Electric Vehicle Fires Are Changing Fire Investigation. Training Needs to Catch Up.

Electric vehicles are changing the way we think about vehicle fire investigation. For many years, vehicle fire investigation has relied on a combination of fire pattern analysis, mechanical knowledge, electrical examination and an understanding of how vehicles operate. But electric and hybrid vehicles have introduced a different layer of complexity. It is not just that the vehicles are powered differently. It is that the systems, components, battery chemistries and layouts are changing rapidly.

In the opening episode of Season 2 of What The Fire, I sat down with Stephen Elliott, Senior Forensic Investigator with EFI Global UK and a specialist in vehicle fire investigation, to talk about the future of vehicle fire investigation and why training is one of the biggest issues facing the industry. Stephen has investigated more than 850 fires, including more than 50 fatal fires, and his experience spans public sector fire investigation, private forensic investigation, vehicle fires, structural fires, lithium-ion battery fires, electric and hybrid vehicle fires, and expert evidence.

One of the strongest messages from our conversation was that investigators cannot safely or accurately investigate modern vehicle fires if they do not understand how the systems work.

Stephen explained that his training in electric vehicle fire investigation did not begin with traditional fire investigation training. It began with engineering. His training was not based only on the investigation side, but on the engineering side, because electric vehicles are constantly changing. Battery chemistry changes. Battery systems change. Vehicle layouts change. The location of components changes from manufacturer to manufacturer, and sometimes from model to model.

As Stephen put it, investigators cannot physically know the layout of every single vehicle. It is impossible. That is an important point for the profession. The goal is not to memorise every electric or hybrid vehicle on the market. The goal is to understand the systems well enough to work through the evidence. It becomes less about recognition and more about reasoning. It is less about knowing exactly where every component sits, and more about understanding what each system does, how it interacts with the other systems, and how it may fail.

Stephen described it as almost a reverse-engineering process. That is a major shift for fire investigators. In many traditional vehicle fires, investigators may rely heavily on component location, burn patterns, wiring, fuel systems and witness information. But with electric and hybrid vehicles, the investigator must also understand high-voltage systems, battery management systems, capacitors, printed circuit boards, charging systems and other electrical components that may not be familiar to those trained only in traditional fire investigation.

That does not mean every investigator needs to become an automotive engineer. But it does mean that investigators need enough technical knowledge to recognise what they are looking at, understand the risks, and know when they need further specialist assistance.

One of the key issues Stephen raised was safety. Electric vehicle investigation is not just a technical challenge. It is also a serious safety issue. He made the point very clearly that with electric vehicles, touching the wrong component at the wrong time can have serious consequences. He explained that an average electric vehicle battery may be around 400 volts DC, and that the level of voltage required to create a fatal cardiac risk can be significantly lower. His point was not to create fear around electric vehicles, but to reinforce that investigators need to respect the systems they are examining.

This is especially important because post-fire scenes can create a false sense of security. A vehicle may look destroyed. It may appear inactive. The fire may be out. But high-voltage components may still present a hazard. That is why Stephen’s advice was direct: get qualified, get trained, and do not attempt this work without understanding the systems first.

Another important point from the episode was the misconception that every electric vehicle fire is caused by the battery. Stephen pushed back on this clearly. Many people assume electric vehicle fires are caused by spontaneous combustion of the battery pack, but there are multiple high-voltage components in an EV system. These may include capacitors, printed circuit boards and other electrical components.

As investigators, this matters. If we default to “the battery” without proper analysis, we risk getting the origin and cause wrong. We also risk creating inaccurate reporting that can have consequences beyond the investigation itself. During the interview, we discussed the ripple effect of inaccurate fire investigation conclusions. A poor or unsupported conclusion can affect insurance claims, legal proceedings, business interruption, recovery, liability and, in some cases, whether people can move on with their lives.

This is why training is not just a professional development issue. It is an evidence issue. It is a public trust issue.

One of the most honest moments in the conversation was when Stephen spoke about his first major electric vehicle fire investigation. He described attending a large fire scene where the damage was so severe that he did not initially recognise the remains as a vehicle. After hours of scene work, he accessed the battery casing and identified a fault in one of the modules. At the time, he felt proud of the work.

Later, his manager pulled him aside and explained that he had taken a significant risk. Stephen admitted that he disagreed at first. But after completing further electric vehicle training, he realised how dangerous the work had been. That moment changed the direction of his professional development. From there, he invested heavily in technician and engineering-based courses so he would not make the same mistake again.

That kind of reflection is important in fire investigation. We often talk about experience as a badge of honour, but experience is only useful if we are willing to be corrected by it. The best investigators are not the ones who never make mistakes. They are the ones who learn from them, adjust their practice, and then share those lessons so others do not repeat them.

Stephen also raised concerns about the training gap in the fire investigation profession. Experienced investigators are retiring, moving into private practice or leaving public sector roles. At the same time, technology is moving faster than many training systems can keep up with. This creates a real risk. If investigators are not properly trained in new technologies, the industry may see more inaccurate conclusions, more unsafe examinations and more reports that do not withstand scrutiny.

Stephen said he does not think this is a future problem. He believes it is already here. He also raised a serious concern that without proper training, both public sector and private sector investigators may face increased risks of serious injury or death when dealing with electric vehicles and lithium-ion battery systems.

That is a confronting point, but an important one. The profession cannot afford to treat electric and hybrid vehicle investigation as a niche skill for later. These vehicles are already on the road. They are already involved in collisions, structure fires, charging incidents, storage fires and post-fire examinations. Training needs to move at the same pace as the technology.

When I asked Stephen where he sees fire investigation going in the next 10 years, he spoke about the increasing role of technology. Smart homes, connected appliances, mobile-controlled devices, electric vehicles, high-voltage systems and increasingly complex consumer technology are all changing the types of fire scenes investigators are likely to encounter.

But his point was not that traditional fire investigation will disappear. We will still investigate electrical fires, open flame fires, cigarette fires, deliberate fires and accidental fires. But the investigator of the future will need to be comfortable with technology, systems thinking and ongoing learning. That applies far beyond electric vehicles.

Fire investigators will increasingly need to understand not just fire behaviour, but the systems that exist before the fire. How devices are powered. How they communicate. How they fail. How they are controlled. How they store energy. How they behave after fire exposure. The investigator of the future cannot rely only on what they learned years ago.

One of the strongest themes in the episode was the importance of sharing knowledge. Stephen reached out after hearing me speak about the lack of electric vehicle fire investigation training. That one message led to this conversation, and now to further plans for training and knowledge-sharing around vehicle and EV fire investigation.

That is how the profession improves.

Fire investigation is a small world, but the issues are global. As Stephen said near the end of the episode, it does not matter whether a fire happens in Wales, Belgium, America or Australia. Fire is fire. The systems may vary. The legal frameworks may differ. The training pathways may not be the same. But the underlying need is shared. Investigators need to understand the evidence, work safely, test their hypotheses, and produce conclusions that are accurate and defensible.

Electric and hybrid vehicles are not something for fire investigators to fear. But they are something we need to respect. They require different knowledge, different safety considerations and a willingness to keep learning. They also require investigators to recognise when they are outside their expertise and seek the right training or technical support.

The rise of electric vehicles is not just changing the automotive industry. It is changing fire investigation. And if the technology is evolving, our training, methodology and mindset need to evolve with it.