Developer drops controversial battery storage project

Developer drops controversial battery storage project

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

A nationwide grassroots revolt is slowing the deployment of utility-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), as dozens of communities from California to Massachusetts reject proposals citing documented fire hazards, toxic emissions, residential zoning violations, and inadequate regulatory oversight. The January 2025 Moss Landing catastrophe — the worst BESS fire in U.S. history — deposited an estimated 25 metric tons of heavy metals into protected coastal wetlands and evacuated 1,200 residents, supercharging opposition coast to coast. The energy industry and state governments argue storage is non-negotiable for renewable grid stability; communities argue they are being asked to bear concentrated industrial risk without meaningful consent. Both sides are correct. The resolution lies in siting reform, chemistry transition, and transparent engagement — not in dismissing citizen concern as fear-mongering.

America's Battery Storage Boom Collides With a Nation of Neighbors

From a San Diego canyon victory to a Monterey Bay catastrophe, communities across the United States are drawing a line against utility-scale lithium-ion battery storage in their backyards — and winning

 

| April 6, 2026 | Special Report

On a warm Saturday evening in the unincorporated Eden Valley community of San Diego's North County, neighbors uncorked sparkling wine, tore down yard signs that had stood for years, and toasted the collapse of what they had long called an unconscionable proposal. AES Corporation, one of the nation's largest power companies, had just quietly withdrawn its application to construct the Seguro Battery Energy Storage Project — a 23-acre installation housing 217 shipping-container-sized units packed with lithium-ion cells — from a residential zone flanked by homes, horses, and hillsides that had already burned before.

"I think the community feels like David did get to slay Goliath this time," said JP Theberge, a community leader and member of the Elfin Forest/Harmony Grove Town Council, who spent years leading the opposition coalition. "We understand the importance of BESS facilities to our energy transition, but we must ensure that the safety of communities is taken into consideration."

Their victory was local. The conflict it represents is national.

Across the United States, the rapid scaling of Battery Energy Storage Systems — essential infrastructure in state and federal plans for a clean energy grid — is crashing headlong into communities that do not want them nearby. From Oyster Bay, New York, to Oakham, Massachusetts; from Katy, Texas, to Vacaville, California; from Laguna Niguel to San Juan Capistrano, a broad and intensifying wave of community resistance is reshaping how, where, and whether these projects get built. According to Heatmap News, which tracks the trend, at least 96 battery projects with a cumulative capacity of 25,000 megawatts have faced public pushback since 2021. In Massachusetts alone, developers have canceled at least four large battery projects since 2024, all in the face of strong local opposition. Since 2021, the cumulative weight of documented opposition has become one of the most significant structural challenges facing America's energy transition.

"23 acres filled with 217 containers full of toxic lithium-ion batteries — you would think that that would be crazy."

— JP Theberge, Elfin Forest/Harmony Grove Town Council

The Grid Imperative vs. the Neighborhood Reality

Battery storage is not optional if America intends to meet its renewable energy targets. Utilities and grid operators need large-scale storage to absorb the intermittent output of solar and wind farms, smoothing the mismatch between generation peaks (midday sun, nighttime wind) and consumption peaks (evening demand). California alone is pursuing massive storage mandates; Massachusetts set a statutory target of 5,000 megawatts of energy storage by 2030 under its 2024 climate law. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that domestic battery storage capacity has grown by more than 25,000 percent since 2018. The investment tax credit for storage, preserved despite the current administration's general skepticism toward clean energy incentives, has kept deployment surging through early 2026.

Joe Rowley, a former utility executive with Sempra Energy who joined the fight against the Seguro project early and without compensation, has no argument with the broader need. "The state needs battery energy storage in order to fulfill its renewable energy targets — that's clear," he said. "But this particular project was a poster child for where not to put a large battery facility."

That distinction — not opposition to storage per se, but opposition to this storage in this place — is a recurring theme in community resistance movements from coast to coast. Critics of BESS projects rarely argue that the technology should not exist. They argue that industrial-scale hazardous energy infrastructure should not be sited in residential zones, next to schools, in high-fire-severity terrain, or adjacent to ecologically sensitive lands — and that existing regulatory frameworks have failed to enforce that intuition.

Key BESS Opposition Timeline — United States (2024–2026)

• May 2024 — Vacaville, CA: City Council unanimously adopts interim urgency ordinance prohibiting BESS facilities within city limits, extended to 22 months.
• May 2024 — Otay Mesa, CA: Gateway Energy Storage fire burns for seven days, affecting 15,000 NMC lithium-ion batteries.
• Oct. 2024 — Escondido, CA: City Council adopts Interim Ordinance pausing new commercial BESS approvals. Council separately votes to oppose the neighboring Seguro Project.
• Oct. 2024 — Oyster Bay, NY: Town Board extends BESS construction moratorium an additional six months, citing multiple New York State fires.
• Oct. 2024 — Katy, TX: City Council rejects special use permit for BESS facility, with residents citing proximity to schools and homes.
• Jan. 16, 2025 — Moss Landing, CA: Fire destroys 300 MW / 1,200 MWh Vistra BESS; 1,200 residents evacuated; ~25 metric tons of heavy metals deposited in nearby wetlands.
• Early 2026 — Eden Valley, CA: AES Corporation withdraws Seguro Project application. Community celebrates after 5,000+ petition signatures and nearly 1,000 opposition letters.

The Moss Landing Catastrophe: A Turning Point

No single event has done more to galvanize community opposition — and to lend it empirical credibility — than the January 16, 2025, fire at the Vistra Energy storage facility in Moss Landing, Monterey County, California. At approximately 3:00 p.m., lithium-ion batteries in the 300-megawatt Phase 1 building of what had been marketed as the world's largest battery storage installation caught fire, releasing a vast plume of toxic smoke across four California counties. Approximately 1,200 residents were evacuated for 24 hours. Highway 1, a major coastal artery, was closed. Flames visible from miles away shot hundreds of feet into the air.

The facility held approximately 100,000 lithium-ion batteries manufactured using nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) oxide chemistry — an older formulation the industry has largely moved away from in newer installations but which was prevalent in the 2020-era buildout of grid-scale storage. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 55 percent of the batteries were damaged by the fire. The cause remains under formal investigation.

Researchers at San Jose State University's Moss Landing Marine Laboratories subsequently documented that the smoke plume scattered an estimated 25 metric tons — roughly 55,000 pounds — of heavy metals, including nickel, manganese, and cobalt, across approximately half a square mile of the protected Elkhorn Slough wetland system alone. The scientific team, operating under the acronym EMBER (Estuary Monitoring of Battery Emissions and Residues), found higher concentrations of carcinogenic metals than a consultant hired by Vistra. EMBER tested more sites, gathered samples sooner, and analyzed surface-level concentrations more thoroughly than the industry-funded assessment — findings that went largely unanswered when supervisors pressed Vistra representatives at a contentious March 2026 Monterey County Board of Supervisors meeting.

Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church called the incident a "worst-case scenario." California Assemblymember Dawn Addis called for "transparency and accountability" and said she was "exploring all options for preventing future battery energy storage fires." By July 2025, EPA had entered into an enforceable Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent requiring Vistra to conduct supervised battery removal under federal oversight — a process that by early 2026 had removed 8,448 batteries with an average of five truckloads per week departing for a recycling facility in Lancaster, Ohio.

"The Moss Landing battery fire became an unintended experiment — showing how burning lithium-ion cells scattered nickel, cobalt and manganese over a protected marsh."

— Dr. Ivano W. Aiello, San Jose State University / The Conversation, December 2025

The Science of Thermal Runaway — and Why It Matters for Communities

Opposition movements have been widely dismissed by industry advocates and some state officials as driven by fear and misinformation. The technical record is more complex than either side often acknowledges.

Lithium-ion BESS incidents have a specific and dangerous failure mode: thermal runaway. When a battery cell's internal temperature rises faster than it can dissipate heat — triggered by short-circuit, manufacturing defect, overcharging, mechanical damage, or cooling system failure — a self-accelerating exothermic reaction begins. Gas vents, electrolytes ignite, and cascading cell failure can propagate rapidly through modules, racks, and entire container units. The U.S. Department of Energy notes that thermal runaway can trigger fires or explosions; the cascading nature of the failure in large-format BESS makes containment extremely difficult once it begins.

Water-based fire suppression — the standard tool available to most local fire departments — is an imperfect solution for lithium battery fires. Applying water to a burning LIB produces incomplete combustion that increases carbon monoxide concentrations, releases hydrogen gas, and generates hydrogen fluoride (HF) gas from reactions with lithium-ion electrolytes. EPA guidance recommends an isolation zone of at least 330 feet for large commercial BESS fires. The NFPA's Standard 855 — now in its third edition, published in 2026 — and Underwriters Laboratories standards UL 9540 and UL 9540A provide the primary national safety framework, but compliance and enforcement vary enormously by jurisdiction.

A 2025 industry survey found that 54 percent of businesses operating with lithium-ion battery systems had experienced at least one incident involving overheating, smoke, or explosion; 19 percent reported actual fires. Between 2018 and 2023, more than 60 large-scale battery storage fires occurred worldwide, causing over $300 million in damage. The Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) has maintained a publicly accessible BESS Failure Event Database tracking these events.

A notable earlier incident that reshaped industry safety standards was the 2019 "McMicken Event" in Arizona, in which a thermal runaway at an Arizona Public Service BESS facility triggered an explosion that seriously injured firefighters attempting to survey the damage — a direct consequence of the system lacking proper deflagration venting and explosion prevention systems. That incident catalyzed the development of NFPA 855's first edition in 2020.

Defenders of the technology correctly note that the failure rate has declined significantly as deployment has grown. The American Clean Power Association points out that operational U.S. energy storage facilities have seen only 20 fire-related incidents in the past decade despite storage capacity increasing by more than 25,000 percent. Newer lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry, which uses iron and phosphate rather than nickel, manganese, and cobalt, is substantially less prone to thermal runaway and produces less toxic gas when it does occur — and this chemistry now dominates new utility-scale deployments. Independent safety researchers confirm that the batteries going into the grid today are materially safer than the NMC cells that burned at Moss Landing and Otay Mesa.

But communities opposing BESS projects are often responding to existing or proposed facilities using older chemistry, in locations chosen for grid convenience rather than community safety, and regulated by permitting frameworks that predate the large-scale deployment of this technology.

— ✦ —

A Patchwork of Local Resistance — and State Preemption

The community resistance movement has taken different forms in different jurisdictions, reflecting both genuine safety concerns and the tools available to local governments — which vary dramatically by state.

In California, the picture is particularly complicated. In October 2024, the Escondido City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance pausing new commercial BESS approvals within city limits. Vacaville's City Council went further, unanimously adopting an urgency ordinance in May 2024 prohibiting BESS facilities entirely — extended to a full 22 months — while the city developed a regulatory framework. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors, in contrast, unanimously rejected a proposed moratorium in September 2024, instead adding modest requirements to the existing permitting process including fire protection engineering studies and residential buffer analysis.

But California's situation contains a preemption landmine that has alarmed local officials across the state. Assembly Bill 205, signed in 2022, broadened the California Energy Commission's authority to certify clean energy and storage projects through an "Opt-In Certification Program." Under this program, BESS developers can bypass local land use requirements and zoning restrictions entirely if they pursue CEC certification — regardless of any moratorium or prohibition imposed by a local jurisdiction. The CEC must complete an environmental impact report within 270 days and certify consistency with statewide standards, but local opposition carries no veto.

This dynamic is already playing out in Southern California. After the San Juan Capistrano City Council denied a rezone study for Compass Energy Storage's proposed BESS facility in November 2022, the developer bypassed the city entirely and filed an Opt-In Certification application with the CEC in April 2024. The neighboring City of Laguna Niguel — whose residents live approximately 1,500 feet from the proposed site, in a high fire severity zone — submitted opposition letters to the CEC but has no legal authority to block the project if the CEC certifies it. A Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report was released in May 2025; hearings continue.

New York State has seen parallel tensions. Multiple fires at BESS facilities on Long Island and Staten Island prompted the Town of Oyster Bay to impose and then extend a construction moratorium. Governor Kathy Hochul released recommendations from an Inter-Agency Fire Safety Working Group in early 2025 outlining enhanced safety standards, with potential updates to the New York State Fire Code. In Texas and Indiana, local councils have outright rejected BESS permits on safety grounds. In Washington State, cities including Sumner and Arlington moved to create new tiered regulatory frameworks to govern BESS siting rather than prohibit it outright — a model that safety researchers have cited as a constructive middle path.

The Seguro Victory: A Case Study in Community Organization

The withdrawal of the Seguro Project in Eden Valley, San Diego County, offers a detailed case study in what sustained community pressure can achieve — and its limits.

The AES proposal, submitted in 2023, called for 217 container units across 23 acres in an unincorporated residential zone that had already experienced the destructive Cocos Fire. Opponents immediately noted the irony: the proposed site had a recent fire history, was surrounded by residential properties, and sat in terrain ill-suited to a facility that, in the event of thermal runaway, would require extensive emergency response resources.

The community coalition, coordinated in part through the Elfin Forest/Harmony Grove Town Council, gathered more than 5,000 petition signatures and submitted nearly 1,000 letters to county officials opposing the project. The Escondido City Council passed a formal resolution opposing the facility in 2024. Phyllis Laderman, whose property sits adjacent to the proposed site, and whose horse barn stands near a vacant house that would have been demolished to make way for the containers, kept a yard sign posted for years. The sign came down on the day of the celebration.

AES's formal withdrawal statement cited "challenging market conditions" and the company's decision to "prioritize other projects." Theberge and other community leaders attributed the outcome to a confluence of factors: the fire history of the site, easement challenges posed by a nearby hospital facility, the Escondido council resolution, and — critically — the high-profile BESS fire incidents at Otay Mesa and Moss Landing that made county officials more reluctant to move the project forward. "It was going down a path of it's going to get approved eventually," Theberge recalled. "That's how I felt and that's how the community felt. We had people move away."

Former Sempra executive Rowley, reflecting on the outcome, was blunt: "It's a shame that it took so long."

The Industry's Difficult Argument

Energy storage developers and their advocates face a genuine communications challenge. Their core safety argument — that the technology's failure rate is declining and that newer LFP chemistry is far safer — is largely accurate. But they are making it in the immediate aftermath of spectacular, heavily documented failures that have imposed real costs on real communities: seven-day fires in Otay Mesa, 1,200 evacuees in Moss Landing, two days of disrupted city life in Escondido following a 2024 fire. Community advocates note that over 100 such incidents have been documented worldwide since 2011.

The California Energy Storage Alliance argued after the San Diego County Board of Supervisors rejected a moratorium in September 2024 that the decision demonstrated "early efforts to educate staff and decision-makers can effectively counter public opposition driven by fear and misinformation." Whether that framing — describing community concern as primarily fear and misinformation — is accurate or strategically counterproductive is a question the industry has not fully resolved.

Greg Less, director of the University of Michigan's Battery Lab, has tried to bridge the gap. Newer LFP batteries, he explains, "are less likely to catch fire. And when they do catch fire, they don't get as hot and they release less gas, so they're less likely to explode." Data collected by the Environmental League of Massachusetts shows that as global battery deployment skyrocketed between 2018 and 2024, the rate of failure decreased by 98 percent. "There seems to be this expectation that these systems are going to fail," said the League's Erin Smith, "when in reality that's very rare."

But facilities with older NMC chemistry are already in the ground — and the communities living near them are drawing on a lived experience of failure, not a theoretical risk assessment.

A Path Forward: Siting Reform, Chemistry Transition, and Genuine Engagement

A Yale Clean Energy Forum analysis published in February 2026 concluded that the U.S. BESS market is entering a phase of greater maturity, with developers, communities, and states adapting to one another in ways that — despite the turbulence — may produce a more durable framework for deployment. Several elements appear likely to shape that framework.

On chemistry: the transition from NMC to LFP batteries in new utility-scale projects is already well advanced, and its safety benefits are real. Regulators and planners who accelerate the retirement of older NMC installations in sensitive locations will reduce the existing stock of highest-risk sites.

On siting: the experiences of Washington State cities like Arlington — which created a tiered BESS zoning framework with increasing requirements as facility size increases, mandatory screening, and secure fencing — offer a model for balancing deployment needs against residential compatibility. Rigid prohibitions and blanket state preemption of local zoning are both counterproductive; tiered permitting with genuine community input is more durable.

On transparency: the Moss Landing aftermath — in which Vistra's hired consultant and independent SJSU scientists produced materially different assessments of heavy metal contamination, and supervisors were left unable to get straight answers — illustrates the credibility cost of industry-funded science conducted in isolation from independent review. California's post-Moss Landing legislation requiring strengthened containment, monitoring, and pre-opening meetings with local fire officials is a step toward rebuilding that credibility.

On engagement: community opposition consistently intensifies where developers have treated local residents as obstacles to be managed rather than stakeholders to be engaged. Projects that invest in early, substantive community outreach — not the pro forma open house variety — demonstrate better outcomes. The 5,000 signatures and 1,000 letters filed against Seguro were not generated by a community that felt heard.

Joe Rowley, the former Sempra executive who spent years fighting a project in his own community, ended his reflections on the Seguro withdrawal with a thought that applies well beyond Eden Valley: "There are real practical problems with this project." Not with storage. Not with the energy transition. With the project. The distinction matters, and the industry — and its regulators — ignore it at their peril.

— ✦ —

Verified Sources & Formal Citations

1. Fox 5 / KUSI San Diego. "North County residents win fight against controversial battery storage proposal." Fox5sandiego.com, April 4, 2026. Jennifer Franco, staff reporter.
   https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/escondido/seguro-project-faces-community-opposition/
2. American Public Power Association. "Energy Storage Proposals Face Pushback from Some Communities." Public Power, 2024–2025. Covers Escondido, Katy TX, Oyster Bay NY, San Diego County Board of Supervisors moratorium rejection.
   https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/energy-storage-proposals-face-pushback-some-communities
3. Yale Clean Energy Forum. "Are battery markets entering a new level of maturity?" February 17, 2026. Analysis of national BESS opposition trends, model ordinances, and developer engagement.
   https://cleanenergyforum.yale.edu/2026/02/17/are-battery-markets-entering-new-level-of-maturity
4. WBUR News (Boston). "As Mass. pushes for big batteries on the grid, some communities push back." November 20, 2025. Covers Oakham MA, Massachusetts 5,000 MW target, LFP chemistry safety, 96 national projects facing opposition.
   https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/11/20/battery-energy-storage-system-bess-massachusetts-lithium-ion-safety
5. City of Laguna Niguel, California. Official BESS Project Opposition Page. Covers Compass Energy Storage / CEC Opt-In Certification process, fire hazard proximity analysis, AB 205 preemption.
   https://www.cityoflagunaniguel.org/1710/Proposed-Battery-Energy-Storage-System-P
6. City of Vacaville, California. Official BESS Moratorium and Draft Ordinance Page. Timeline of urgency ordinance (May 2024), extension, community meetings, and draft regulations.
   https://www.cityofvacaville.gov/residents/talk-of-the-town/battery-energy-storage-systems
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Moss Landing Vistra Battery Fire Response." Updated 2025–2026. Primary federal oversight documentation, EPA administrative settlement, battery removal status.
   https://www.epa.gov/ca/moss-landing-vistra-battery-fire
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Moss Landing Vistra Battery Fire Response: Response Timeline." Detailed chronology of federal response actions, battery removal metrics, air monitoring.
   https://www.epa.gov/ca/moss-landing-vistra-battery-fire-updates
9. Danko Meredith Law. "One Year Later: The 2025 Vistra Battery Fire in Moss Landing." March 3, 2026. Detailed incident timeline, thermal runaway analysis, NBC Bay Area investigative findings on disabled early warning system, class action filing.
   https://www.dankolaw.com/blog/the-2025-vistra-battery-fire-in-moss-landing-one-year-later/
10. Utility Dive. "Moss Landing battery fire sparks calls to improve safety, 'accountability' for industry." January 21, 2025. Primary industry and official response reporting; ACPA and elected official statements.
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/moss-landing-battery-fire-vistra/737837/
11. Aiello, I.W. et al. / The Conversation. "When the world's largest battery power plant caught fire, toxic metals rained down – wetlands captured the fallout." December 1, 2025. Peer-reviewed environmental impact analysis by San Jose State University / Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.
    https://theconversation.com/when-the-worlds-largest-battery-power-plant-caught-fire-toxic-metals-rained-down-wetlands-captured-the-fallout-268848
12. Local News Matters. "Moss Landing battery fire update: Residents, supes left with more questions than answers." March 19, 2026. Monterey County Board of Supervisors hearing, EMBER vs. Terraphase scientific dispute.
    https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/03/19/moss-landing-battery-fire-questions-impact-testing/
13. Vistra Corp. "Moss Landing Response." Official company incident communications, evacuation information, investigation status, Elkhorn Battery offline status.
    https://www.mosslandingresponse.com
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Battery Energy Storage Systems: Main Considerations for Safe Installation and Incident Response." Updated August 21, 2025. Summary of national BESS incident history including Otay Mesa (May 2024), Moss Landing (Jan. 2025); NFPA 855 and UL 9540 reference; isolation zone guidance.
    https://www.epa.gov/electronics-batteries-management/battery-energy-storage-systems-main-considerations-safe
15. Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc. "BESS Incidents." White paper series (7 papers). Thermal runaway mechanism, cascading failure dynamics, McMicken Event analysis, LIB hazard assessment.
    https://www.bakerrisk.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/BESS-White-Papers-1-7-Combined.pdf
16. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity. "Utility-Scale BESS Safety Strategy." April 2024. National BESS deployment capacity data; NFPA 855, UL 9540/9540A standards overview; thermal runaway protection layered strategy.
    https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/EED_2827_FIG_SafetyStrategy%20240505v2.pdf
17. ScienceDirect / Journal of Hazardous Materials. "Lithium ion battery energy storage systems (BESS) hazards." November 2022. Peer-reviewed academic review of BESS thermal runaway, failure modes, EPRI database, and industry safety evolution.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095042302200208X
18. Klickitat County, Washington. "Utility-Scale BESS Report with Considerations for Utility-Scale Solar." May 21, 2025. Comprehensive local government guidance on BESS siting risks, setbacks, visual impacts, firefighting challenges.
    https://www.klickitatcounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21766/BESS-Report-PAC-approved-May-21-2025
19. MRSC (Municipal Research and Services Center). "A Local Government's Role in Regulating Battery Energy Storage Systems." January 29, 2025. Case studies of Sumner and Arlington, WA tiered BESS permitting frameworks.
    https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/january-2025/bess_p2
20. Wikipedia / Moss Landing Power Plant. "Moss Landing Power Plant." Updated February 14, 2026. Facility history, capacity specifications, fire incident timeline, Elkhorn Battery status.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Power_Plant
21. U.S. EPA Emergency Response. "Site Profile — 2025 Moss Landing Battery Fire." EPA On-Scene Coordinator response documentation. Battery count and damage percentage statistics.
    https://response.epa.gov/Moss_Landing_Li-ion_Fire
22. Hazard Control Technologies. "Protecting Battery Storage from Thermal Runaway." November 20, 2025. Industry survey data: 54% of businesses experienced LIB incidents; $300M+ in damage from 60 large-scale fires 2018–2023. NFPA 18A suppression agent guidance.
    https://hct-world.com/how-fire-suppression-protect-battery-storage-from-thermal-runaway/
23. American Clean Power Association / Clean Power. "NFPA 855: Improving Energy Storage System Safety." November 2025. Summary of NFPA 855 third edition (2026), industry fire incident statistics, storage safety standards overview.
    https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2024/01/NFPA855_Safety_240111.pdf

The Epoch Times  |  Investigative Report  |  Energy & Infrastructure  |  April 2026  |  All reporting independently sourced and verified