A Lookout View: After the Moss Landing fire, the public deserves answers — not silence

Editor’s note: A Lookout View is the opinion of our Community Voices opinion section, written by Community Voices Editor Jody K. Biehl and Lookout founder Ken Doctor. Our goal is to connect the dots we see in the news and offer a bigger-picture view — all intended to see Santa Cruz County meet the challenges of the day and to shine a light on issues we believe must be on the public agenda. These views are distinct and independent from the work of our newsroom and its reporting.

More than a year after the Moss Landing battery fire sent plumes of black smoke across our region, residents are still asking the same basic questions: What was released into our air, soil and water? What are the short- and long-term health risks? And is our community safe?

The fire erupted on Jan. 16, 2025, at one of the world’s largest lithium-ion battery storage facilities, forcing shelter-in-place orders and sending thick smoke over neighborhoods and farms. People across Santa Cruz and Monterey counties smelled smoke. The blaze burned for days, repeatedly reignited, and required a massive emergency response.  

One year later, it’s disturbing to have so few answers. We still don’t even know what ignited the fire. 

We know investigations often lag, but the lack of clear information leads us to ask troubling questions. Why has it been so hard to get consistent answers from the officials charged with protecting the public? And, without transparency, how can we trust those officials and industry insiders who say the fire was an outlier and that lithium-ion storage is now safe to put into our communities?  

Our region is home to a $1.6 billion agricultural industry and sits alongside a fragile Monterey Bay ecosystem. We deserve and need clarity. 

Instead, month after month, responses from local, state and federal officials — and from Vistra Corp., which owns the Moss Landing facility — have been fragmented, technical, delayed and opaque. The public and media have been left to piece together partial information that often raises more questions than answers.

State, federal and local leaders must do more. And they must do it now.

The Moss Landing fire involved grid-scale battery storage technology, which is rapidly expanding across California as part of the state’s clean energy transition. Watsonville is at the epicenter of this expansion. The county is weighing a proposal from Massachusetts-based New Leaf Energy to build an allegedly “safer” battery facility outside the city. 

We embrace this drive. But before we build more facilities, residents deserve an independent, science-based investigation into what happens to people exposed if this technology fails. What will be released and how will it affect the health of locals and the environment? 

We also need a much fuller reckoning of what happened at Moss Landing, particularly since elected officials and industry insiders have said they knew for years that the Moss Landing facility was structurally problematic and potentially dangerous. Legislators must urgently look at the other existing state facilities that still use this outdated technology and protect the residents who live near them.

We are told the new battery technology is safe – that the industry has solved the problems of the past fires. But reassurances without transparency offer little solace. 

Officials must clearly disclose how the fire started and what byproducts were released into surrounding air, soil and water. They must explain what testing has been done, what has not been done, and why. Most importantly, they must look seriously at the effects on people who were exposed.

We accept that some answers might still be unknown. But uncertainty must be acknowledged plainly, not minimized or brushed aside.

The fire occurred near homes, schools, agricultural fields and one of California’s most sensitive coastal ecosystems. Yet no comprehensive, government-funded scientific studies have examined how exposure affected people living and working nearby. We know some residents experienced respiratory symptoms. We do not know whether those effects are lasting or cumulative. We also don’t know if there are any long-term effects on the fruits and vegetables we all eat. 

We need to find out.

The state could have found money to study human exposure. It could have convened an independent panel of scientists to guide testing. It could have compelled Vistra to fund a robust investigation. The only human exposure assessment underway is being conducted largely pro bono by researchers at UC Santa Cruz, assisted by undergraduate students.

That is unacceptable.

One year later, residents who were told to shelter in place are still wondering: Were we exposed? Are contaminants in our homes or yards? Are our children tracking them inside?

UC Santa Cruz scientists say dust and soil contaminated with metals such as nickel, manganese and cobalt — metals known to be released during battery fires — can easily be tracked into homes. Elevated exposure to these metals has been associated with increased risks of cancer, neurological harm and other serious conditions that might not appear for years or decades. Those researchers believe residents, including children, should be tested. 

We agree.

Government agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and regional air quality officials, reported that air levels after the fire were not dangerous. Yet community members, the grassroots Never Again Moss Landing group, and independent researchers have questioned the scope, timing and depth of that testing. Elevated metal levels documented in dust and soil downwind of the fire raise serious questions about whether sampling was sufficient.

To date, no state or federal agency has publicly released a final investigation into the cause of the fire or issued mandatory, updated safety recommendations tailored to grid-scale battery storage facilities. Local leaders, including state Sen. John Laird, have urged the California Public Utilities Commission to act, but those efforts have yet to produce a transparent, public outcome.

The public deserves full access to every data set collected — air, soil, water and materials testing — along with clear explanations of what remains unknown. 

There have been some recent steps in the right direction. Laird’s Senate Bill 283, the Clean Energy Safety Act of 2025, to reform battery storage safety standards and oversight acknowledges that existing rules are inadequate. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ proposed ordinance addressing battery storage facilities reflects a similar effort to prevent future disasters.

We applaud these actions. They are timely and needed. But prevention alone is not enough.

Neither the bill nor the ordinance meaningfully addresses the impacts of the Moss Landing fire on people who were already exposed. Nor do they answer the most urgent question: If another fire happens, what protections, monitoring, medical follow-up and accountability will be in place for the people living and working nearby?

These measures focus on preventing a fire – not on responding to one when prevention fails. The people most affected by Moss Landing remain largely an afterthought. 

We would like to see a new bill that addresses these issues. Or, barring that, we would like to see regular funding set aside in the state budget to look at these human effects. 

The slow, guarded flow of information raises an unsettling possibility: Did leaders fast track this technology and are now not looking too deeply because this facility represents green energy?

California’s commitment to green energy storage should not place battery plants beyond scrutiny. The burden of proof belongs to those who build, permit and promote high-risk facilities, not to the people who live next to them.

The people living next to Moss Landing did not consent to be test cases. If the state, counties and Vistra want public trust, they must earn it with full disclosure, accountability and answers that arrive before the next fire, not after. 

Silence is not climate leadership. Transparency is.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.