Breaking News - Same ole s***, different decade 3/07/25
Chemical Disaster on the Central Coast, Governor Silent
Jan. 19, 2025
Moss Landing, Calif.
Nestled along the coastline of central California the second largest estuary, the Elkhorn Slough, is a picturesque natural beauty and habitat for over 700 species of aquatic animals, birds, fish, and native vegetation. The largest concentration of sea otters call the Elkhorn slough home.
At the mouth of the Elkhorn slough sits the Moss Landing Power Plant. Originally opened in 1950, the Moss Landing Power Plant known for its two iconic stacks became the location of the worst chemical and environmental disaster in the history of Monterey County on the afternoon of Thursday, January 16, 2025, when the Vistra Battery Energy Storage System overheated, and the suppression and safety systems failed.
The failure of Vistra Energy's equipment caused a domino effect resulting in flames well over 100 feet in height and a dark plume of smoke from the engulfed lithium-ion batteries that could be seen for miles.
By the evening, officials had closed Highway 1 in both directions and ordered the mandatory evacuation of Moss Landing and neighboring areas of the Elkhorn slough. The community of North Monterey County was instructed to stay inside their homes with the windows closed and not run the ventilation system.
When questioned regarding the threat to public health, local officials failed to provide clear answers to concerned residents, deferring to Vistra Energy's self-reporting that thermal runaway had not occurred and that hydrogen fluoride had not been released. Vistra did not provide documentation of these claims other than to state through its representative, Brad Watson, that Vistras sensors and monitors did not detect hydrogen fluoride.
At a press conference in the days after as the Vistra Battery Energy Storage System continued to burn, Vistra representative, Brad Watson, attempted to alleviate community members' concerns regarding public health and the environment by announcing that Vista had hired the same outside for-profit consultant from the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment, CTEH (Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health). While local officials either sheepishly nodded in agreement or anxiously rubbed their wrists on camera, residents took to online comments expressing their anger and frustration with the handling of the situation.
A preliminary report from Vistra's outside consultant, CTEH, detected zero toxic chemicals in air samples collected on January 17, 2025. CTEH also made similar claims in reports regarding the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment. Residents aren't buying Vistras or public officials' reassurances that everything is perfectly fine when they can smell the burning lithium-ion batteries throughout their community. Public officials, many of whom supported this project, don't want to ask the tough questions or admit they were wrong by allowing Monterey County to become a test site for dangerous Green New Deal projects. California Governor Gavin Newsom has yet to even visit the location despite increasing demands from central coast residents for state and federal assistance.
A once beautiful and thriving community of fertile lands, clean air, and protected waters, is now poisoned. The damage from Vistra's Battery Energy Storage System will have a negative, lasting effect for generations, as to what they will be only time will tell.
CTEH is a Subsidiary of Montrose Environmental Group, Inc.
Montrose has 36 reported subsidiaries.
You can learn more about these companies below.
Same ole s***, different decade
March 7, 2025
Moss Landing, Calif.
Plant upgrade proposed in Moss Landing
Californian (Salinas), 10 December 1998
“The improvement plans hinge on approval from the California Energy Commission.”
“...promised no disruption to Moss Landing if construction is allowed to begin.”
Groups assail environmental plan
Californian (Salinas), 18 July 2000
“A $7 million plan to protect Elkhorn Slough marine life from the expansion of Moss Landing's mammoth electricity-generating power plant came under fire Monday.”
“'It's not a mitigation plan. It's a compensation check that may or may not turn into a mitigation program down the line,' said Kaitlin Gaffney, program director for the Center for Marine Conservation in Santa Cruz.'”
“Steve Shimek, executive director of The Otter Project Inc., a Marina conservation group, said, 'We just don't have enough information to support the project.”
County seeks MTBE data
Californian (Salinas), 26 July 2000
“Monterey County Supervisor's want to know if the controversial gasoline addictive MTBE could affect the country's $2.5 billion farm industry.”
“Unanimously approved a letter to the California Energy Commission expressing concerns about traffic, biological and public access issues with Duke Energy's proposed renovation of its Moss Landing power plant.”
“The supervisors said they want updates every two years on monitoring of the power plant's impact on Elkhorn Slough and Monterey Bay waters.”
Duke awaits decision
Californian (Salinas), 12 August 2000
“The proposed power-plant renovation recently came under fire from Monterey bay area environmental groups.”
“They (environmental groups) contend that a proposed mitigation plan would provide inadequate compensation for damage to marine life in Elkhorn Slough and Monterey Bay from power-plant operations.”
“The plan, put together by energy commission staffers, calls for Duke Energy to contribute $7 million toward the purchase, restoration or protection of Elkhorn Slough wetlands
State board OKs power plant project
Californian (Salinas), 27 October 2000
“Capping nearly two years of regulatory review, the California Energy Commission unanimously approved the 1,060-megawatt expansion sought by power-plant owner Duke Energy on Wednesday.”
“To address concerns about the renovated power plant's impacts on marine life in Elkhorn Slough and Monterey Bay, Duke Energy will pay $7 million for environmental mitigation.”
“This summer, several environmental groups voiced concern that the plant's cooling system could trap and kill up to 13 percent of the fish larvae of major species in the Elkhorn Slough.”
“To offset the potential loss, the state proposed that Duke Energy put up $7 million to help protect 390 acres of wetlands – an area representative about 13 percent of the 3,000-acre slough.”
Big day for Duke
Californian (Salinas), 17 November 2000
“Thursday's official start of construction came after Duke Energy spent 22 months getting plans for the power plant upgrade approved by regulatory agencies.”
“That process was capped by an 11th-hour agreement to kick in $1 million to monitor the effects of the plant's use of millions of gallons of Monterey Bay water on the nearby Elkhorn Slough ecosystem. That money came on top of a $7 million environmental-mitigation program required by the state agencies.”
“'We're happy. We'll see our concerns … addressed,' said Vicki Nichols, policy and research director for Save Our Shores, a Santa Cruz environmental organization.”
Duke to help in Moss Landing
Californian (Salinas), 29 November 2000
“Being home to a huge power plant hasn't been a boon for the harbor community of Moss Landing.”
“...over the next few years, with the help of $3.4 million from Duke Energy North America to pay for several community improvements.”
“'Duke Energy has stepped up and made a wonderful contribution to the community,' said Melanie Mayer Gideon, vice president of the Moss Landing Chamber of Commerce, on Tuesday.”
“'Moss Landing had never gotten anything out of (the power plant) except the impacts of pollutants, traffic and noise,' said county Supervisor Lou Calcagno, who lives in the area. He helped broker the deal between Duke and the Moss Landing chamber.”
“'It's a good deal,' Calcagno said, 'It's a win for the community, a win for Duke and a win for the county.'”
“Under the 20-year deal Duke will put up money to:
Pick up the private costs of putting utility lines underground along Moss Landing and Sandholdt roads.
Put in new and more streetlights, with a design specifically suited for the harbor's village feel.
Install a new storm drain system to rid Moss Landing streets and parking lots of big puddles that linger long after winter storms pass by.”
“Duke spokesman Tom Williams said the company wanted to show Moss Landing residents that it would be a good neighbor.”
Cutting a deal on the environment / Activists accused of favoring cash over mission at Moss Landing
San Francisco Chronicle, 3 June 2001
“Eager to placate environmentalists, the Duke Energy Corp. agreed to pay more than $12 million to Monterey Bay area groups whose objections could have scuttled the controversial expansion of its Moss Landing power plant, destined to be the state's largest.”
“Most of the groups are now being accused of taking financial advantage of the situation and betraying their mission as environmentalists to defend the Monterey Bay area's fragile harbors, sloughs and wetlands. The environmental groups protected until Duke put up money, then dropped their opposition.”
“The deals, critics add, were a predictable corporate response to a situation that invited financial exploitation.”
“Two prominent Monterey County politicians took part in behind-the-scenes negotiations involving the 239-acre plant, sources who participated in the talks told The Chronicle.”
“Assemblyman Fred Keeley, D-Boulder Creek (Santa Cruz County), brokered a $1 million deal between Duke and the four environmental groups. Keeley, who plans to run for the state Senate in 2004, has accepted donations from the energy industry in the past, but says he stopped accepting the industry's contributions in January, after assuming a leadership role in dealing with the crisis.”
“(Monterey) County Supervisor Louis Calcagno pressed regulators to approved the power plant and held a meeting called to device a way to transfer $3.4 million from Duke to the Moss Landing Chamber of Commerce. Calcagno is a Moss Landing dairyman with substantial agricultural, commercial and residential properties. He acknowledges that those holdings could grow in value as a result of Duke funded projects in the area.”
“GROUPS WAIVE RIGHT TO SUE”
“Although fierce initially, key opposition to Duke vanished between the late summer and Nov. 6 – when a document laying out the company's agreement to pay for 'monitoring' and additional 'mitigation' was finalized.”
“The environmental groups agree by that date that they would 'not participate in any lawsuit, regulatory challenge, regulatory appear or any other actions … that might obstruct, delay or prevent Duke's construction' of the plant.”
“This contrasted with a Sept. 22 letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board in which they said they were 'deeply concerned' about impacts; had 'serious reservations' about the amount of money Duke agreed to put up, to that point, to offset damage; and 'strongly' believed the company should do more.”
“When Duke broke ground on Nov. 16, about three weeks after the commission gave its final approval, the company had made the following side arrangements, totaling $12,435,000”
– $1 million, in five annual installments, to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation 'to monitor water quality in the Elkhorn Slough.'
This is the deal that sparked the controversy. The funds were obtained for the foundation by the four environmental groups that opposed Duke, then dropped their opposition when the company put up the money.”
“– $610,000 to local agencies for air-pollution control, marine mammal care and trail building.
– $7 million to the Elkhorn Slough Foundation for land acquisition and management.”
“(Monterey County) Supervisor Calcagno also could benefit from the Elkhorn Slough deal by selling property or property easements to the newly enriched foundation.”
“As a chairman of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors last year, Calcagno went on record in state hearings supporting Duke. He also said he had confidence in the Elkhorn Slough Foundation's ability to use the company's money to benefit the environment (Calcagno had been one of the organizations founders).”
“– $3.4 million to the Moss Landing Chamber of Commerce, in 20 annual installments for 'infrastructure improvements,' including power-line undergrounding, storm drains and street lighting.”
“As negotiations between Duke and the groups bogged down in early November, Assemblyman Keeley was asked to intervene.”
“Keeley was no stranger to the energy industry. As speaker pro tem of the Assembly, he has been prominent in attempts to deal with the energy crisis. And state records show that he has received nearly $50,000 in campaign contributions from energy companies since 1998, including $5,500 from the Duke subsidiary running the company's power plant in San Luis Obispo County, Duke Energy Morro Bay. According to Keeley, the total amounted to less than 10 percent of all the political contributions he received.”
Coastal power plant deal leads to anger
Hanford Sentinel, 4 June 2001
“Four groups signed an agreement with Duke to not sue the company or take any other action that would obstruct or slow construction.”
Power plant permit targeted
Californian (Salinas), 27 July 2001
“Stanford-based Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund filed papers to meet a 30-day deadline from the date of the permit approval. Earthjustice represents the conservation group Voices of the Wetlands.”
“The suit names the California State Water Resources Control board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast District.”
“'We're not looking to stop this expansion,' said defense fund director Deborah Sivas. 'The suit is focused specifically on the permit that was issued.'”
“The permit violates Section 316 (b) of the Clean Water Act, she said, because the 'best technology available' wasn't used for the plant's cooling water-intake system as required.”
Moss Landing still awaits Duke Energy-funded utility upgrades
Monterey Herald, originally published 7 August 2014, updated 11 September 2018.
“More than a decade after Duke Energy promised $3.4 million to help pay for Moss Landing utility upgrades to offset its power plant expansion plans, some residents of the tiny north Monterey County community are wondering what happened to those upgrades.”
“Since it signed a 30-year agreement with the Moss Landing Chamber of Commerce in 2001 aimed at paying for putting power and phone lines underground and street lights and storm drain upgrades, Duke Energy and its successor Dynegy have paid about $1.85 million for the work, most of it in annual installments. Dynegy, which purchased the power plant in 2006, still owes the remaining $1.56 million to be paid in annual increments through 2031.”
“However, not only hasn't any of the promised work been completed, but construction hasn't even begun yet, and Moss Landing residents have been told only one of the proposed projects has enough money to proceed.”
“A year and a half after the Duke funding pact was signed, the Moss Landing chamber led by the late Melanie Mayer Gideon decided to hand the money, and its oversight, to the Monterey County public works department, which assumed control of the utility projects.”
“In a July 24 community meeting that included an update on the utility projects, as well as the developing community plan blueprint for future growth, county public works assistant director Paul Greenway told residents there was only enough money to pay for the first of the three projects, and that the $3.7 million project is funded largely by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s use of about $3.1 million in power bill charged for the project.”
“The other two projects, which are now expected to cost $2 million and $2 million, respectively, have only a few hundred thousand dollars in the Duke/Dynegy money earmarked for them, and no other sources of money. They are officially listed as 'on hold due to lack of funding,' according to Greenway.”
“Greenway acknowledged putting utility lines underground in The Heights was slated to start in 2011 and was believed to be adequately funded at the time. But project costs estimated had to be revised upward, he said, and there wasn't enough money to complete the project. He couldn't offer details about how much the project cost increased by and why.”
“So far, Greenway said, the county has spent about $760,000 of the Duke/Dynegy money on prep work for all of the projects, including environmental review, permitting and right of way acquisition, leaving about $1.1 million in the project account, which he said is earning interest.”
Featured Article Available Here
Articles Referenced
- Californian (Salinas) Volume 139, Number 295, 10 December 1998
- Californian (Salinas) Volume 141, Number 171, 18 July 2000
- Californian (Salinas) Volume 141, Number 178, 26 July 2000
- Californian (Salinas) Volume 141, Number 193, 12 August 2000
- Californian (Salinas) Volume 142, Number 181, 27 July 2001
- Californian (Salinas) Volume 141, Number 260, 27 October 2000
- Californian (Salinas), Volume 141, Number 277, 17 November 2000
- Californian (Salinas) Volume 141, Number 287, 29 November 2000
- San Francisco Chronicle, 3 June 2001
- Hanford Sentinel, Volume 2001, Number 155, 4 June 2001
- Californian (Salinas), Volume 142, Number 181, 27 July 2001
- Monterey Herald, 11 September 2018
Newsom Accepted $20,000 from CTEH Parent Company in 2018
February 20, 2025
Sacramento, Calif.
Montrose Environmental Group, the parent company of CTEH, generally makes smaller contributions to a limited number of political candidates. In 2024, Montrose Environmental Group contributed a reported $5,134 to 21 candidates. In 2023, Montrose contributed only $2,364 to 9 candidates. Montrose is reported to have spent $160,000 on lobbying in 2023.
Montrose Environmental Group acquired the Little Rock, Arkansas based company Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health (CTEH) in April of 2020 utilizing funds from Oaktree Capital Management.
However, Montrose, a publicly traded company since 2020 on the New York Stock Exchange (MEG), through many acquisitions has positioned itself as a “leader” in environmental disasters. While predominantly engaging in lobbying, even using some of the same lobbyists as Vistra Corp., Montrose from our investigation has only contributed up to $2,290 to any candidate except for Gavin Newsom. On March 12, 2018, Montrose Environmental Group made one large contribution of $20,000 to Gavin Newsom's campaign for Governor in 2018. The only other contribution Montrose made in 2018 was $50 to a candidate for North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District seat.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has called for an “investigation” into the fire at the Vistra Battery Energy Storage System in Moss Landing, Calif. As to what that investigation will entail and who will be conducting the investigation remains unknown.
When Government & Energy Companies Work Together
Spending Big to Find the Right Balance Between Fleecing the Ratepayer & Endangering Them
February 16, 2025
Moss Landing, Calif.
In October 2018, a journalist with Green Tech Media wrote an article entitled, “Showdown at Moss Landing.” At the time, the Moss Landing Power Plant was moving forward as a landmark battery energy storage project, however, it was highly opposed by a advocate group for the Californian ratepayer with the mission, “to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with safety, reliability, and the state's environmental goals.” It was also opposed by Calpine, a gas plant operator, who would be in competition with proposed battery storage systems.
The Moss Landing Power Plant has experienced transmission congestion issues on Path 15 for decades. It was so bad during the early 2000s California energy crisis that on “May 28, 2001, then-Secretary of Energy directed WAPA to complete its planning to relieve the Path 15 constraints. WAPA was then directed to construct the Path 15 upgrade.” The work was completed in 2004, however, this did not alleviate all of the transmission issues.
The California energy crisis during the early 2000s was largely caused by market manipulations and capped retail prices for electricity. Energy companies, such as Enron, exploited a loophole in the law created by AB 1890 (1996) and then-Governor Pete Wilson that deregulated some of the energy industry. This led to the bankruptcy of PG&E and near bankruptcy of Edison in southern California.
It was also not uncommon for a gas plant to threaten closure if it couldn't “extract above-market payments from ratepayers,” as reported by Green Tech Media. Upgrading the transmission lines wouldn't make much of a difference at the time because of the loophole energy companies were exploiting in deregulated markets. PG&E would sell to Duke Energy in 1998 due to deregulation. The latest owner, Dynegy, a company acquired by Vistra, had considered closing its portion of the Moss Landing Power Plant in 2017 because of an overabundance of electricity in California.
A year later in 2018, instead of upgrading or improving the infrastructure such as the transmission lines, PG&E in cahoots with CA Independent Systems Operator and CPUC, would engage in a expedited approval process from CPUC for the installation of four battery energy storage systems, two of which would be largest in the world at the time of construction. It was argued that the move from gas to renewable, specifically the Moss Landing Power Plant project, would save the ratepayer $233 million over a decade compared to keeping the Metcalf-Moss Landing gas plant open. The Moss Landing battery storage project would not alleviate transmission congestion, it merely would allow the utility company to capture energy when it was cheapest and sell when it was most expensive.
When evaluating Moss Landing, CPUC opted to use the advice letter procedure to expedite the process. The ratepayer advocate group, now known as Public Advocates, suggested that, “The advice letter process is ill suited for approval of new storage capacity in excess of 170 percent of existing investor-owned utility battery storage capacity.”
During this process it would be revealed that a “$14 million transmission update could alleviate much of the capacity constraint by 2019.” The battery storage project at Moss Landing could cost an estimated $500 million to $800 million, and would not alleviate transmission issues.
In 2024 alone, CPUC approved six rate increases for PG&E. PG&E would report a profit of $2.47 billion for 2024, breaking last year's record of $2.24 billion. A regulatory agency that expedites reckless projects while ignoring necessary infrastructure improvements and approves repeated rate increases so an energy company can capture record-profits at the expense of the health and safety of residents and ratepayers is not regulating with public interest in mind.
A Fire Department Dependent Upon a Corporation
February 13, 2025
Moss Landing, Calif.
Funding issues and aging equipment plagued North County Fire for years. It was noted in a June 2021 Pajaronian article that the Moss Landing Power Plant “in the early 2000s, that large coastal property brought in roughly $860,000 in tax revenue.” Board member Ramon Gomez would tell the Pajaronian in 2021 that the Moss Landing Power Plant “netted just $142,000 for the district.” The steady decline of property tax revenues in the district forced North County Fire to “rely on grant funding to hire new firefighters and upgrade its rigs.” In 2019, five firefighters were let go when the department was unable to renew a grant.
In 2021, North County Fire would ask the voters to pass Prop 218, an Emergency Response Services Assessment. The estimated average assessment for a single-family parcel was reported to be $97.91. North County Fire stated that it was unable to sustain staffing levels and if this bond was not passed it would have to “brownout” a fire station daily.
On the North County Fire website under Prop 218 FAQs there is only one question that pertains to the Moss Landing Power Plant.
The largest battery storage facility in the world is being built on that site. Did the county have to give away property tax concessions to locate there? If not, wouldn't they pay similar property taxes?
The District identified a funding shortfall in fiscal year 2019/20 and 2020/21 prior to receiving expected property tax revenue from the Moss Landing Battery Energy Storage project (MLPP). The District approached MLPP and asked for assistance with the funding gap. The MLPP agreed to fill the funding gap through a funding agreement between the MLPP and North County Fire District in the form of one-time payment(s) of $300K per year, for a total of 2 years (FY 2019/20 and 2020/21). This funding gap was corrected to support the District’s ability to support the local community and the MLPP while it is being built. The MLPP is scheduled to be completed in late June of this year. It is important to point out that the funding is a temporary measure to help maintain the existing 22 personnel until such time as the MLPP property tax roll captures the project’s improvements and increases the property tax it generates. It is anticipated that the property tax revenue increase will be about $300k per year. In short, we are already using this money through the funding agreement, and it will only help sustain the existing 22 firefighters that are currently on the payroll.
The voters would end up passing Prop 218, providing an estimated additional million dollars annually to North County Fire. Making quick use of the financial windfall from the assessment revenue, North County Fire hired seven new firefighters in March of 2022 but would forego obtaining the appropriate training and equipment to respond to a lithium-ion battery plant overheating event or a fire after incidents at the Vistra Moss Landing site in September 2021 and February 2022.
Less than a year later, in February of 2023, North County Fire hired five additional firefighters but would again forego obtaining the appropriate training and equipment to respond to a lithium-ion battery plant overheating event or a fire after a fire occurred at the PG&E Elkhorn battery storage facility in September of 2022.
Monterey County officials would later host a town hall on September 20, 2023, after three incidents at the Moss Landing Power Plant. The Pajaronian reported that, “The two-hour meeting in Castroville included Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church, Senator John Laird, the Monterey County Administrative Office, North Monterey County Fire Protection, Pacific Gas and Electric and Vistra Energy Corporation.”
Supervisor Church was quoted as saying, “It's not just environmental – there's health issues,” after a fire at the power plant had forced the closure of Highway 1 and a shelter in place advisory for surrounding residences and businesses. Supervisor Church would also add, “That fire resulted in smoke containing a toxin being released that was harmful to neighboring areas.”
North County Fire Chief Joel Mendoza at the September 2023 town hall would instead praise Vistra and PG&E for doing “a great job in training with their local fire department.” Mendoza would add “we sat down with each one of the companies and have gone over each one of the incidents to overall help public safety.”
Less than a year and a half later January 16, 2025, Vistra's MOSS 300 would be overtaken by thermal runaway and go up in flames while the North County Fire would utilize all its corporate provided training to watch it burn. A January 17, 2021, Pajaronian article would also quote Chief Mendoza as stating that there “is a lot of guessing used” regarding determining the size of the fire and that several cameras related to the safety system had failed. Monterey County spokeswoman Maia Carroll was also quoted as saying, “No active fire suppression is taking place, the batteries must burn themselves out. No water can be used. This is standard action for battery fires.”
When the standard action for battery fires is to let them burn out then what training did North County Fire receive? If health and environmental concerns were raised and known well before the January 2025 Vistra Fire, why did North County Fire lack the appropriate equipment to detect and monitor the release of toxins, including hydrogen fluoride? North County Fire has received ample funding in recent years to afford proper training and equipment to respond to lithium-ion battery fires but has opted after multiple incidents not to do so, instead deferring to “guessing”
A fire department dependent upon the property tax revenue of a power plant that fails to adequately train and equipment itself to respond to fires at that very same power plant is not serving the public nor is it acting in the interest of public safety. North County Fire had the revenue to “do better” in 2022, 2023, and 2024, yet relied on for-profit corporations to provide training on how to respond. Vistra, PG&E, the fire department and public officials knew hydrogen fluoride is released during a lithium-ion battery fire, but it took Monterey County Sheriff Tina Nieto assessing the situation and ordering the evacuation of nearby communities because she wasn't going to rely on “maybes”.
North Monterey County officials are as equally as culpable as Vistra for the fire on January 16, 2025, and the emergency response, or rather lack of. The voters passed Prop 218 with the expectation that our fire department would serve public not corporate interests. The same can be said for our many elected leaders who accepted campaign contributions from Vistra's PAC.
Four weeks since the Vistra BESS Fire and still no accountability or transparency, only defection, excuses and disinformation from Vistra and local government. This conduct by officials only further erodes public trust and jeopardizes public health and safety.
Featured Article Available Here
Source Links
- Pajaronian Additional Funding New Chief Mark New Era at North County Fire
- Pajaronian North County Fire Welcomes 7 New Firefighters
- Pajaronian North County Fire District Welcomes New Firefighters
- Pajaronian Power Plant Fires Explored at Town Hall Meeting
- Pajaronian Moss Landing Fire Update Battling Battery Fires Difficult
- Pajaronian Fire Reignites at Moss Landing Power Plant
- NCFD Prop 218
- Monterey County Now Given the Ongoing Severe Drought in California Having a Well Staffed Fire Departments Adds
Green Energy, Go Away. Stop Lying to Us Every Day!
Public Health, Safety, and Environmental Crisis in Monterey County
On January 16, 2025, a fire broke out at the Vistra 100,000 lithium-ion battery energy storage system plant located in Moss Landing, Monterey County, California. This plant is the largest BESS plant in the world. This is not the first, second or third incidents.
Vistra and our elected officials are dead set on bringing the Vistra battery storage plant back online but will not guarantee residents safety and well-being.
Vistra said they’re sorry. Our elected officials said they're concerned but their hands are tied. These excuses are unacceptable.
Local residents demand answers and immediate testing of our air, soil and water by a consultant not hired by Vistra.
Prior to the Vistra Fire, on September 20, 2023, Monterey County officials hosted a town hall meeting for residents to ask questions and express concerns after 3 incidents at the Moss Landing battery storage plant. Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church said, "It's not just environmental, there's health issues.” North County Fire Chief Joel Mendoza at the town hall meeting told members of the public that Vistra and PG&E have done “a great job in training with their local fire department.”
California State Senator John Laird, who represents the district where the Moss Landing Vistra BESS is located, introduced Senate Bill 38, which was signed into law in 2023. SB38 requires battery energy storage facilities in the state of California to have an emergency response and emergency action plan.
Monterey County District 2 Supervisor Glenn Church stated in an Emergency Board of Supervisor meeting on January 21, 2025 that the PG&E BESS did not have such a plan filed with the county while the Vistra BESS had submitted a plan. The Vistra plan stated that any catastrophic event would be contained to the boundaries of the Moss Landing Power Plant with smoke plume predictions at around 1700 feet. The Vistra BESS Emergency Response and Emergency Action plan was grossly inaccurate.
The January 16, 2025 Vistra Moss Landing Battery Plant Fire was 100% foreseeable.
Elected officials and fire safety officials knew the risks and still gave Vistra a platform to tell us this was perfectly safe and had met every safety standard despite repeated fires.
Supporters of the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility
Congressman Jimmy Panetta
"As California and the Central Coast derive more and more of our energy from renewable resources, storage is key for ensuring that power is available when the sun isn't shining, and the wind isn't blowing. The energy storage facility that Vistra is deploying in Moss Landing will help us build a more reliable, low-emission grid, providing zero-emission power to communities far and wide when they need it. As we face the increasing threat of wildfires and disruptions to our grid, this backup power can serve to bolster our grid's stability and reliability."
State Senator John Laird
"California has committed itself to a renewable energy future and the Central Coast is the perfect example of how to transition former fossil fuel plants to renewable energy centers. Vistra's Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility is a testament to that bright future. Developing battery storage in conjunction with wind and solar energy will ensure reliable, clean energy for decades to come."
Mark Rothleder, Senior VP & COO, California Independent System Operator
"This facility and others like it will show California and the world what lithium-ion battery storage can accomplish. It will help us keep the lights on this summer and summers to come."
Jason Glickman, Executive VP of Engineering, Planning & Strategy, Pacific Gas & Electric Company
"Together we are ushering in a new era of electric system reliability and delivering a vision into the future for our customers with the commissioning of the Vistra Moss Landing energy storage facility. We are committed to safely delivering reliable and clean energy in a way that achieves the greatest value for our customers, but we can't go it alone into this clean energy future. Projects like this require great partners, such as Vistra, and PG&E will continue to seek out and work with the best and brightest to provide breakthrough clean energy solutions for our customers."
Youngjoon Shin, Senior Vice President of ESS Business, LG Energy Solution
"As more intermittent resources integrate into power grids, the role of battery energy storage in supplying energy and ensuring grid reliability becomes even more important. On this note, Vistra's effort towards transitioning to emission-free energy is vital, and LG Energy Solution hopes to make the transition a reality through advanced lithium-ion battery technology. As the world's largest energy storage facility, Moss Landing is especially meaningful as it shows the dedication of both LG Energy Solution and Vistra to expanding eco-friendly renewable energy sources through energy storage technology."
Ray Kowalik, Retired Chairman and CEO, Burns & McDonnell
"This was truly an amazing project for everyone involved. Designing and building the expansion of the world's largest battery energy storage facility – particularly during a global pandemic – was very fulfilling. Renewable resources cannot be fully deployed unless we have a massive investment in energy storage like the Moss Landing facility. We are honored to partner with Vistra on such an iconic project that will help provide reliable power to the residents in the region." Ray Kowalik is currently serving on the Board of Directors for Garney Construction, the nation's leading contractors in water and wastewater systems.
Retired Monterey County Supervisor John M. Phillips
"When people think about Moss Landing energy, they usually envision the landmark power plant and its two tall smokestacks. In fact, Vistra's Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility is the largest battery storage facility of its kind in the world and is providing a tremendous amount of reliable, clean energy. Vistra continues to be an outstanding community partner and reliable steward of the historic Moss Landing Power Plant." Judge Phillips is currently serving on the Board of Directors for Rancho Cielo, a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization that provides a comprehensive learning and social services center for Monterey County's underserved youth. He is the former District 2 Monterey County Supervisor and was succeeded by Glenn Church.