EV Fires: Why “Let It Burn” should be a decision, not a default

Electric vehicle fires have introduced a phrase we haven’t traditionally embraced in the fire service:

“Let it burn.”

We understand why it’s being said.

Thermal runaway is complex. These incidents behave differently. They present real hazards, challenge long-standing tactics and push our comfort zones.

But when “let it burn” shifts from a calculated decision to an automatic response, we have to pause and ask a harder question: Are we choosing a strategy — or defaulting to one?

When “let it burn” becomes the default — not the decision — complacency starts to creep in.

And complacency is dangerous.

Not because “let it burn” is always wrong. In some situations, it absolutely may be the smartest option. Risk assessment matters. Strategy matters.

But the fire service was never built on surrendering to a problem because it’s complicated.

We built this profession on adapting. On overcoming. On refusing to accept that something “can’t be done.”

Distance alone is not a strategy. Waiting is not a tactic. Hope is not a plan. Electric vehicle incidents demand more from us — not less.

They demand layered strategies, intentional policy development, tools that match the hazard and training that reflects the evolving risk profile of modern vehicles.

Every incident will be different. But “doing nothing” cannot be the only tool in our toolbox.

As EV adoption accelerates in our communities, command staff and chiefs are being forced to rethink response models. That conversation shouldn’t center on whether we let it burn.

But the fire service has never chosen the easy path when lives, property, and firefighter safety are on the line.

We owe our communities — and each other — more than a default setting.

We owe them solutions.