Cobbora Solar Farm

The noise from electromagnetic interference, and stray currents will be disruptive.
During operation and maintenance, inverters, transformers and switching equipment may generate noise, electromagnetic fields, and stray currents. The EIS does not convincingly demonstrate that these will not affect nearby residences, communication systems, or livestock. there is a complete lack of detailed acoustics and EMF studies.

Is there Shadow pricing, grid integration and operational risk
The electricity market, grid stability, and dispatch constraints might force the battery to shut down or operate far below capacity under certain conditions. The project is high risk unless it can guarantee viability under changing grid conditions. The EIS fails to sufficiently account for curtailment, network congestion or dispatch limitations. The financial and operational assumptions being overly optimistic.

It is Unclear decommissioning obligations and legacy risk.
What happens at the end of life? The EIS lacks binding, enforceable decommissioning and site remediation obligations. Without legally enforceable guarantees and bond, the area could be left derelict, with heavy infrastructure, chemical waste, and invasive species. this project has lack of clarity and accountability for decommissioning.

There has defiantly been inadequate public consultation and local knowledge.
Many local landholders and residents have expertise about flora, fauna, hydrology, heritage, and cultural values. Their knowledge appears under‑utilised or dismissed. The consultation process being top‑down and overly technical, limiting genuine engagement and local input.

There is cumulative fire hazard with other renewable/industrial developments
Given the scale of developments in the Orana REZ, cumulative fire hazard across multiple large battery / solar installations may exacerbate bushfire risk across the landscape. The EIS does not analyse cumulative risk across adjacent projects. I object that this interdependence has been ignored.

There are cumulative fire hazard with other renewable/industrial developments
Given the scale of developments in the Orana REZ, cumulative fire hazard across multiple large battery / solar installations may exacerbate bushfire risk across the landscape. The EIS does not analyse cumulative risk across adjacent projects. I object that this interdependence has been ignored.

There are cumulative fire hazard with other renewable/industrial developments
Given the scale of developments in the Orana REZ, cumulative fire hazard across multiple large battery / solar installations may exacerbate bushfire risk across the landscape. The EIS does not analyse cumulative risk across adjacent projects. Interdependence has been ignored.

There is a precedent for further industrialisation of rural zones.
Approving such a massive project sets a precedent, inviting further encroachment into rural areas and weakening protections. This “monster” project becomes a template. On policy grounds — it’s the kind of leap in scale that should be resisted, not normalised.

The contamination risk from this toxic Solar/BESS hazard threatens compliance with the Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) program, undermining Australia's clean, green food and livestock export credentials.

Being in the midst of agricultural production makes this an unacceptable biosecurity and food safety risk with long-term economic and public health and safety impacts.

I am a resident of Elong Elong and have attended a number of meetings locally held by Cobbora solar so I have a reasonable understanding of this project and its potential impact on our community.

My objections to this solar development are:-
- the impact of panels and chemical leeching on rural land. When questioning representatives regarding toxicity and leeching the comment was made these panels are ok as they are new and don’t have this issue. With further questioning the representative was unable to refer to any research that supported this comment.
- we are completely off grid with solar since 2011 and have no confidence in the capability of solar as a reliable source of power. Despite installing high quality components we have first hand experience on the limited life span of solar components. We rely on a large diesel generator on overcast or rainy days. We know that as one component needs replacement its replacement part is always no longer is compatible with our system.

The rural land in our community is prime agricultural land and is managed by generational farming families who have an affinity with the land and with the water sources that support them. Converting this land to an industrial energy zone will lead to the loss of these farming families and their expertise and knowledge.

As with all the current development proposals the risk to local water supplies has become contentious. Initial boastings by developers that water will be carted in has quickly turned to accessing underground bore water. Our underground water systems are the life blood of the local agricultural industry. Our area underwent a severe protracted drought with all water sources becoming scare in recent years. This drought eliminated water not just for agricultural purposes but also domestic with aid and charity agencies supporting farming families resupply water tanks for their families- basic water for drinking, cooking and washing. The importance of water security in our communities cannot be underestimated and cannot just be ‘winged’ and local sources tapped into and then depleted.

Finally our small community is a very caring community and the actions of developers has created a division across families and neighbours. We rely upon each other, our social connection, so that when adversity hits we have some resilience in store.

This plan violates the Paris Agreement.

By consuming valuable agricultural land and introducing contamination threats, the project directly contradicts Article 2.1(b) of the Paris Agreement, which requires climate action to proceed "in a manner that does not threaten food production."

This is climate policy in reverse — sacrificing food for failed green optics.

NSW Fire Services say Solar and BESS Fires are highly toxic and uncontrollable - with BESS often burning for days.

Fire and Rescue NSW has issued an alarming warning about large-scale lithium battery installations:
•there is no consistent guidance,
• no reliable extinguishing methods,
•no local firefighting capacity for such complex chemical fires.

This project poses an extreme hazard to the emergency services and communities around it.

The lithium-ion BESS and solar infrastructure contain dangerous ‘forever chemicals’ which are known to leach into groundwater and surface water.
This directly violates the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and places communities and agricultural lands at risk of irreversible contamination — a public health disaster in the making.

This project blatantly contravenes the National Electricity Law (NEL) Objective by failing to deliver safe, secure, reliable, and affordable electricity.

It introduces dangerous intermittency, national security vulnerabilities, and fire risks, while imposing huge long-term costs on consumers and communities.

This is an abuse of planning policy that sets a reckless precedent.

there is a lack of biodiversity offsets or compensation commensurate with risk
Given the high environmental risk, any mitigation plan should include offsets or compensation that are measurable, enforceable and conservative. The EIS’s proposed offsets are vague or insufficient. There's an absence of defensible offsets proportional to potential species losses.

this is totally incompatibility with Aboriginal and cultural heritage values
Large land use conversion may damage unknown or under‑recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, sacred places, song lines, artefact scatters or landscapes. The EIS does not guarantee full, independent surveying or consultation. The areas cultural heritage risk is being undervalued.

Hazard of chemical leaching in extreme weather or flooding. local councils are sending out extreme preparedness notification.
In extreme rainfall or flood events, panel backing materials, battery electrolytes, heavy metals or other chemicals may leach into soils and waterways. The EIS does not convincingly model or prevent worst‑case chemical release under flood conditions. There is simply insufficient safeguards.

project have a high risk of technology obsolescence and stranded asset.
In the 30‑ to 50‑year life of the facility, battery and solar technology may evolve, this project may become obsolete and uncompetitive. If operators abandon or underutilise it, the damage is irrevocable. This plan does not include adaptation or upgrade strategies in a changing tech environment.

There is absolutely inadequate emergency response planning. It will all be left to the local to defend the home if a fire happen on the installation. Will the developer be providing adequate help if catastrophe happened?
If a battery fire or explosion or major failure occurs, the region may lack nearby dedicated emergency capacity. The EIS does not commit to local fire services, specialised training, or guaranteed response times. there is complete absence of a binding emergency response plan.

This plan fails to adhere to the Commonwealth PFAS BAN - including PFOS and other related PFAS chemicals - explicitly banned under Australian law due to their persistence and toxicity.

Yet this project relies on unethically sourced, PFOS-coated solar panels, wiring, and inverters — primarily imported from China.

This is an illegal chemical loophole, enabled by regulatory negligence, and must be halted immediately.