California has deployed more than 10 gigawatts of battery energy storage without a single catastrophic failure at a utility-scale, containerized facility, yet local opposition fueled by safety misinformation is delaying projects critical to grid reliability and clean energy targets. Scott Murtishaw, executive director of the California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), argues that the operational record of the state’s containerized lithium-ion fleet – now the largest in the world – demonstrates that modern fire codes, thermal management, and emergency response protocols contain risks effectively. The disconnect between that record and community perception has become a primary bottleneck for the storage build-out California needs to meet its 2045 carbon-free electricity mandate.
California’s storage fleet has scaled faster than public understanding
California’s battery storage capacity grew from roughly 500 megawatts in 2019 to over 10,000 megawatts by mid-2024, a twenty-fold increase in five years. Nearly all of this capacity uses containerized lithium-ion systems – standardized enclosures housing battery modules, thermal management, and fire suppression – sited at utility substations, solar farms, and standalone grid nodes. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) now routinely dispatches batteries for peak shaving, frequency regulation, and evening ramp support, with storage providing up to 20 percent of evening peak demand on high-load summer days.
Despite this scale, high-profile incidents – notably the 2019 Arizona Public Service McMicken fire that injured four firefighters and the 2023 Moss Landing events – dominate public discourse. Murtishaw notes that neither incident involved a utility-scale, containerized system built to current NFPA 855 and UL 9540A standards. McMicken used an early-generation, non-containerized design without modern thermal runaway barriers; Moss Landing’s 2023 events occurred in a legacy building-housed system, not the outdoor containerized architecture that now defines California’s fleet. No utility-scale, outdoor containerized project in California has experienced thermal runaway propagation beyond a single module, and no off-site evacuations or injuries have resulted from these installations.
Local opposition has coalesced around fire risk narratives, often citing McMicken or generic lithium-ion hazards without distinguishing system architecture, vintage, or code compliance. In San Diego County, a 2023 moratorium on new BESS permits cited “unknown risks” despite the county hosting multiple operating containerized projects without incident. Similar moratoriums or restrictive ordinances have emerged in Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Ventura counties. Developers report permitting timelines extending from 12-18 months to 30-36 months, with added costs for third-party hazard assessments, enhanced fire suppression beyond code minimums, and community engagement campaigns that duplicate state-mandated processes.
The safety case rests on layered engineering, not chemistry alone
Modern containerized BESS safety is a systems outcome, not a cell-level guarantee. NFPA 855 (2020 and 2023 editions) mandates: UL 9540A large-scale fire testing to prove thermal runaway does not propagate between modules; mandatory gas detection and ventilation sized to prevent flammable gas accumulation; automatic fire suppression (typically water mist or clean agent) triggered by heat and gas sensors; physical separation distances from exposures; and pre-incident planning with local fire departments. California’s Office of the State Fire Marshal has adopted NFPA 855 with amendments requiring full-scale testing for each unique system design, not just representative samples.
That testing regime is more stringent than in most U.S. jurisdictions. UL 9540A tests at nationally recognized labs cost $250,000-$500,000 per system design and take 4-6 months. Murtishaw estimates that California’s adoption of the 2023 NFPA 855 edition – which clarifies testing requirements for multi-container arrays and adds requirements for stranded energy management post-incident – will add 3-6 months to certification for new product lines entering the market in 2025. However, it also creates a de facto national standard: manufacturers certifying for California typically deploy the same tested designs nationwide, raising the floor for projects in Texas, Arizona, and New York where code adoption lags.
Insurance markets are responding to the data. Property insurers that once declined BESS risks or priced them at 5-10 percent of total insured value annually now offer coverage at 1.5-3 percent for NFPA 855-compliant, containerized projects with operational histories. That pricing shift reflects actuarial experience: among the roughly 150 utility-scale containerized projects operating in California through 2023, insurers have paid zero total-loss claims. The remaining premium load largely covers business interruption and debris removal for module-level events, not catastrophic loss. If this trend holds, the cost of capital for storage projects could decline 20-40 basis points as debt providers internalize lower physical risk, improving project economics independent of IRA tax credits.
Cross-cutting dynamics: permitting reform, IRA domestic content, and the fire service gap
The permitting bottleneck intersects with two federal policy levers. The Inflation Reduction Act’s domestic content bonus (10 percent additional ITC) requires that a threshold percentage of steel, iron, and manufactured products – including battery enclosures and modules – be U.S.-produced. Most containerized systems qualifying for this bonus are engineered to NFPA 855/UL 9540A standards, aligning safety compliance with tax credit optimization. However, domestic supply chains for tested enclosures are thin; only three U.S. fabricators currently produce UL 9540A-tested containers at scale. Lead times for certified enclosures now run 14-18 months, creating a choke point that local permitting delays exacerbate. A project delayed 12 months by a county moratorium may miss its enclosure delivery slot, pushing commercial operation date (COD) by 18-24 months and risking interconnection queue position.
Simultaneously, the fire service knowledge gap remains acute. Murtishaw emphasizes that fewer than 15 percent of California fire departments have completed the NFPA 855-recommended BESS-specific training (NFPA 70B/70E and proprietary OEM modules). In rural counties hosting large projects – Imperial, Kern, Riverside – volunteer departments often lack capacity for specialized hazmat training. CESA has partnered with the California State Fire Marshal and the International Association of Fire Fighters to develop a standardized 16-hour curriculum, but funding for statewide rollout remains uncommitted in the 2024-25 budget. Until fire departments uniformly understand containerized system behavior – particularly that water application is the recommended suppression strategy and that “let it burn” is contraindicated for lithium-ion – incident command decisions may default to excessive evacuation zones, reinforcing public fear.
By comparison, Texas has deployed roughly 5 GW of storage with a similar containerized architecture but less uniform code enforcement. ERCOT’s market design rewards fast frequency response, incentivizing rapid deployment; however, the 2023-24 winter storms revealed that some Texas projects lacked the gas detection and ventilation upgrades mandated in California. Two Texas projects experienced module-level thermal events in 2023 that propagated to adjacent modules – a propagation mode California’s test regime is designed to prevent. The divergence suggests that California’s permitting friction, while costly, may be producing a safer fleet with lower long-term insurance and liability exposure.
Who this affects
- Utility planner: Expect 12-24 month permitting delays for new BESS in counties with moratoriums; factor this into integrated resource plan (IRP) capacity expansion timelines and consider pre-emptive community engagement before site selection.
- Storage developer: Budget $500,000-$1M per project for third-party hazard mitigation analyses and fire department training contributions; secure UL 95400A-tested enclosure supply slots 18 months before target COD to avoid domestic content bonus disqualification.
- Policy analyst: Track county-level ordinance adoption – over 30 California counties have proposed or enacted BESS-specific restrictions since 2022 – and monitor State Fire Marshal rulemaking on NFPA 855 amendments for 2025 adoption cycle.
- Investor: Insurance pricing for compliant containerized assets has converged to 1.5-3 percent of TIV; underwrite to this range rather than legacy 5-10 percent assumptions, but apply a 6-12 month COD delay haircut for projects in jurisdictions with active moratoriums.
- Grid operator: CAISO and other ISOs should model BESS availability derates of 5-10 percent during permitting backlog periods; the 10 GW milestone masks a pipeline where 30+ GW of approved interconnection requests face local siting hurdles.
What to watch next
- NFPA 855 2026 edition development: The next code cycle will address stranded energy management, decommissioning standards, and recycled/repurposed battery module integration – critical for the 2030+ repowering wave.
- California SB 1215 implementation: This 2024 bill directs the State Fire Marshal to create a standardized BESS permitting checklist; adoption by January 2026 could compress county review timelines by 30-50 percent if enforced.
- Insurance loss run data publication: Major carriers (FM Global, Zurich, AIG) are expected to release aggregated BESS loss experience in 2025; a zero-catastrophic-loss record for NFPA 855-compliant containers would further compress premiums.
- Moss Landing Phase 3 commissioning (2025): The 350 MW / 1,400 MWh expansion uses the latest containerized architecture with enhanced gas management; its operational record will be the largest real-world validation to date.
- Fire service training funding in 2025-26 state budget: A $15-20 million allocation would enable statewide rollout of the CESA/IAFF curriculum; absence of funding signals continued reliance on ad hoc local preparedness.
Bottom line: California’s containerized BESS fleet has proven its safety case at scale – 10 GW, zero catastrophic failures, insurable at conventional infrastructure rates – but the permitting system has not caught up to the engineering reality. Closing that gap requires standardizing local review against the same NFPA 855/UL 9540A benchmarks that already govern design, not layering duplicative requirements that delay the storage deployment the grid needs tomorrow.
Read the full report at Energy Storage News
Note: facts and figures attributed above to Energy Storage News reflect that outlet's original reporting. Broader context, cross-sector connections, and forward-looking scenarios reflect independent analysis by our editorial team.
About this article: Drafted by Energy Ai with AI-assisted research and writing based on public reporting, then reviewed under our editorial process before publication.
Leave a Reply