Molong Battery Energy Storage System

This treacherous, sabotaging plan highlights Strategic Vulnerability, Economic Harm, and the False Promise of Storage.

The Molong Battery should be rejected on the grounds that it weakens Australia’s strategic, economic, and energy resilience while pretending to strengthen it.

Battery storage does not create energy security; it magnifies dependency—on hostile CCP manufacturing, opaque software systems, complex supply chains, and continuous government intervention.
These are not attributes of a resilient national energy system; they are points of extreme failure.

Large-scale batteries are intrinsically short-lived assets, degrading from the moment they are commissioned.
Their economic model relies on market volatility, not reliability—profiting from price spikes that are themselves a symptom of a broken grid.

In effect, this project benefits from instability, while households and industry pay the price through higher bills and reduced reliability.
This is the opposite of infrastructure that serves the public interest.

From a national security perspective, embedding critical grid infrastructure that can be monitored, controlled, or disabled through external systems is indefensible.
In an era of cyber conflict and geopolitical coercion, energy infrastructure must be robust, sovereign, and simple—not dependent on proprietary technology and replacement components sourced from adversarial jurisdictions.
Approving this facility entrenches vulnerability at the very moment Australia should be eliminating it.

The project also accelerates economic decline by driving electricity costs higher across the system.
Energy-intensive industries cannot survive on intermittent supply patched together with storage devices that empty in hours.
Productivity suffers, investment retreats, and regional communities are left with stranded assets and lost opportunity.
This is not a transition; it is managed contraction disguised as progress.

Ultimately, the Molong Battery is built on a false premise: that storage can substitute for generation, and ideology can substitute for physics.
Australia possesses abundant, reliable energy resources capable of delivering secure, affordable, continuous power with far smaller land and material footprints.
Choosing instead to impose a hazardous, short-term, foreign-dependent technology on an unaware and unwilling community is not leadership—it is strategic self-harm.

FACTUAL REFERENCES DELIBERATELY IGNORED BY: ->
*CCP Prioritising NSW Premier & FAILbanese
*Incompetent, Delusional Energy Ministers
*Deceitful DPHI
*Complicit IPCN
*Dodgy Developers
*Giles’ at ‘RUIN ECONOMY’
*UNCLEAN ENERGY COUNCIL = “DRACULA IN CHARGE OF THE BLOOD BANK.”

**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/

**Battery recycling plant explodes - twice. (What it means for you.) | Auto Expert John Cadogan - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-nzOJ01Fkc

**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 emerging 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=9402

ECONOMIC LICENCE HAS BEEN FORGED:
**Fancy a Model? Wait Till She Moves In - by Chris Uhlmann - 1/12/2025
“The irony is, from the moment humanity first burned wood, we have used fossil fuels to protect ourselves from the fury of the weather.
Now, just as many warn the climate will become more extreme, we are rebuilding our entire power system on the whims of wind and sunshine.
It has the feel of an Icarus moment: a civilisation convinced it can defy gravity, only to discover the wax melts in real sunlight.” https://chrisuhlmann.substack.com/p/fancy-a-model-wait-till-she-moves

**”The idea that adding more & more renewable energy to the grid pushes power prices down has been comprehensively dismissed."
10/2/25 4:48 minutes - Aidan Morrison https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/governments-insistence-on-renewables- amid-soaring-power-prices-lashed/video/86bd230860f5514d1e587239c6b913ab

**Energy Transition Masquerade: The $360 Billion You Pay - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0NKDozvO58

**Centre for Independent Studies Zoe Hilton discusses the Liberal Party’s recent move to ditch net zero as well as their choice to stay in the Paris Agreement. | Sky News Australia | Facebook - 14/11/2025
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/raises-a-few-questions-liberal-party- decision-to-stay-in-paris-agreement-dispute/1158866003084976/

NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE:
The Government has no measures to protect new energy sources from malicious actors!

**China-linked Belt and Road company involved in Australian net-zero projects sparks security concerns - TA NEA - 17/10/2025 https://tanea.com.au/en/china-linked-belt-and-road-company-involved-in-australian-net-zero- projects-sparks-security-concerns/

**China's Energy Dream - Patricia Adams
“Carbon dioxide reduction only makes sense for those China wishes to harm & supplant." https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/12/Adams-Chinas-Energy-Dream.pdf

**Chinese hackers are determined to ‘wreak havoc’ on U.S. critical infrastructure, FBI director Wray warns | PBS News - 2024 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/chinese-hackers-are-determined-to-wreak-havoc-on-u- s-critical-infrastructure-fbi-director-wray-warns

**Rogue Communication Devices Found in Chinese Inverters
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/ghost-machine-rogue-communication- devices-found-chinese-inverters-2025-05-14/

**Beautifully Hackable - Irina Slav on Energy - 12/8/24
https://irinaslav.substack.com/p/beautifully-hackable?utm_campaign=email- post&utm_source=substack

**U.S Blacklists Chinese Battery Giant
“These batteries are used in electric vehicles here in Australia,” Mr Danby said. https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/us-military-is-concerned-america-blacklists-chinese- battery-giant-over-military-links/video/765e12fec5e3b837a5e606e40371a7f9
**China's Sinister Solar Panels and the Plan to Black Out the World! - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqL0s18HXbY - 13:44 minutes

**Crying Shame inside the Demise of Australia’s only Battery Maker
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/crying-shame-inside-the-demise-of-australia-s-only-battery-maker-20250901-p5mrl4

**Editors' picks for 2024: 'Australia’s climate ambitions have a modern slavery problem: examining the origins of our big batteries' aspistrategist.org.au

This project is nothing more than a financially engineered market-manipulation device, designed to exploit price volatility rather than deliver reliable energy.
It will inflate electricity prices, deepen energy poverty, and punish households and businesses while delivering windfall profits to a subsidised corporate entity with zero accountability to the Molong community.

Sack the NSW Government for torturing the public so egregiously and treacherously selling Australia out to Chinese Control of our critical energy infrastructure and toxic ruin-a-bull rubbish!

There is no social licence for this RenewaBULL Rort!
It is being imposed against the will of the community - transforming Molong into an unwilling toxic industrial sacrifice zone for a speculative energy experiment that only benefits dodgy vested interests who’re ripping off Australia.

NSW families are continually hurt and suffering from ever escalating electricity prices and the poisoning of our precious biodiversity and the public.

Shame on the deceitful, cruel and evil Government crooks and complicit IPCN for approving such dishonest and damaging garbage like this Trojan Horse - insecure, China reliant BESS BOMB - against our will with no consent!

This hazardous contaminating Molong BESS junk would create a massive, unplanned for, toxic waste burden, with no credible end-of-life strategy.

The Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development are defied by fake green rubbish like this as burning and spent batteries become ticking time bombs, exporting poisonous pollution today and abandonment costs to future generations.

Nothing Clean about the Dirty Energy Council’s ASBESTOS OF THE FUTURE!

This poisonous Battery will never generate energy—it merely shuffles scarcity, storing unreliable wind and solar power that fails most of the time due to pathetic capacity factors.
Dressing intermittency up as reliability is deliberate deception, not sound energy planning.

Everyone with a brain knows that SWINDLE FACTORIES are all pathetically intermittent, as ugly as sin and imploding fast due to fragility and poisonous substances - as they soon burn, collapse, fracture and poison communities - whilst ensuring we’re subjected to Chinese control thanks to FAILbanese and NSW Government fools.

To Whom It May Concern,

Re: Molong Battery Energy Storage System (SSD-80471210) – Submission

This submission relates to the exhibited proposal for the Molong Battery Energy Storage System .

I own two properties in close proximity to the proposed development: 148 Back Saleyards Road (principal place of residence) and 134 Back Saleyards Road (tenanted).
Both properties were purchased and are occupied on the basis of the area’s rural amenity, open farmland views, low traffic volumes, and a quiet environment suitable for family living, including for tenants with young children.
The proposal has the potential to materially alter the local environment and amenity and to impose ongoing risks and impacts on nearby landowners and occupants.
For the reasons set out below, this submission objects to the project proceeding in its current form and requests that consent be refused.
In the alternative, if consent is contemplated, the matters below must be addressed with enforceable conditions of consent.
________________________________________
1. Local Amenity and Rural Character
From 148 Back Saleyards Road, the current outlook is to untouched farmland. Back Saleyards Road presently experiences minimal traffic and the locality is quiet and peaceful. The proposed development introduces an industrial land use into this rural setting and risks a permanent loss of rural character, quiet enjoyment, and residential amenity for nearby owners and occupiers.
The EIS should more clearly demonstrate why this location is appropriate given proximity to established residences and lifestyle/hobby farm properties, and should address land use compatibility in a rural residential context.
________________________________________
2. Noise Impacts
Noise is a primary concern for both properties, particularly given the existing low ambient noise levels in the area.
The proponent should be required to address:
1. Construction noise and duration
i. Likely construction timeframe, hours of work, and the expected intensity of heavy vehicle and plant movements.
ii. Noise mitigation such as staging, equipment selection, respite periods, sound barriers.
2. Operational noise
i. Predicted noise levels from inverters, transformers, cooling fans/HVAC and any auxiliary plant, assessed at relevant receiver locations including 148 and 134 Back Saleyards Road.
ii. Specific assessment of tonal noise and low frequency noise, which can be particularly intrusive at night in rural environments and may not be adequately captured by general averages.
3. Noise barriers and design responses
i. Whether acoustic screening, orientation of equipment, enclosure specifications, or bunding/noise walls have been considered and what is proposed.
ii. A commitment to post commissioning compliance monitoring and a requirement to implement additional mitigation if exceedances or unreasonable impacts occur.
________________________________________
3. Construction Impacts
Back Saleyards Road currently has minimal traffic. The project risks months of construction related impacts, including:
i. Dust generation and reduced air quality from earthworks and heavy vehicle movements;
ii. Increased traffic volumes, including heavy vehicles, creating safety risks; and
iii. Noise and vibration associated with construction traffic and plant.
The proponent should be required to provide a detailed Construction Traffic and Environmental Management Plan addressing haul routes, hours, dust suppression, speed management, road maintenance/repair obligations, and complaint response procedures.
________________________________________
4. Fire Risk, Toxic Gases, Explosion Risk and Emergency Response Capacity
A battery energy storage facility introduces a low probability but high consequence risk. In a rural area with limited emergency response capacity, this is a serious concern, particularly given proximity to homes, existing and proposed, and existing infrastructure like existing powerlines.
The proponent should be required to provide:
i. A site specific fire safety study and quantitative risk assessment addressing worst case scenarios (thermal runaway, cascading failure, toxic smoke, and firewater contamination).
ii. Clear evidence supporting setback distances and onsite safety systems (detection, suppression, isolation, shutdown, access for responders).
iii. A detailed Emergency Response Plan developed with relevant emergency services and demonstrating practical capability (access, water supply, communications, incident notification to neighbours).
________________________________________
5. Environmental Risks
Significant environmental concerns arise in relation to contamination and offsite impacts, including:
i. Potential contamination of local water sources, including creeks and dams;
ii. The presence of platypus in local creeks and yabbies in dams, which indicates sensitive aquatic ecosystems; and
iii. The risk of contaminated runoff or firewater migration into waterways during incidents or extreme rain events.
The proponent should be required to address:
i. Baseline (pre construction) and ongoing monitoring of surface water and groundwater quality, with clear trigger levels and mandatory corrective actions.
ii. Engineered containment for chemicals and contaminated firewater (bunding, impermeable surfaces, isolation drainage, storage capacity sized for credible events).
iii. A transparent incident reporting framework and independent auditing.
________________________________________
6. Visual Impact and Loss of Enjoyment of the Local Area
The proposal would introduce a significant visual intrusion into a landscape currently characterised by open rural views. This affects not only residents, but also local activities such as dog walking, which is common along Back Saleyards Road.
The proponent should provide:
i. Visual impact assessments from 148 Back Saleyards Road, the road corridor, and other sensitive viewpoints, including day and night scenarios;
ii. Landscaping and screening commitments with enforceable performance standards and maintenance obligations; and
iii. A lighting plan that minimises light spill and protects rural night time amenity.
7. Property Devaluation and Financial Impacts
The proposal is expected to adversely affect the value and marketability of nearby lifestyle/hobby farm properties. This is of particular concern given the financial burden of maintaining two mortgages and the reasonable expectation that rural amenity would be preserved.
This submission notes that informal enquiries with property agents indicate that developments of this type can cause significant devaluation for lifestyle properties due to perceived safety risk, noise, visual impact and stigma. The EIS should be required to address these issues in a meaningful way, including how residual impacts will be mitigated and what, if any, neighbour impact measures are proposed.
________________________________________
8. Health and Wellbeing
Concerns exist regarding potential exposure pathways from toxic gases/fumes during an incident, and the ongoing stress and anxiety associated with living adjacent to an industrial facility perceived as hazardous. The project also risks diminishing the ability to use and enjoy outdoor areas, gardens and the rural lifestyle that residents and tenants have deliberately chosen.
The assessment should consider human health and wellbeing impacts in a rural residential context, not just compliance based metrics.
________________________________________
9. “Not Renewable” / Lifecycle and End of Life Management
Concerns also arise regarding lifecycle impacts and end of life management, including:
i. embodied emissions and supply chain impacts;
ii. waste handling and recycling capacity; and
iii. decommissioning and site rehabilitation.
Accordingly, the proponent should be required to provide, and be bound by, a detailed Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan that specifies the required end of life outcomes, including removal of all above ground infrastructure, lawful transport and recycling/disposal of battery modules and associated hazardous materials, and verification that no contamination remains.
In addition, any consent should require an enforceable financial security mechanism such as a bank guarantee or a remediation fund, sufficient to fund decommissioning, waste disposal, and any necessary remediation, and which is reviewed periodically over the life of the project.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, particularly noise impacts, construction traffic and dust, fire and toxic gas risk, environmental contamination risks, visual and amenity impacts, and property devaluation, this submission objects to the Molong Battery Energy Storage System proceeding as proposed and requests that development consent be refused.
If consent is contemplated, it is requested that the consent authority require the proponent to address the above matters with site specific evidence and impose strict, enforceable conditions, including independent monitoring and clearly defined mitigation obligations.


Matthew Knott & Lauren Donovan

Rather than strengthening Australia, this Market Manipulating, hazardous BESS actively weakens national sovereignty, embedding dependence on CCP-controlled supply chains while aligning with the ASEAN POWER GRID AGENDA that only benefits China’s strategic dominance, not Australia at all.

Why is the Government so determined to destroy our health and safety, our soil, our water, our food security, our biodiversity as well as our economy, our energy security and our national security - just so all the dodgy crooks and vested interests - including ex political leaders - can rip everyday Australians off so obscenely, eg.:
Hansard - Senate 30/07/2025 Parliament of Australia
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/28821/&sid=0243

Dangerous Lithium-ion BESS facilities like this lack adequate engineering standards, meaning failures are inevitable, unpredictable, and uncontrollable - making the unaware Molong Community an extremely dangerous experimental testing ground - rather than a protected rural community.

Shame on this disingenuous, totally irresponsible NSW Government for deliberately ignoring the treacherous facts and for poisoning rural NSW in spite of knowing the toxic risks.

Who bears responsibility if the legal entity that caused contamination no longer exists?
The proposal does not adequately consider insolvency and abandonment scenarios. Large scale battery projects often operate through special purpose entities with limited lifespan. If contamination occurs late in the operational period or after closure, the responsible entity may no longer exist. End of life obligations are framed as intentions rather than secured liabilities. Degraded batteries require specialist dismantling and disposal, often involving overseas processing. Without enforceable financial bonds that survive corporate dissolution, the burden of contamination and waste management inevitably shifts to landholders or public authorities.

The interaction between fire suppression doctrine and environmental protection law is insufficiently examined. Lithium ion battery fires are frequently managed by controlled burn strategies that prioritise asset protection rather than environmental outcomes. This approach directly conflicts with environmental obligations to prevent pollution. Fire fighting foams and chemical suppressants used during such events often contain PFAS compounds that contaminate soil and water. The proposal offers no credible mechanism to reconcile emergency response practices with long term environmental protection, particularly in a rural context.
How can laws designed to prevent pollution operate effectively when emergency responses deliberately spread forever contaminants?

he planning assessment fails to account for maintenance decay over time. Infrastructure reliability is often highest during early operation and declines as assets age, budgets tighten and corporate priorities change. Energy infrastructure failures during extreme heat in regional Australia illustrate how deferred maintenance manifests during peak stress. Battery systems become more chemically unstable as they degrade. End of life handling increases fire and contamination risk precisely when maintenance oversight is weakest. The proposal assumes perpetual compliance without addressing this well documented lifecycle pattern. Who guarantees that ageing infrastructure will remain safe over decades of operation?

This proposal inadequately addresses the absence of a viable waste stream for end of life lithium ion batteries. Recycling capacity is limited and often offshore, with uncertain environmental standards. Disposal pathways remain unresolved globally. Approving a facility without a guaranteed end of life solution externalises waste risk to future communities. Fire and contamination risks do not end with operation but increase during dismantling, transport and processing of degraded batteries. How can approval be valid when the final destination of hazardous waste is unknown? Will the developer be financially reasonable?

The assessment treats contamination as a site specific issue, ignoring transboundary impacts. PFAS compounds migrate through groundwater, surface water and airborne particles without regard to property boundaries. Battery fire incidents internationally have resulted in contamination well beyond site limits. Planning controls tied to lot boundaries are therefore insufficient to manage foreseeable off site harm. Who compensates affected parties when contamination crosses jurisdictional boundaries?

Emergency response capacity in regional areas is fundamentally different from metropolitan contexts. Lithium ion battery fires require prolonged exclusion zones, specialised equipment and tolerance of ongoing combustion. International examples show that even well resourced services struggle to control these events. The proposal does not demonstrate how prolonged fire, chemical runoff and smoke would be managed locally without unacceptable environmental compromise.
How can safety be assured in a rural context when global experience shows that even ideal resources are insufficient?

This development introduces cumulative industrialisation into a rural area without adequate consideration of long term land sterilisation. Once contamination occurs, land use options narrow permanently. Battery facilities overseas have left sites unusable for agriculture or habitation long after closure. End of life remediation is rarely complete, particularly where PFAS is involved.
How can consent account for irreversible changes to land that will last generations?

A large lithium battery facility that is built so close to a Regional City is madeness given the toxicity of lithium battery fires. Should a battery catch fire, it is a fire that the RFS is unable to safely deal with, needs HAZMAT as the results of the chemical fire will disperse very toxic chemicals that can kill animals including humans.
Mudgee is likely to be required to evacuate, depending on wind direction at the time and future wind directions as these fires are not able to be distinguished but have to "burn" out (it's a chemical fire).

TOXIC MOLONG BESS JUNK is another despicable part of the CRIMINAL RenewaBULL RORT = THE ASBESTOS OF THE FUTURE - promoted by the DIRTY ENERGY COUNCIL & DECEITFUL NSW GOVERNMENT - WHO HATE FARMERS & RURAL NSW & DON’T CARE ONE BIT IF THEY POISON US ALL!

This life-threatening, Fire hazardous BESS plan treats Molong Community as expendable, assumes that regional Australians are acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of ideological energy targets dictated by city-based policymakers and foreign-aligned interests!

☠️TOTALLY CRUEL - TOTALLY UNJUST - TOTALLY WRONG!!☠️

By wasting billions of Taxpayer dollars on toxic garbage like this stupid, incapable BESS ‘bomb’ - just so predatory vested interests can continue to rip us off so obscenely, this project misallocates capital, diverting billions away from proven, scalable solutions like high-efficiency coal and safe, secure nuclear power that would lower prices and provide plentiful, sovereign, Australian supply that ensures National Security.

Molong BESS represents Systemic Risk, Irreversibility, and Public Safety Failure.

This proposal represents a systemic failure of risk assessment, not merely a controversial infrastructure project.
The Molong Battery introduces an industrial hazard class never before experienced at this scale in this setting, yet it is being assessed through planning frameworks designed for benign developments.
Lithium-ion BESS facilities are not passive assets; they are chemically active, failure-prone systems that can enter uncontrollable thermal runaway, generating extreme heat, toxic aerosols, and corrosive gases that cannot be neutralised once released.

The evidence from large-scale battery fires demonstrates that contamination is not confined to the site boundary.
Toxic metals and persistent chemicals disperse widely, lodge in sediments, enter food chains, and remain for years—often undetected until health or ecological damage is irreversible.
Unlike conventional industrial incidents, there is no practical remediation pathway once these substances are released.
This makes the risk profile fundamentally incompatible with agricultural land, water catchments, and rural communities.

Emergency response assumptions are dangerously unrealistic.
Fire services are not equipped to suppress lithium battery fires, and in many documented cases, responders are forced to withdraw entirely due to lethal atmospheric conditions.
Planning for evacuation or shelter is meaningless when smoke plumes are both poisonous and unpredictable.
Approval of this project would therefore amount to institutional acceptance of an unmanageable disaster scenario.

Critically, none of these risks are offset by any commensurate public benefit.
The facility does not provide firm power, does not improve grid stability during prolonged weather events, and does not reduce Australia’s exposure to foreign energy dependencies.
Instead, it concentrates hazard, externalises liability, and leaves the community bearing consequences that cannot be insured, undone, or justified.
This is not precautionary planning; it is reckless abdication of duty.

**’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

Dear NSW Department of Planning I wish to lodge an objection to the Molong BESS project. The reason for my objection is due to the risk batteries have in regards to thermal runaway, arc flash and arc explosion. I do not believe Molong (a small rural community) is equipped to react (fight) to fire on a BESS factory. BESS fires and thermal runaway events cause explosive gasses and toxic fumes. To extinguish a BESS fire the battery packs need to be flooded and requires a lot of water - something rural communities don’t have a lot of especially in drought. In addition Molomg is not in a REZ.