My name is Michelle Clutterham.
I have lived in the Lithgow LGA for the last 21 years.
My family and I have enjoyed Lake Lyell for recreational purposes over those years.
I believe the hydro project will spoil the beautiful environment of Lake Lyell and surrounds. And should not go ahead in any form.
I believe previously used sites are more preferable for energy generation. So, no more natural environments are destroyed.
Currently the Great Western Highway is closed between Mount Victoria and Lithgow. This issue has been coming for a long time and will not be resolved for years.
I do not want to see Western regional areas being used and abused.

This is a good idea in the wrong place. Lake Lyell is not a good place for a pumped hydro storage project.
1. There are very significant environmental impacts. These are outlined in the Scoping Report (see https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-77018220%2120241016T050352.992%20GMT):
'3.1
The Project will operate as an open loop system, with Lake Lyell remaining largely unchanged although water levels will fluctuate by approximately two metres during each pumping and generating cycle. There is expected to be one pumping and generating cycle each day.
6.2.2 b
The operation of the PHES will involve circulating water between Lake Lyell and the Upper Reservoir. Preliminary analysis has estimated that water levels in the lake will fluctuate by approximately 2 m in a typical pumping and generating cycle and the maximum rate of change in lake levels would be 0.3 to 0.4 m/hr1 … Potential impacts associated with the cycling of water levels in Lake Lyell include:
• Potential ‘pulsing’ of regulated releases from the dam which are a function of water level in the lake and the setting of outlet controls. This could be fully mitigated by real-time adjustments to the outlet controls to compensate for the changes in lake levels.
• Flood impacts in the Coxs River downstream of Lake Lyell could occur if generating (i.e. release from the Upper Reservoir to Lake Lyell) occurs when the dam is spilling during periods of high catchment inflow. T
• Impacts to shoreline erosion due to potential bank slumping associated with the lowering of lake levels during the pump cycle.
• Impacts to recreational users due to the sub-daily cycling in lake level
6.3.2 b ii
Potential impacts that are likely to adversely affect threatened species and the Platypus include the following:
• Fluctuations in water height. This may expose nesting sites for the Platypus, as well as foraging and spawning fish habitat. Vegetation within the littoral zone and riparian vegetation may also be adversely impacted. Temperature fluctuations also caused by water level changes may impact species, such as by interfering with temperatures cues for spawning.
• Physical habitat loss from the scouring of the floor of Lake Lyell.
• Decreases in water quality arising from construction activities. Hydrocarbon spills, sedimentation, and increases in runoff may impact the Lake directly, and cause a range of adverse impacts to species within the lake.'

In other words, there will be negative impacts on native fauna and flora due to the cycling of the water daily, with a rise and fall of approximately 2 metres of water every day. There will be habitat loss. There will be a loss of water quality which will also affect native fauna and flora. There may be increased risk of flooding.

We live in a world affected by climate change, where floods and fires already increase and negatively impact wildlife, plants, and people. We do not need to increase these impacts when we do not need to. And we do not need to. See point 5 below.

Furthermore, this project plans to use fossil fuels to pump the water – there is no proposal to install solar panels or wind turbines to generate renewable energy to pump the lake water up to the secondary dam. According to Energy Australia’s project plan, the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage project will be operational by 2031. According to AEMO, coal-fired power stations will be needed until 2049 (see https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/draft-2026/draft-2026-integrated-system-plan.pdf?rev=8e38a5150ec2474791ee573a9981f07c&sc_lang=en Draft 2026 Integrated System Plan (ISP)

We cannot expect the grid to be 100% renewables until at least 2049 … nearly 20 years of an 80-year project will foreseeably use fossil fuels to pump up the water. In my view, this is ridiculous, for a project which is labelled ‘green’. Should we call it greenwashing?

2. There are significant impacts on recreational users.
The daily water cycling will make water sports such as canoeing and boating impractical, with wide mudflats exposed when the water level is artificially lowered. The loss of aquatic fauna will make fishing useless. Community members who canoe or walk silently up Farmers Creek to see the platypus will no longer enjoy viewing such an iconic species. There will be wider impacts on the local ecosystems.

This will impact the adjacent caravan park business.

3. There is no plan for remediation of the site after the project’s lifespan expires (only 80 years).
The eyesore of buildings on Mt Walker (the highest local point, visible from the town) will remain, deteriorating long after the project has concluded. Other infrastructure, such as the pumps, will also remain, attracting vandalism and becoming increasingly unsafe as time passes.

This impacts local businesses which offer views of (currently) unspoilt bush to tourists (wedding venues, AirBNBs, etc.) Tourists contribute heavily to the local economy, and we hope they will continue to do so, long after the next 80 years.

It also negatively impacts the amenity of local residents. Mt Walker is adjacent to Marrangaroo National Park. It will look very unsightly, to have the (very large) industrial construction next door.

Is it really worth it, for a project with such a short lifespan? In contrast, the proposal for wind turbines in the nearby State Forest has a plan to remove all construction after the project’s conclusion (if it is not possible to refit and continue to use the wind turbines). It seems Energy Australia has not considered the long term.

4. There is no significant favourable ongoing economic impact on the local community, and several long-term negative economic impacts.
Very few ongoing jobs will be generated for the local community, once the initial construction period has ended. Indeed, the initial construction period will undoubtedly need to import labour from elsewhere, considering the scale of the proposed project.

There will be a negative impact on local tourism businesses, which affects the town economy, as noted above.

5. There are alternative local energy storage solutions already approved.
There are two nearby projects for battery storage already planned and approved:
(a) Mt Piper, Portland:
'In July 2024, EnergyAustralia confirmed its plans to build a BESS and pumped hydro power station at the site of the coal-fired power station. The New South Wales government granted its approval for the 500 MW (2,000 MWh) BESS project in November 2024, with construction expected to begin in 2026.' See https://www.gem.wiki/Mount_Piper_power_station#cite_note-23
‘The 20th-century coal-based power system is nearing its end … we reaffirm the retirement of our remaining coal-fired power station, Mount Piper, by 2040.’ See https://www.energyaustralia.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/Climate%20Transition%20Action%20Plan.pdf (December 2025)

(b) Greenspot, Wallerawang:
‘In August 2022, Greenspot received development approval for a 500MW/1,000MWh BESS which will connect to the adjacent 330kV TransGrid Wallerawang Substation.’ See Greenspot https://www.greenspot.com.au/projects/

There is no need for the proposed Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage project within our local context. It has not been effectively scoped, and will be a net negative to the local community and local environment.

Gabriel Wardenburg

Team Leader

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure



4th April 2026



By email: [email protected]



Dear Maam,



Re: Clarence Colliery Consolidation Project - SSD-107894972



The Clarence Colliery Consolidation Project has just been proposed by Centennial Coal in February 2026, the Company is proposing to group a number of mining leases together and gain a single Development Consent from the NSW Planning Authority.



At first glance, it looks good and smells good, however there is some concern within the Scoping Report.



The Scoping Report states that currently Centennial can transport the following…….



Product coal from Clarence Colliery is currently transported by rail via the rail loop and the Main Western Railway to domestic customer locations and to either Newcastle or Port Kembla coal terminals for export customers. Clarence Colliery may transport up to 300,000 t of coal by road per calendar year in total, including up to 200,000 t of coal a year to MPPS or to the Lidsdale Siding, and up to 200,000 t of coal a year to locations north of Sydney or eastern NSW.



The Scoping Report also states that Centennial Coal is now requesting ……………..



The project would continue to transport coal using the rail loop and the Main Western Railway. The project would also seek to continue the approved trucking of up to 300,000 t of coal a year by road and to transport up to 300,000 t of reject material for beneficial reuse as engineering fill.





The scoping report is vague on the additional 300,000 tonnes (of engineering fill) and any additional effect on the road transport network. The scoping report in the cumulative effects section of interacting with other major (State Significant Projects – SSP) within the Lithgow Area – see Section 2.4 Cumulative Impacts which states ….



In accordance with the Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines for State Significant Projects (CIA Guidelines) (DPIE 2021), a cumulative impact assessment (CIA) has been scoped to identify relevant current and future projects, and to determine the matters likely to result in cumulative impacts. Relevant current and future projects in the region have been identified and are outlined in Table 2.3. Potential cumulative impacts primarily relate to potential noise, air quality, traffic, water resources and social impacts, especially from concurrent mining operations. The project also has the potential to contribute positively to the region through employment and economic opportunities arising from concurrent developments. The EIS would include a cumulative assessment in line with the CIA Guidelines, and a CIA scoping table detailing relevant current and future projects is provided in Appendix C.



It is noted that Hartley Quarry (State Significant Project), the Wallerawang Quarry (State Significant Project) and the Marrangaroo Quarry (Lithgow Council) have been omitted from the cumulative effect list, which is detailed as follows;



• Heidelberg Materials Clarence Quarry

• Clarence Sands Quarry

• Springvale Colliery

• Western Coal Services Project

• Pine Dale Coal Mine

• Angus Place Colliery

• Pinecrest BESS (Battery Energy Storage System)

• Mt Piper Power Station

• Springvale Water Treatment Project

• Lidsdale Siding

• Wallerawang Power Station

• Wallerawang BESS (Battery Energy Storage System)

• Great Western BESS (Battery Energy Storage System)

• Invincible Colliery

• Mt Piper BESS (Battery Energy Storage System)

• Cullen Valley Mine

• Ben Bullen Wind Farm

• Sunny Corner Wind Farm

• Mount Lambie Wind Farm

• Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project

• Airly Coal Mine



This increase of 300,000 tonnes of road transport (of Engineering Fill) material is not detailed anywhere else in the document. It is noted that Clarence Colliery has approval to transport up to 350,000 t of reject material to Charbon Colliery by rail.



The questions regarding the Clarence Consolidation Project are threefold:



· Is the proponent requesting an increase in the tonnage output of the operation by 300,000 tonnes?

· Why the Cumulative Assessment Guidelines for State Significant Projects not followed in the Scoping Report?

· What is the transport cumulative impact regarding the additional tonnage on the road network, in particular on Chifely Road and taking into account the potential long term closure of the Great Western Highway at Mount Victoria.



Regards



Paul Hensley (Not for Publication)

P.O. Box 307

Lithgow

NSW 2790



Note: I have not made any Political Donations at any time.

Physical Address: lvl 1, 191 Main Street, Lithgow, NSW 2790

Dear Minister
i am writing to share my thoughts on the proposed lake lyell pumped hydro scheme.
I do not believe the scheme should go ahead for the following reasons.
Optimal use of taxpayer funds,any public funds must provide optimumvalue for money for australian taxpayers.
Utilisation of australian labour should the project go ahead,the labour used on this project will not be predominately australian they instead will be o/seas labour brought in to perform the job by endeavour energy predominately from spain as informed to me by the project director M De VInk when i spoke with him some 18months ago,given that australia,s unemployment sits at around 700,000 people given that we have unemployed people at all is a disgrace and to bring in o/seas labour to complete this project.It would appear that this proposal is being driven by the goverments committment to a renewable energy target of 100% by 2050,which appears increasingly unattainable given that the 2030 target is now beyond reach.
Energy Australia the project owner is part of china light and power meaning that any taxpayer funds and future profits will ultimately benefit china light and power,plus the use of o/seas contractors will have no benefit to the ATO or the Australian taxpayers.
Since i moved to the area the projected cost of the scheme has doubled from 500million to above 1 billion i can only assume these costs will rise over the next 5 yrs given the present day economic climate The upper resevoirs proposed volume of 4.6 gigalitres will be pumped from the lake daily exposing areas of the lake to sludge and heavy metals as has happened in other areas where large scale water extraction has occurred.
At present Energy Austrakia are using bullyboy tactics by advising people if you do not sign up to the scheme you will not be receiving the benefits what they have been offering so far which to my way of thinking is a pittance give that the disruption that us residents will incur during the construction stage, noise, dust, blasting ,large numbers of heavy vehicles,usin the road to name a few and there is the wildlife . i have on several occasions asked for more information but at this stage Energy Australia have been found wanting and for a long period their office in main street lithgow has been closed.
As a former hydro electric commission employee tasmania i am fully aware of the challenges of dam construction,delays and cost overuns,this project if it goes ahead will face the same challenges and i am sure that energy australia will be coming to the state and federal governments wanting more taxpayer handouts saying the problems they are facing are beyond their control and are not included in their contact.
I believe that there are better options for the use of taxpayer funds with a quicker implementation leaving a smaller carbon footprint,and less disruption to the local people and wildlife,ie solar energy and battery storage,there is also no justification for using foreign labour when we have enough expertise and unemployed people readily available here in australia..
Lastly all renewable energy sources rely on natural elements,wid rain,sunlight,Energy australia has admitted that if the dam level drops 5metres power production would cease to avoid turbine damage.advances in technology are moving at an alarming rate and i believe that given the time frame to build this scheme if it goes ahead it will be considered a dinosur once completed after all who would of thought that 3yrs ago you could have windows installed in your home that can produce power.
finally we moved into the area,for the quiet life and rural views,thank you for considering my concerns,i look forward to your response on this matter.
yours sincerely
william keating
132 sir thomas mitchell drive

I totally object to this project on the basis of this is environmentally destructive to our local area for no advantage whatsoever. Pumped hydro is a negative energy generator and this location could not be a worse candidate for destruction of local waterways. The erosion Lake Lyell will be subjected to is catastrophic and the local wildlife especially the platypus population that rely on the man made ecosystem should be taken above this ridiculous environment destroying white elephant of a project.

I am writing as a deeply concerned resident to formally object to the proposed Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage project. I want to begin not with statistics or policy frameworks, but with something simpler and more urgent: there is a thriving population of platypus living in Lake Lyell, and this project, as currently proposed, threatens to destroy it.
This population was not identified by the proponent's own environmental surveys. It was brought to EnergyAustralia's attention by a local resident who had watched groups of ten or twelve platypus at a time while kayaking on the lake. The fact that a significant aggregation of one of Australia's most iconic and declining species had to be pointed out to the proponent tells you something important about the adequacy of the baseline environmental work underpinning this EIS.
The platypus is not a minor incidental concern to be managed with a footnote mitigation measure. It is listed as Near Threatened nationally, with distribution declines exceeding previous estimates and 41.4% of sub-catchments now recording no platypus at all over the past decade. Research has established that the Lake Lyell population is genetically isolated — it cannot be replenished from elsewhere if it is lost. Once gone, it is gone permanently.
The pumped hydro operating cycle — pumping and generating continuously for up to twelve hours at a time — will produce exactly the kind of rapid, repeated water level fluctuation that destroys platypus burrows, starves them of food by disrupting the benthic invertebrate communities they depend on, and permanently alters the thermal and chemical character of their habitat. These are not speculative risks. They are well-documented outcomes at similar facilities in Tasmania, Queensland and internationally. The evidence is clear, and the EIS has not adequately grappled with it.

My concerns extend beyond the platypus, significant as that issue is. I am troubled by reports that hundreds of Aboriginal artefacts were lost during the project's feasibility testing phase — harm that has already occurred, before the formal EIS process even began, and which has not been adequately addressed in the proponent's public communications. Cultural heritage that is lost cannot be recovered, and the communities whose heritage this is deserve far more than managed silence.
I am troubled, too, by the project's questionable commercial viability. The NSW Government's own long-duration storage tender found that no pumped hydro project could compete commercially with battery storage on those terms. Lake Lyell's gross head of approximately 255 metres sits well below the 400–600 metres commonly available at superior NSW sites identified by the ANU Pumped Hydro Atlas — the very tool the NSW Government has used to guide storage investment decisions. With 300 times more pumped hydro potential across Australia than the grid requires, there is simply no case for approving this project at this site, with these risks, when better alternatives exist.
And I am troubled by what this project will do permanently to Lake Lyell itself — a place valued by the Lithgow community for its natural beauty, its recreational amenity, and the quiet pleasure of watching wildlife on its shores. Eighty years of continuous water level cycling will transform a living lake into an industrial reservoir. That is not a temporary construction impact. It is an irreversible change to a community asset.

I am not opposed to renewable energy. I understand that long-duration storage is genuinely necessary for Australia's energy transition, and I support the goals that underpin this project's classification as Critical State Significant Infrastructure. But the transition to clean energy must not be achieved by trading one form of irreversible environmental harm for another — particularly when superior alternatives are available and documented.
I respectfully but firmly request that the Department refuse approval for this project as currently proposed, or at minimum require independent scientific assessment of the platypus population, a full and public Aboriginal cultural heritage investigation, and a demonstrated case for why this site is preferable to higher-rated alternatives before any approval is considered.
My detailed submission, addressing each of these concerns with reference to scientific evidence and comparative analysis, is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Ashley Manning

For six years we lived on a large property next to Mount Walker. Our six-bedroom home was used as a place of hospitality and retreat. People visited our home to spend quiet times in the picturesque landscape where eagles soared from Mount Walker and over our house. They came to enjoy the peace and quiet of the area.
When we heard about the proposal from Energy Australia to take off the top of Mount Walker and replace it with a huge concrete reservoir as part of their Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro scheme we were horrified. We soon learned we were not alone as we heard from neighbours who would be even more directly affected by this project.
We continue to receive “Community Newsletters” from Energy Australia – a foreign-owned company that seems only interested in their financial bottom line. These newsletters are full of false promises of community benefits, and they ignore the reality of what this project would bring to our local community including the following:
- The proposed project threatens to displace or severely undermine multiple existing local businesses—businesses that have operated for decades and employ local people year-round.
- The destruction of Mount Walker - a regional landmark and sacred site for local indigenous men
- Ecological damage to Lake Lyell, a popular local recreational site and home to native bird life and a unique platypus colony
- The proposal does not meet the technical standards for pumped hydro development set out by the NSW government
We do support energy schemes like the Great Western Battery for Wallerawang and the encouragement for smaller scale alternative energy sources like rooftop solar and smaller scale wind projects – all that involve minimal social, cultural and environmental impacts.
And finally, while both Energy Australia and its new partner EDF are recognised operators of power stations, battery storage systems and transmission infrastructure, they do not have a demonstrated history of constructing a pumped hydro project in Australia—particularly not on terrain as steep, geologically complex and environmentally sensitive as Mt Walker. They will be learning on the job! For this reason and the others listed above, we do not believe this project should go ahead.

Sincerely,

Rev Mark S. Hurst and Rev Mary K. Hurst
5 Wattle Grove, Lithgow NSW 2790

Submission Opposing the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project (SSI-77018220)

I am writing to formally oppose the proposed Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project located at Lake Lyell.

My family is from the Sydney area, and we regularly camp and water ski at Lake Lyell. This is an ongoing part of our lives, and we are among the many families and visitors who use the lake year-round. Importantly, Lake Lyell is the closest freshwater dam to Sydney that permits water-based recreation, making it a highly valued destination for those who prefer freshwater conditions over boating and skiing in river or coastal environments.

As regular visitors, we contribute directly to the local economy through spending on fuel, groceries, accommodation, and local services—along with thousands of others each year.

While I acknowledge the importance of renewable energy and grid stability, the local impacts of this proposal on Lake Lyell and the Lithgow community are significant and, in my view, unacceptable.

⸻

Key Concerns

1. Significant Impact on Recreational Use
The proposal includes daily water level fluctuations of approximately 2.5 metres. This will:

* Make water skiing and boating unsafe and unreliable
* Reduce access to shorelines for camping and day use
* Create hazards such as unstable banks and submerged obstacles
* Fundamentally change the character and usability of the lake

Lake Lyell is one of the very few inland freshwater lakes accessible to Sydney and surrounding regions where these activities are safely enjoyed.

⸻

2. Importance as Sydney’s Closest Freshwater Recreation Dam
Lake Lyell plays a unique role in NSW:

* It is the closest freshwater dam to Sydney that allows water sports
* It offers calmer and safer conditions compared to rivers and coastal waters
* It attracts a wide demographic, including families and less experienced water users

This makes it irreplaceable from a recreational planning perspective. Losing or degrading this function would push users into less suitable or more dangerous environments.

⸻

3. Negative Economic Impact on Lithgow
Tourism linked to Lake Lyell provides ongoing, long-term economic benefit, supporting:

* Local shops, cafes, and pubs
* Fuel stations and service providers
* Camping and accommodation businesses

Any reduction in visitation due to diminished lake usability will have lasting economic consequences that are not adequately offset by short-term construction activity.

⸻

4. Environmental Risks
Fluctuating water levels introduce risks including:

* Water quality degradation
* Algal blooms and stratification
* Damage to aquatic habitats and fish populations
* Increased bank erosion

These impacts further threaten both environmental health and recreational usability.

⸻

5. Loss of Community Amenity
Lake Lyell is a vital social and recreational asset. It supports:

* Affordable family recreation
* Community connection and traditions
* Physical and mental wellbeing

Transforming it into an industrial energy asset significantly diminishes these values.

⸻

More Suitable Alternative Location

If this type of pumped hydro project is to proceed, a more appropriate location should be considered near Burragorang Lookout adjacent to Warragamba Dam.

This alternative offers several advantages:

* Scale: The significantly larger capacity of Warragamba Dam means that equivalent pumped hydro operations would result in far smaller relative water level fluctuations
* Reduced recreational conflict: Water-based recreation is not permitted on Warragamba Dam, avoiding displacement of existing users
* Lower visual and social impact: The area is less exposed to regular public recreational use
* Water supply protection: Appropriate siting at a sufficient distance from the dam wall would avoid impacts on Sydney’s drinking water supply

This demonstrates that feasible alternatives exist that would achieve similar energy outcomes with far less impact on community recreation and regional economies.

⸻

Conclusion

While the project may contribute to broader energy objectives, it comes at a significant and unjustified cost to a well-used and regionally important recreational asset.

Lake Lyell is not an underutilised site—it is a thriving destination that supports both community wellbeing and the Lithgow economy. Its loss or degradation would have long-term consequences that outweigh the proposed benefits.

I strongly urge decision-makers to:

* Reject the project in its current form, or
* Require relocation or redesign to protect Lake Lyell’s recreational and economic value

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.