National battery fire standards being pushed for consideration

In light of the recent fire at the Moss Landings Energy Storage facility, which led to a complete write-off of a 300 MW energy storage facility, regulators and industry leaders are responding. The most often heard refrain is that Moss Landing was based on an earlier design, constructed inside a building, and, after multiple prior thermal events at the site, may have been fated for a shorter lifespan.

Since the time when the Moss Landing facility was originally deployed, according to the Blueprint for Safety released by the American Clean Power Association (ACP), energy storage safety standards have evolved significantly.

The ACP highlights a range of codes, qualifications, performance standards, and other critical documents. The two primary UL certifications, 1973 and 9450, have emerged to guide the components and assembly of energy storage products. UL 1973 certifies and verifies (often through fire testing) what battery cells and packs can withstand in terms of thermal events, physical stress, and electrical faults. UL 9450 builds on 1973, certifying how entire battery systems perform during complex scenarios.

Because battery storage systems are now designed around UL certifications and tested under fire conditions, the nation’s firefighting professionals have developed National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855. This standard establishes mandatory requirements for the “design, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of battery energy storage facilities, distinguished by battery energy storage technology.”

According to the ACP, NFPA 855 supports the standardization of hazard mitigation analyses, emergency response plans, safety system documentation, and other planning requirements now being adopted across the country.

One best practice diverging from the Moss Landing design is the placement of energy storage containers in cleared, open areas, specifically not inside buildings. Adequate spacing between units allows them to be isolated from each other in the event of a thermal incident. This way, if a single container fails, it can be allowed to burn off with reduced risk to surrounding hardware.

At one time, even this author admired the concept of the battery being the building. But that design approach is now falling out of favor. In Southern California, for example, one energy storage company and a local council are pushing back against legislation requiring batteries to be housed indoors. A nearby town, in related events, has implemented moratoriums on new projects.

Part of the regional resistance stems from previous high-profile incidents. One such event involved what was once billed as the world’s largest battery storage facility, which suffered a thermal event that burned for 17 days.

Fire at Chaumont Solar Farm in New York.

Image: Three Mile Bay Fire Department, June 27, 2023

In a recent review, the ACP analyzed 35 large-scale battery fire incidents in the United States from 2012 through 2024, including one in which a firefighter was launched 80 feet by an exploding container.

The review found that most of these incidents occurred in older technology platforms. Newer system designs were involved in far fewer events. Notably, more than 50 percent of the documented incidents happened within the first six months of operation.

Popular content

Congress proposes bill to phase out solar and wind tax credits

11 April 2025 The plan proposes to phase out the investment tax credit and production tax credit for solar and wind while keeping it in place for other technologies...