Ebor Battery Energy Storage System

I object to this environmentally destructive plan with its multitude of failures regarding public health and safety, security, affordability and capability, as well as the lack of protection of precious biodiversity.

Conservation of biological diversity is a fundamental element of Ecologically Sustainable Development - which is totally ignored by this horrible, totally disingenuous and unwanted BESS scam that has NO SOCIAL LICENCE whatsoever!!

This extremely hazardous, CCP reliant, unethical plan defies every aspect of the National Electricity Law Objective.

Ebor BESS disaster is a massive waste of taxpayer’s money for a Fake Green Scam that does not demonstrate that it will ever deliver electricity outcomes that are genuinely safe, secure, reliable, high quality and affordable for consumers.

The assessment prioritises predatory vested interests and hasty deployment over a complete examination of long-term risks, biodiversity impacts, costs and consequences.

I object to the cumulative industrialisation of this area and any other rural area, as toxic contaminating, incapable, insecure, CCP reliant BESS junk is a disaster here, there and anywhere.

The dodgy DPHI’s individual assessments fail to consider the cumulative impacts of multiple swindle factories wrecking rural landscapes forever and poisoning these industrial zones.

One is terrible and the combined impacts on communities, agriculture, biodiversity and amenity are totally unjust, ill conceived and have no consent.

This dangerous and unsubstantiated BESS hazard ignores consumer outcomes like safety, affordability, national security, reliability and quality.

It’s a total waste of taxpayer subsidies with no long-term affordability benefits for electricity consumers.

Energy infrastructure decisions should be assessed against engineering facts, scientific rigour, integrity, ethics and actual consumer outcomes rather than false propaganda with no local or Australian benefits.

I strongly object to the proposed Ebor Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at Waterfall Way, Ebor.

This proposal seeks to introduce an extremely hazardous, high-risk and poisonous☠️industrial facility into productive grazing and pasture land, shockingly planned adjacent to the rural Ebor community - that should never ever be expected to bear the consequences of a catastrophic battery failure.

The Applicant repeatedly asks the Department to trust engineering standards, management plans and future operational procedures.
Trust is not evidence.

When the potential consequences include thermal runaway, prolonged fires, toxic gas releases, contaminated firefighting water and long-term environmental contamination, the burden of proof must be exceptionally high.
It has not been met.

Around the world, large-scale lithium-ion battery fires continue to expose serious weaknesses in emergency response, environmental protection and long-term contamination management.

Recent events at Moss Landing demonstrate that battery failures can have consequences extending well beyond the facility itself, prompting ongoing scientific investigation into the spread of hazardous battery-related contaminants.
Fire authorities and independent researchers continue to acknowledge significant knowledge gaps surrounding utility-scale battery systems.

If experts are still identifying failure mechanisms and refining emergency response strategies, it is far too premature to irresponsibly approve another massive BESS in this biodiversity rich area, adjacent to the Ebor community on food growing land, surrounded by pristine ecosystems.

This proposal places productive farmland, livestock, water resources, biodiversity and nearby residents at extreme risk for the life of the project and beyond.
Once irreversible contamination occurs, it cannot be undone by a management plan.

The Environmental Impact Statement relies heavily on optimistic assumptions about how systems are expected to perform rather than demonstrating how worst-case failures will be safely managed under real-world conditions.

The precautionary principle exists for developments exactly like this—where the potential consequences are severe and the scientific uncertainties remain significant.

The Department must not approve a project that asks the community to accept life-threatening risks that have not been independently proven to be acceptable.

Whilst National Security of our critical energy infrastructure must be our highest priority, UNREGULATED, CCP controlling BESS, Solar, Wind and Interconnector infrastructure is the antithesis of this, so must immediately be excluded and eliminated.

For these reasons, the Department must refuse consent for such an ill conceived Ebor Battery Energy Storage System in this critical ecological gateway within the New England Tablelands of NSW in Armidale Shire.

**’Forever Chemicals’ used in Lithium Ion Batteries Threaten Environment, Research Finds | Lithium-ion batteries | The Guardian 14/7/24
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/ 2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion- batteries-environment

**Coastal Wetland Deposition of Cathode Metals from the World’s Largest Lithium-ion Battery Fire" (Moss Landing BESS FIRE)
According to independent Experts this is actually worse than a radioactivity spill.
A lot of this very toxic stuff is not easily located. Whereas, with radioactivity, one needs just a hand-held Geiger counter to locate the pollutant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41598-025-25972-8#Tab1

**Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems
“The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services.
BESS present special hazards to fire-fighters....”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems

**Grid Scale Batteries & Fire Risk
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/
66fd2383b56dbc6906390297/1727865736681/Fannon-Batteries.pdf

**Disaster at Moss Landing: The Risk of Battery Storage - YouTube - 16/1/25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTaZFQA18E **https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/20/massive-green-battery-plant-catches-on-fire-again-weeks-after-major-toxic-blaze/

**https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/02/13/environmental-tests-reveal-elevated-levels-of-toxic- metals-since-moss-landing-battery-fire/

**https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/environmental-tests-reveal-battery-metals- around-20163514.php

**https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/elevated-levels-heavy-metals-elkhorn-slough- lithium-battery-facility-fire/

**Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks & Extinguisher Limitations
1.CSIRO ActivFire® Advisory Note AN-004
CSIRO explicitly states it "has not and will not certify ... that any fire extinguisher can effectively extinguish a Li-Ion battery fire."
Verification Services

**”There is a General Lack of Guidance and Provisions in Building Codes, Standards, and Legislation in Relation to Safety to Address the Potential Risks From These Technologies.
Part of the problem is that we do not yet know enough about their probability of failure, their mechanisms of failure and potential consequences of failure.”
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=940

This Proposal Represents an Unacceptable Risk to Public Health and Safety, Agriculture, the Rural Environment, Vital Water Sources and Surrounding Ecosystems.
We strongly object to the proposed Ebor Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at Waterfall Way in the ecologically critical New England Tablelands of NSW within Armidale Shire.

This proposal seeks approval for a large-scale industrial lithium-ion battery hazard on productive grazing and pasture land, horrifyingly adjacent to the Ebor community - which is surrounded by a pristine ecosystem.
The Applicant presents the Battery Energy Storage System as routine infrastructure supporting the electricity network.
It is not.

A utility-scale lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage System is a hazardous industrial facility capable of catastrophic failure through thermal runaway, prolonged fire, toxic gas release and widespread environmental contamination.
Unlike many industrial hazards, these risks cannot be eliminated. They can only be managed after they arise.
That reality alone demands an extremely high level of independent, expert scrutiny which has not been applied in the Environmental Impact Statement.

The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the risks associated with this development have been comprehensively identified, independently assessed and shown to be acceptable.

Productive Agricultural Land Should Not Become a Hazardous Industrial Battery Precinct
The Ebor area is surrounded by productive agricultural land, rural residences, livestock operations and valuable environmental assets.
This proposal would permanently introduce an industrial hazard capable of releasing seriously toxic contaminants into farmland, waterways, vegetation and surrounding ecosystems.
The consequences of a major battery fire extend well beyond the project boundary.
Unlike conventional industrial fires, lithium-ion battery failures generate toxic gases, contaminated smoke, metal particulates and contaminated firefighting water capable of affecting neighbouring properties.
This is fundamentally incompatible with the long-term protection of agricultural land, rural communities and biodiversity precious areas.

International Experience Demonstrates That Catastrophic Battery Fires Are Real
The Environmental Impact Statement repeatedly seeks to reassure decision-makers through engineering standards, management plans and operational procedures.
Recent international experience demonstrates that catastrophic battery failures continue to occur despite such measures.
The January 2025 fire at the Moss Landing Battery Energy Storage Facility in California—the world's largest lithium-ion battery installation—resulted in a prolonged emergency response, evacuations and ongoing environmental investigations.
Subsequent independent scientific research has documented deposition of cathode metals within nearby coastal wetlands following the fire, raising serious questions regarding the environmental consequences of large-scale battery failures and the persistence of contaminants beyond the immediate fire zone.
The proposal before the Department gives insufficient consideration to these lessons.
The Environmental Impact Statement instead assumes that engineering controls will perform exactly as intended throughout the project's operational life.
History demonstrates that assumption is flawed and unsafe.

Toxic Contamination Has Been Underestimated
Thermal runaway within lithium-ion batteries generates complex mixtures of hazardous substances including hydrogen fluoride, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and metal-containing aerosols.
These emissions present acute risks to emergency responders and nearby communities.

Recent research has also raised concerns regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as "forever chemicals", associated with lithium-ion battery manufacture and disposal, highlighting additional uncertainties regarding long-term environmental contamination.

The Applicant provides little meaningful assessment of:
* contamination of productive land;
* impacts upon livestock;
* contamination of pasture;
* deposition onto Ebor’s community gardens, orchards and resident’s vegetable gardens;
* contamination of dams and waterways;
* long-term soil monitoring following catastrophic battery fires.
These are significant omissions for a development located within such a productive and pristine rural landscape.

Thermal Runaway Cannot Be Prevented With Absolute Certainty
No lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage System can guarantee prevention of thermal runaway.
Failures may result from manufacturing defects, internal cell faults, electrical malfunction, mechanical damage, overheating, installation defects, maintenance failures, software malfunction or external fire exposure.
Once initiated, thermal runaway rapidly propagates between battery modules despite sophisticated monitoring systems.
The relevant planning question is therefore not whether thermal runaway is unlikely.
It is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that the consequences of a worst-case failure will remain acceptable.
That demonstration has not been made.

Firefighting Capability Remains Highly Uncertain
Large-scale lithium-ion battery fires present hazards fundamentally different from conventional fires.
Fire and Rescue NSW has publicly acknowledged that there remains a general lack of guidance, standards and legislative provisions addressing the risks associated with these technologies, and that important uncertainties remain regarding failure mechanisms and consequences.
Similarly, CSIRO has advised that it does not certify any portable fire extinguisher as capable of effectively extinguishing a lithium-ion battery fire.
These statements should concern every decision-maker.
As Australia's leading fire authorities acknowledge that knowledge gaps remain, the Department must stop their hasty, reckless approvals and exercise extreme caution before ever approving another large-scale Battery Energy Storage System within a rural district or city precinct.

Rural Emergency Services Cannot Be Assumed To Cope
The proposal is located within a regional area where emergency response resources are inherently more limited than those available within metropolitan centres.
The Applicant has not demonstrated:
* availability of specialist hazardous materials teams;
* prolonged firefighting capability;
* availability of sufficient water during drought;
* contaminated water containment;
* respiratory protection requirements;
* long-duration incident management;
* firefighter fatigue management;
* environmental monitoring following a major fire.
Emergency response plans are not evidence that emergency response capability exists.
Those capabilities must be independently demonstrated before any approval would ever be contemplated.

Existing Standards Do Not Eliminate Risk
The Applicant repeatedly relies upon compliance with engineering standards.
Compliance with standards is necessary.
It is not proof of safety.
Published research has noted that utility-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems are being deployed at an unprecedented scale while engineering knowledge, emergency response capability and design standards continue to evolve.
The existence of standards should not be confused with proof that catastrophic failures have been eliminated.

Long-Term Environmental Liability Has Not Been Resolved
The proposal also fails to provide adequate certainty regarding:
* poisoning of the public from hydrogen fluoride gas plumes;
* contamination remediation;
* long-term hazardous waste management;
* battery recycling capacity;
* financial responsibility for decommissioning;
* future ownership changes;
* financial security should the operating entity cease trading.
Without legally enforceable financial guarantees, future environmental liabilities will ultimately fall upon the Council, community or taxpayers.
That outcome is completely unacceptable.

The Precautionary Principle Must Apply
The Environmental Planning and Assessment framework requires decision-makers to adopt a precautionary approach where scientific uncertainty exists and the potential consequences are serious or irreversible.
This proposal presents precisely those circumstances.
Significant uncertainty remains regarding:
* catastrophic thermal runaway;
* prolonged battery fires;
* toxic gas releases;
* environmental contamination;
* impacts upon agricultural production;
* emergency response capability;
* long-term waste management;
* cumulative environmental liability.
Where these uncertainties remain unresolved, approval must never be granted.

Conclusion
The proposed Ebor Battery Energy Storage System would introduce a hazardous industrial facility recklessly and dangerously adjacent to Ebor community, into a productive agricultural landscape, within a biodiversity rich area - that has not been demonstrated to be safe at all under worst-case conditions.
The Environmental Impact Statement relies heavily upon assumptions, management plans and future operational controls rather than independent, expert risk research evidence demonstrating that catastrophic failure consequences have been reduced to an acceptable level.

The Department must not accept optimistic assumptions where public safety, agricultural land, water resources and the rural environment are at stake.
Until independent, peer-reviewed, expert evidence demonstrates that these risks have been comprehensively assessed and can be effectively managed under Australian conditions, the proposal fails to satisfy the standard of certainty expected of State Significant Development, so must be rejected.

Objection to Ebor Battery Energy Storage System (SSD-85362210) – Submission from a Former New England Resident
I am writing to object to the proposed Ebor Battery Energy Storage System.
I lived in the New England region for many years and still have strong ties to the area. I know the landscape, the rural communities, and the value of the remaining productive land and natural areas on the Tablelands. I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and supporting documents in detail. I believe this project will cause unacceptable and permanent damage to the region.
Grounds of Objection
1. Inadequate Biodiversity Assessment
The Conservation Programs, Heritage and Regulation Group (CPHR) advised in June 2025 that targeted surveys were required for a range of threatened species and that New England Peppermint Grassy Woodlands, a Critically Endangered Ecological Community, may be present on or near the site.
The final Biodiversity Development Assessment Report found almost none of these values and concluded that only 0.17 hectares of native vegetation would be cleared, requiring just two biodiversity credits as offsets. This significant gap between what the government’s own conservation experts required and what was actually delivered raises serious questions about the adequacy of the assessment. Even limited clearing and fragmentation in an already heavily cleared landscape contributes to ongoing biodiversity decline across the New England Tablelands.
2. Loss of Strategic Agricultural Land
The site is zoned RU1 Primary Production and contains Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development raised concerns about biosecurity risks and stated that decommissioning to only 500 mm depth would be insufficient to restore future agricultural capability.
As someone who has lived and worked in rural New England, I understand the importance of protecting productive land. Converting this land into a large industrial facility for decades is not a minor or reversible change. It removes land from potential future agricultural use and sets an undesirable precedent for the region.
3. Bushfire and Battery Fire Risks in a Remote Location
Ebor is in a bushfire-prone area. Fire and Rescue NSW advised that battery energy storage systems present special firefighting challenges and recommended a full Fire Safety Study. The Preliminary Hazard Analysis concludes there are “no credible offsite impacts”.
This conclusion does not adequately account for real-world risks. Lithium-ion battery fires, including those using LFP chemistry, can release toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride and generate large volumes of contaminated firefighting water that is harmful to soils and waterways. In a remote area like Ebor, emergency response relies on volunteer Rural Fire Service crews with no dedicated hazardous materials capability nearby. The risk of a battery fire occurring during extreme bushfire weather, and the potential for resulting environmental contamination, has not been properly assessed or mitigated.
4. Failure to Meet Ecologically Sustainable Development Principles
The project does not demonstrate that it meets the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, particularly the principles of ecologically sustainable development. When there is uncertainty about long-term environmental risks and irreversible impacts on biodiversity and agricultural land, the precautionary principle should apply.
Requested Outcome
I request that the project be refused in full.
The Environmental Impact Statement fails to properly assess the impacts on biodiversity, the conversion of strategic agricultural land, and the serious bushfire and battery fire risks in a remote location with limited emergency response capability. These deficiencies are fundamental and the project should not proceed.
The New England Tablelands has already contributed significantly to the state’s renewable energy targets. This project asks too much in return. It will cause permanent damage to biodiversity, productive agricultural land, and the rural character of an area I know well.
I urge the Department to reject this proposal.

I am writing to commend everyone associated with the Ebor BESS project. Not only will this project contribute to the State and National transition towards sustainable energy, but it will bring ongoing benefits to our local community. In particular, I would like to thank Daniel Hamel and his team for manner in which they have gone out of their way to door-knock every Ebor residence, to inform us of every aspect of the project; to answer any concerns; and to invite feed-back from the community.

I absolutely object to this horrible BESS plan as the dodgy assessment does not provide any confidence at all that the risks associated with thermal runaway, battery failure, toxic emissions and prolonged fire events have been comprehensively addressed.

International battery incidents demonstrate that large-scale battery storage facilities require rigorous, site-specific risk analysis and emergency planning which has NEVER been done by the authoritarian NSW Government’s DPIE/DPHI or IPCN.
They all need the sack as they just don’t care about public health and safety.

The emergency response capability has not been proven for this poisonous BESS.

We are extremely alarmed that local emergency services will be subjected to life-threatening, lethal hydrogen fluoride if responding to a major battery incident involving intense heat, hazardous gases and unpredictable failure mechanisms.

This developer must provide their own firefighters and emergency responders - who have appropriate training, equipment, resources and procedures for credible worst-case scenarios as no locals should ever be subjected to lethal BESS plumes.

I am 100% opposed to this project !!!
This project does not belong in a pristine untouched environment like Ebor, I am concerned re our water and land contamination, the impact on the environment ie light pollution, fire hazard, chemicals expelled, and the rare gliders that will be disturbed by this !!! Ebor should be preserved and protected for eco tourism !! This system should be placed near the already ruined areas where the Metz solar farms are or the electricity power station in Armidale and not in our small village!!! It will be visible from point lookout and the impact this will have is not good BESS be off !!!!!!!

When the inevitable, irreversible environmental harm occurs, who will bear the responsibility and financial liability from this ecocidal monstrosity?

According to the POEO Act - the Local Council is ultimately responsible/liable for any toxic contamination/pollution of the land/water caused by Solar Electricity Generation Works as they are NOT A REGULATED ACTIVITY.
Is it the same for this BESS disaster?

Where’s the essential, upfront Decommissioning + Remediation Bond and the Public Liability Guarantee from the Government to protect all the neighbour victims?

Nobody wants this toxic, life-threatening Asbestos of the Future - Ticking-Time-Bomb BESS JUNK in Rural NSW!

The irresponsible, dictatorial NSW Government must be sacked as it’s completely failing to protect the public from the catastrophic FIRE Risks of Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems as they threaten our lives and poison our land, water and biodiversity.

It’s SO STUPID and SO BAD that it even appears to be DELIBERATE!

It’s well past time that the NSW Premier gets honest for once and admits these SWINDLE FACTORIES ARE ALL A DANGEROUS, DEADLY SCAM!

Border Force admit that imported BESS, Solar Panels and Wind Turbines are unregulated - with banned substances that they contain like PFAS/PFOS and Asbestos being ignored.

There is no supply chain transparency for unethically sourced components - where the origin, manufacturing standards and environmental practices require far greater scrutiny.

Imported infrastructure should be subject to rigorous verification of safety, security, environmental and ethical standards.

Why does the dodgy NSW Government and NON-independent IPCN keep ignoring these essential facts?

I object to this incapable and extremely toxic BESS which is highly likely to result in a life-threatening emergency event - as toxic lithium-ion batteries leak dangerous chemicals and generate complex, lethal hydrogen fluoride gas plumes when on FIRE.

This requires diligent risk research by independent experts without vested interests and far more detailed assessment.

The consequences of contamination, whether cleanup is guaranteed or even possible and the irreversible, long-term, environmental impacts must all be clearly established and transparently provided before these BESS are even planned.

This dodgy assessment is total rubbish as it only relies on fake green predictions and assumptions based on garbage in garbage out modelling and false propaganda - while leaving vital life-threatening risks, energy poverty and the national security crisis the CCP reliant RenewaBULL RORT has created deliberately unaddressed.

Sound environmental policy based on ecologically sustainable development requires a complete examination of foreseeable risks prior to planning, let alone approval.

DUMP THIS TOXIC SCAM and DUMP THE TOXIC NSW GOVERNMENT SCAMMERS!

It is unconscionable to approve a massive 100 MW/870 MWh hazardous chemical complex sitting 0 metres from the Ebor township zone edge and a mere 150 to 250 metres from local residential doorways!

If a thermal runaway event triggers a catastrophic battery fire, there is currently zero independent evidence of specialised hazardous materials teams or long-duration firefighting capability to stop it.

Approving this extreme hazard adjacent to families is entirely reckless, leaving the public - including vulnerable infants and little children exposed to breathing in lethal, suffocating chemical plumes.

The emergency response plans submitted by the developers are empty words on paper and do not serve as proof that actual, practical emergency response capabilities exist in this regional area.

The applicant has entirely failed to demonstrate a prolonged firefighting water supply during severe drought, specialised firefighter fatigue management, or adequate post-fire contaminated water containment systems.

Until these specialised capabilities are independently established and tested on the ground, approving a mega-scale fire hazard right next to the Guy Fawkes River National Park is entirely criminal.

Experience has shown that BESS works draw on the grid at times of no sun and little or no wind. On occasions, BESS works draw on the grid at the same time that other BESS works are supplying the grid. That is, BESS are effectively charging another BESS. This is ludicrous, and was highlighted by SOS some years ago that this would occur. This project will add to this insanity.
Attached are questions that must be addressed by this project in its EIS response.

Curse this project in on upon near Ebor Sacred centre of area Sacred, hey Gumbaynggirr, absent in this area why?
Teacher Gumbaynggirr be where ? Not here in on upon a area of Sacred significance not assessed ? Not.
ID areas Sacred, Gumbaynggirr. You haven't here, why? Needs an investigation of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessors.
Needs an assessment of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessors does this proposal in on upon near Ebor centre of Sacred region, hey Gumbaynggirr.
Knowledge of Sacred be knowledge offered in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessments thank you, nsw.gov.au planners, missing information.
Sound. Significant in Aboriginal Culture. Is there a Sound emitted over this Land Sacred ? Yes, or No? Neglect of Sound as Significant in Aboriginal Culture needs assessment, nsw.gov.au planners.
You are to be charged with Negligence, nsw.gov.au planners, and Ministers for Environment Penny Sharpe, and Federal Government, Minister Watt. About time !! Long overdue ! Worthiness issues.
Water does not grow on Trees, are you aware, nsw.gov.au planners. 2019 Worst Ever Dry Drought Ever in History in the Entire state of NSW into QLD into Victoria followed by those Devastating Fires that destroyed CANOPY all over the Great Divide, with consequence to the Land. The Land. Not one of you as nsw.gov.au planners and Ministers State and Federal, has taken into account Effect of 2019 into 2020 Worst Ever Dry Drought Ever in History in NSW. Ebor is a Sacred region. Stay out of it.
Stay out of it.
Let the cattle graze and that be it. NO more Water be lost here in this Sacred Ebor area Sacred yes and understood to be Sacred hey Gumbaynggirr.
White man way Disrepects Oldest Living Culture upon Earth. Time that Ceased. Foreign Multinationals companies have No Respect for Ancient cultures globally, yet Deals are made between Foreign Multinationals companies and Federal, State and Local governments without the Consent or Permission of Aboriginal Elder Permission. It is called Proper Way, sadly still not practiced in Australia in the Hands of Multinationals Global investment.
To be continuing this Hideous Renewable energy transition is Wrong. Very Wrong.
Ebor is centre of Sacred area Sacred. If you are understanding that, get this project off this area. It got through, how ?? How ?? How ??
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/ebor-battery-energy-storage-system
Please read the below:-
"Construction, operation, and decommissioning of a battery energy storage system (BESS) with a capacity of 100 MW/800 MWh and ancillary infrastructure". 
No Compensation plan ?? No ?? No. Why ??
I wonder who the Mayor is. Haven't done their homework have they re Risk of BESS.
https://theconversation.com/when-the-worlds-largest-battery-power-plant-caught-fire-toxic-metals-rained-down-wetlands-captured-the-fallout-268848
1 Dec 2025 — The Moss Landing battery fire became an unintended experiment – showing how burning lithium-ion cells scattered nickel, cobalt and manganese ...
https://www.epa.gov/ca/moss-landing-vistra-battery-fire
On January 16, 2025, the Moss Landing 300 battery energy storage system at the Moss Landing Vistra power plant (Monterey County, Calif.) caught fire
https://reneweconomy.com.au/massive-moss-landing-battery-still-smoking-as-authorities-probe-cause-of-devastating-fire/
20 Jan 2025 — About 80 per cent of the Moss Landing battery facility in California has been destroyed in a fire which started on Thursday afternoon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Power_Plant
At 3 pm on Thursday, January 16, 2025, a fire broke out in the Phase 1 building (300 MW / 1,200 MWh), the portion of the site managed by Vistra Corp.
https://www.montereycountynow.com/news/local_news/one-year-later-the-moss-landing-battery-fire-leaves-more-questions-than-answers/article_996d6185-1fce-4131-90b1-292dbe96a291.html
15 Jan 2026 — One year after the Moss Landing battery fire, health impacts remain unclear. Residents seek answers, oversight, and regulations.
https://community.purpleair.com/t/moss-landing-battery-fire/11233
17 Jan 2025 — The burnt batteries are sending chlorine and/or florine gases into the atmosphere. We are trying to assess the risk to us here in Santa Cruz.Read more
https://heatmap.news/energy/moss-landing-battery-safety
28 Mar 2025 — Nearly all of the batteries at the 300 megawatt facility, one of the world's largest, burned up in the fire, sending a colossal plume of black smoke soaring up ...Read more
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/moss-landing-battery-fire-vistra/737837/
21 Jan 2025 — The site's fourth blaze in five years destroyed most of a 300-MW battery array owned by Vistra Energy and should serve as a “wake-up call” ...
https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/06/erin-brockovich-lawsuit-moss-landing-power-plant-fire/
6 Feb 2025 — Erin Brockovich and Monterey County residents sued Vistra Energy and PG&E Thursday over a January fire at a battery storage site.
https://kioncentralcoast.com/news/monterey-county/moss-landing/moss-landing-storage-fire/2025/03/11/another-town-hall-addresses-the-moss-landing-battery-storage-fire-lawsuit-tuesday-evening/
11 Mar 2025 — There will be another town hall meeting held by Singleton Schreiber and consumer advocate Erin Brockovich at 6 p.m. on Tuesday.
https://www.singletonschreiber.com/newsroom/events/moss-landing-battery-fire-virtual-town-hall-3-4-26
3 Apr 2026 — Join Singleton Schreiber and consumer advocate Erin Brockovich at a Virtual Town Hall on Wednesday, March 4th, 2026, at 5:00 PM, PT. WHAT: Moss ...Read more
https://www.facebook.com/groups/962330675331079/posts/971282871102526/
Never Again Moss Landing Battery Environmental Disaster Community Group. Kathy Sinnott󰞋Feb 1, 2025󰞋󱟠. 󳄫. Erin Brockovich called me last evening.Read more......."Erin Brockovich called me last evening. She is reaching out to those of us who reported the BESS fire on her Community Health Book webpage. Enough of us put pins in the map to get attention. It’s not too late to stick your pin in the map"...
A link suggests:-
"Ebor BESS is a 100MW battery energy storage project delivering reliable, renewable power to the NSW grid. Learn how it supports clean energy.."
BESS are potentially toxic Infrastructures of No need in NSW, and there's no such thing as "clean energy". You will Not get away with this lie, nsw.gov.au - Asian manufacturing Northern Hemisphere In View!
The Ebor BESS proposal is Completely Inappropriate in NSW Great Divide region, high Altitude region, a many headwaters Region to gorge Escarpment Catchments as now Protected Nature Reserves and National Parks, as well as Best in NSW grazing country.
Developers Bridge Energy and Energy Vault research everyone.   
https://bridgeenergy.com.au/
"Bridge Energy is an Australian-owned energy development company dedicated to building a resilient, decarbonised electricity grid"
"Decarbonised" is a word created to market investment opportunities globally. And that is All it is!
How do we Stop You people misleading the Public, ignorant ! How Dare you Mislead Australians, Bridge Energy.
https://www.eborbess.com.au/news/bridge-energy-and-energy-vault-announce-partnership
Ohhhh Nooo! Read on...
"5 Feb 2026 — Bridge Energy is an Australian company established to develop projects that bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy."
5 staff?
Bridge gap between FFs and RE??
What a Nonsense statement, Bridge Energy. Do you even Know where Ebor is ??? How you gonna bring FF powered trucks up to Ebor, there, Ebor, carrying Unnecessary Junk not needed, entering Australia via FF powered ships from Northern Hemisphere (nb) cheap labour manufacturing countries when we have Coal we can use instead, Without the Completely Unnecessary JUNK of NO NEED here in Australia, and to what - pretend to Decommission claiming clean energy, you Bunch of Hypocrits!
https://renewablesnow.com/news/energy-vault-backed-870-mwh-bess-project-in-australia-lands-ltesa-1289205/
"US- and Switzerland-based energy storage specialist Energy Vault Holdings Inc (NYSE:NRGV)"...( say what, from where!) "said its development partner in Australia has secured a long-term energy service agreement (LTESA) for a 100-MW/870-MWh battery project in New South Wales, strengthening the company’s push to own and operate storage assets in the country."
( Selling us, aren't you, gov.au Federal State and Local, Shame on you, Shame on you,Shame in you!!)
"Energy Vault said Bridge Energy had been awarded the 14-year LTESA for the Ebor battery energy storage system (BESS) under the New South Wales Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap. The project, located in the New England region of the state, will provide up to eight hours of dispatchable capacity to support the grid as coal-fired generation retires."
Ahhhh How do we Stop this !!! You Despicable human beings, as gov.au Federal, State and Local! I need you under investigation, audited each of you each of you. You are Costing your Fellow Australians Far Too Much!

"Energy Vault holds an exclusive option to acquire and construct the project," ( who from ???) "which is expected to require an investment of about AUD 310 million... after having supported Bridge Energy through early-stage development. Subject to regulatory and contractual approvals, Energy Vault plans to exercise the option and develop the project to completion before building, owning and operating it, the company said."
"Energy Vault is a global energy storage company specializing in gravity and kinetic energy based, long-duration energy storage products"
Vested interests in view. Mayor, GM, Staff, NO SOCIAL LICENCE.
No Social Licence.
No Social Licence.
National Parks NSW are for every Australian and need Every Drop of water in on upon Lands Waterways and Communities Great Divide escarpment into gorges east flow in nature toward the Ocean Pacific. 2019 into 2020 Worst Ever Dry Drought Ever in History in the Entire state of NSW do NOT ignore, nsw.gov.au! WaterIsPrecious