Dear Friends & Neighbors,
The Vistra Battery facility fire in Moss Landing remains a pressing concern. The second fire in February underscores the ongoing instability of the situation. While extensive information has been shared, the meaning behind tests, data, and safety measures remains unclear. My office continues to address questions and concerns from the public and social media. We are trying to provide the best possible insights into this highly technical issue.
Approximately 20–30% of the batteries in Moss 300, the affected building, did not burn. These batteries are currently being disconnected from each other, a process that was previously unsafe. Unlinking them will reduce the risk of further fires, but the site remains volatile as burned and unburned debris are still present. Until cleanup is complete, additional fires remain a possibility.
Cleanup will likely begin once the unburned batteries are fully disconnected, but the timeline remains uncertain. The process will take months and must be conducted slowly and deliberately to ensure safety. I am concerned that delays could increase the risk of flare-ups or offsite contamination. Completing as much cleanup as possible before next winter’s storms is critical.
Air quality has been a major topic, but discussions often lack clarity. Current monitoring focuses on hydrogen fluoride and particulate matter, but traditional air quality indexes measure ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particle pollution —not heavy metals. However, when batteries burn, it is reasonable to assume that small heavy metal particles are released into the air.
Various tests have been conducted by the county, state agencies, Moss Landing Marine Labs, and the community group Never Again Moss Landing. The results vary because different tests analyze different materials — soil, water, and other surfaces. Some only measure surface contamination, while others assess deeper soil levels. The type of surface tested also affects results; for instance, particles adhere differently to a leaf than to a windshield. Additionally, fallout distribution is uneven due to weather conditions, geography, and other environmental factors. Ongoing testing is expected to fill in data gaps.
A key debate in the state legislature concerns the extent of local control over future battery projects. In recent years, the state streamlined the approval process, allowing battery facilities to bypass local governments if regulations were deemed too strict. Companies can appeal directly to the California Energy Commission, obtaining approval in 270 days — a much faster process than local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews, which can take over a year.
Assemblymember Dawn Addis’ bill, AB 303, seeks to restore permitting authority to local jurisdictions, allowing communities more say over new projects. However, this bill would not impact oversight of existing facilities, which remain under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) — a state-level control established in the California Constitution since the end of World War II.
Regardless of AB 303’s outcome, I remain committed to advocating for local influence over future battery projects and ensuring our community has a say in critical safety decisions.
As always, don't hesitate to reach out to my office for assistance. You can reach us at 831-755-5022 or district2@countyofmonterey.gov.
Sincerely,
Glenn Church
District 2 Supervisor
Comentaris