed
safely.
REGULATORY APPROVAL IS ESSENTIAL:
Public Trust
Putting community
SAFETY first.
Prevention –
Reducing unique
risks before
emergencies.
Geography and
population density in
LA County
Partnering with
public and private
partners =
Successful Outcomes
Collaboration and
Success for:
12 Current
Projects
12 Future
Projects
LA County Fire has approved
the largest BESS facility in
LA County – CALD-BESS.
Currently working with:
Carson, Irwindale, Industry,
Santa Clarita, Acton, and
Unincorporated LA County.
PARTNERING BEYOND
GOVERNANCE
• Support is more than
Regulation:
County and Cities
Developers
Electrician Unions
Battery Manufacturers
Energy Partners
Community
Permitting – Fire Process
1. Land Development
EIR –
Environmental Impact
Report Review
Fire Water & Access
1 2. Building Plan
Review
Requires an AMMR –
Alternative Materials
and Methods Review
2 3. Filed Inspections
First Responder
Training
3 Stakeholders
Internal:
1. IMD
2. Communications/PIO Division
3. ODEI
City &
County
Departments
Developers & Builders
Utilities &
Unions
Public Trust
Vision & Clarity Through Leadership
Developing streamlined and efficient processes.
Maintain highest safety standard.
To safely serve the community and industry for years to come.