This is political. Destroying the natural environment to create an inefficient, soon-to-be out of date system of storing energy, when a decent battery storage facility (with greater capacity) is to be created 5 miles away in an already industrial area - well, it beggars belief that anyone with a vestige of common sense would entertain the idea. Excuse me - just HOW much concrete will be used in this project ???????
Where will the electricity come from which is needed to power the pumps to raise the water from the lake to the top of the hill? Oh yes, there isn't any yet ... never mind, we'll just bulldoze a few forests and fields to bring wind turbines or power lines across our bit of pristine natural beauty. But that is of no consequence to people who don't live here is it? West of the Great Dividing Range cops it again! (Think Mt Victoria Pass closure, ruining local businesses: GWH 24million 'upgrade' on a 2.4 road to the next bottleneck, ruining the same local businesses as it opened. Now you want to ruin a jewel in the crown of Lithgow's regeneration plan - tourism in an Area Of Natural Beauty. If this was the UK, it would be a designated AONB and none of this nonsense would even be considered. And don't say it will benefit local jobs. Why propose a 500 unit accommodation block for incoming workers?

It is a tin pot project aimed at ticking boxes for government to use in election propaganda. I object to being a sacrificial lamb on the altar of political power, big business and remote investors. My and other's living environment will be changed forever - FOREVER (understand that concept? - for the worse.

As I say - political, political, political. PROVE ME WRONG I DARE YOU! How much more misery can you inflict on us over here?

I strongly object to the approval of the proposed Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage project (approximately 385 MW / 3,080 MWh, 8-hour storage) near Lithgow, NSW. The project, promoted by EnergyAustralia in partnership with EDF, would use existing Lake Lyell as the lower reservoir and construct a new upper reservoir on the southern ridge of Mount Walker. While framed as supporting the renewable energy transition, this proposal is fundamentally flawed on technological, locational, and environmental grounds. It represents an outdated approach that would cause unnecessary and irreversible harm when superior, lower-impact alternatives exist.

1. Pumped hydro is outdated technology; modern battery storage delivers the same grid services with far less environmental, social, and cultural impact, is easier to upgrade or replace, and can be implemented much faster
Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) is a 20th-century technology that has been largely superseded for new grid-scale applications by lithium-ion and other advanced battery energy storage systems (BESS). Batteries can provide the same essential services—rapid response, firming of variable renewables, and dispatchable power—without the massive civil engineering works, permanent landscape alteration, or ongoing ecosystem disruption required by pumped hydro.
Battery projects are modular and scalable: additional capacity or newer chemistries can be added or swapped out in phases with minimal downtime. In contrast, the Lake Lyell proposal locks in a fixed, large-scale infrastructure footprint for decades. Construction timelines for pumped hydro routinely span 5–8 years (this project is targeted for operation around 2031), while comparable BESS projects can be online in 1–2 years. This speed is critical for NSW’s urgent need to replace ageing coal-fired generation like the nearby Mt Piper power station.
Environmentally and socially, batteries have a dramatically smaller footprint—no new reservoirs, no daily water-level fluctuations, and no destruction of bushland or aquatic habitats. Cultural impacts are also avoided. Recent BESS developments in the Central West (such as proposals at Mt Piper) demonstrate that battery storage can deliver equivalent or better outcomes with far less disruption to local communities, recreation, and heritage values. Continuing to pursue pumped hydro in 2026 is an inefficient use of public resources and land when faster, cleaner, and more flexible technologies are readily available and already being deployed at scale across Australia.

2. This is the wrong location—the mountain ridge next to Lake Lyell does not provide sufficient height for efficient pumped hydro operation
The project relies on a relatively modest elevation difference of approximately 250–255 metres between Lake Lyell and the proposed upper reservoir on Mount Walker. While pumped hydro can technically function at this head height, it is suboptimal for efficiency and economics. Higher-head sites (typically 300–800+ metres) deliver better round-trip efficiency, higher power density, and lower water-volume requirements, reducing overall infrastructure scale and environmental footprint. At ~250 m, the Lake Lyell scheme requires larger reservoirs, greater pumping energy losses, and more extensive tunnelling and excavation to achieve the claimed 385 MW output—making it less competitive and more impactful than alternatives.
The site’s natural geography has been repeatedly cited by proponents as an advantage, but the modest height difference, combined with the steep access requirements and the need for significant earthworks on the ridge, confirms this is not an optimal location. Better-suited pumped hydro sites exist elsewhere in NSW (or none at all, given the superiority of battery alternatives). Approving this project would entrench a suboptimal design that fails to maximise efficiency or minimise impacts.

3. The project would cause severe and unacceptable ecological destruction, including the clearing of 100 hectares of pristine bushland and direct impacts on 10 hectares of critical fish and platypus habitat
The proposal would permanently clear approximately 100 hectares of pristine native bushland for the upper reservoir, associated dams, roads, and infrastructure on the southern ridge of Mount Walker. This represents a significant loss of intact habitat in a region already under pressure. In addition, operations and construction would directly affect around 10 hectares of aquatic habitat in Lake Lyell (particularly the Farmers Creek arm), including critical breeding and foraging areas for fish and one of NSW’s healthiest platypus populations.
Daily water-level fluctuations of up to 2.5 metres in Lake Lyell during normal cycling, plus potential greater drawdowns during construction (reportedly up to 3 metres), will degrade water quality, disrupt breeding cycles, damage platypus burrows, and increase the risk of entrainment of aquatic species in the intake structures. Platypus are particularly vulnerable; experts and local residents have repeatedly highlighted the risk of population decline or local extinction from altered hydrology and habitat disturbance.
These impacts cannot be fully mitigated. The project would also fragment terrestrial habitats, affect threatened species, and cause ongoing sedimentation and erosion risks. Lake Lyell and surrounding bushland provide important recreational, cultural (Wiradjuri), and ecological values that would be permanently degraded. The claimed “benefits” of the project do not justify this level of destruction when battery storage alternatives avoid these impacts entirely.

Conclusion and recommendation
The Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro project is an outdated, poorly sited proposal that would deliver marginal grid benefits at an unacceptably high environmental, social, and cultural cost. Superior battery storage technologies can provide the same (or better) services faster, cheaper, and with dramatically less impact. I urge the Department to reject the project in its current form and prioritise lower-impact, modern solutions such as expanded BESS to support NSW’s renewable energy transition.
The public exhibition period closes today. I request that this submission be fully considered and that the project not proceed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Matt
Sydney, NSW

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed pumped hydro project at Lake Lyell.
Lake Lyell has long been a place of natural beauty, recreation, and deep personal significance for many families, including my own. Generations of our family have been camping, water skiing, and spending time together at the lake since the dam was first built. It is more than just a body of water—it is part of our history, our traditions, and our community identity.
One of my primary concerns is the anticipated fluctuation in water levels caused by the operation of a pumped hydro system. Such fluctuations would fundamentally alter the character of the lake, making it unsafe and unsuitable for recreational activities like boating, fishing, and skiing. Constantly changing shorelines would also degrade the visual appeal of the area and disrupt local ecosystems.
In addition, the construction phase would bring a significant increase in heavy machinery and traffic. Local roads, which are not designed to handle sustained industrial use, would likely suffer damage and deterioration. This would not only create inconvenience but also pose safety risks for residents and visitors who rely on these roads.
The increase in noise levels is another serious concern. The peace and quiet of the Lake Lyell area is one of its defining qualities. The introduction of construction noise, followed by ongoing operational sounds, would diminish the tranquility that draws people to the region and negatively impact both residents and wildlife.
There are also serious questions regarding the economic viability and cost effectiveness of the project. Large-scale infrastructure developments such as this often involve significant upfront costs, ongoing maintenance expenses, and long payback periods. It is important to consider whether the projected benefits genuinely outweigh these costs, particularly when weighed against the potential loss of an established and sustainable local tourism economy.
Lake Lyell currently supports a range of local businesses that depend on visitors drawn to the area for recreation and relaxation. A decline in tourism resulting from environmental disruption, reduced accessibility, and loss of amenity would place financial strain on these businesses. This, in turn, could have broader consequences for the local economy, including reduced employment opportunities and diminished community vitality.
Overall, this project threatens to permanently change the character of Lake Lyell and undermine its value as a recreational and community space. I urge you to carefully reconsider the long-term environmental, social, and infrastructural impacts before proceeding, and to fully assess whether the economic case for the project justifies the risks and costs to the community.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Sincerely,
Wayne Dick

I have read and reviewed this proposal and also the submission made the CLC Group and strongly support the findings and basis of their objections to the proposal. In my view the proposed basis for the proposal and its justification is both inaccurate and misleading, both as it characterises the proposal as having significant community benefits such as long term employment and community income, while the real long term benefit is minimal and even the construction benefit is much reduced below the claim based on the FIFO workforce nature. Further the DA greatly overstates the suitability of the site when in fact it is only of low suitability due to both the limited capacity of the reservoir and the limited head height for electricity generation.
However much more significant are the misleading statements of impact and long-term damage, which the proposal claims it wil substantially offset, which is patent nonsense.
The idea that a large proportion of one of the most significant mountains in the area west of the Blue Mountains would be cleared (about 130 hectares) when this vegetation has existed in ongoing natural condition since first settlement, and that this can be offset is absurd. It is one of the highest value conservation sites in NSW for its range of biodiversity, native vegetation and threatened species habitat, and the surveys and other work to assess these values have been grossly inadequate. Detailed surveys are required for both the presence and habitat for a wide range of threatened species including threatened reptiles such as the Broad-headed Snake, Blue mountains Water Skink, frogs such as the Boorolong frog, Littlejohns Heath Frog and Red Crowned Toadlet, birds such as the Regent Honeyeater, invertebrates such as the Giant Dragonfly and Purple Copper Butterfly.
At a minimum this information shoud be referred to a BDAR accredited expert for comprehensive review and development if a comprehenisve survey approach for key species and their habitat.
In addition as many of these species are also nationally listed, this proposal should be referred to the Australain Government for its own independent assessment of the likely biodiversity values of the site under national biodiversity legislation.
A second key deficiency of this proposal is that is does not give due recognition the the likely aboriginal cultural heritage values of the site. As one of the last remaining, relatively undisturbed land areas, in the higher ranges west of the Blue Mountains, its cultural value and preserved remnants of indigenous heritage is likely to be immense and the token evaluation done of this aspect is totally inadequate. At a minimum, a comprehensive survey of this component and its values need to be undertaken.
While I overall support the need for renewable energy projects this is a poor choice, and its construction, as well as damaging the public amenity of Lake Lyell, has greatly undervalued its ecological significance. Any restoratio of parts of the site is likely to need a time window of 100 years plus, which is clearly not feasible. As far better option would be for the NSW Government to compulsorily acquire the site and add it to the adjoining national park, where it would become one of the more significant wilderness areas of NSW for long term conservation.
It is my intention, just having become aware of this proposal to refer it to the Australian Wilderness Society, seeking that they mount a campaign for its preservation. Therefore this DA should be rejected as a State Significant Project on the basis that it confers no State Significant Benefits and is almost certain to result in State Significant Harm to the natural ecosystems and biodiversity of NSW.
My expertise in making this submission is that for 10+ years I managed the statewide threatened species conservation program in NSW, and this has given me a comprehensive understanding of this issues in this submission related to biodiverisity and threatened species conservation. Having used this expertise to review this proposal, I find it is totally unacceptable in terms of its likely impacts, mitigation measures and public benefit, relative to its long term impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
Regards Graham Wilson

I am writing to formally oppose the proposed construction of a pumped hydro energy storage facility at Lake Lyell in Lithgow. This submission reflects deep concerns about the significant environmental, social, and economic impacts the project would impose on the local area and its long-standing communities.

Environmental Impacts

The proposed operation of the facility would result in daily water level fluctuations of up to three metres. Such extreme and regular changes to the lake’s water level would have profound consequences for the surrounding ecosystem. Aquatic habitats would be destabilised, shoreline vegetation would be degraded, and native wildlife—many of which rely on stable water access—would face disruption or displacement. These impacts are not temporary; they represent a permanent alteration of the lake’s natural balance and ecological function.

Lake Lyell and its surrounds currently support a diverse range of flora and fauna. The introduction of artificial water cycling at this scale risks long-term biodiversity loss and habitat destruction that cannot be easily mitigated or reversed.

Impact on Community and Lifestyle

For decades, Lake Lyell has been a place of recreation and tradition for families, including my own. Activities such as camping, fishing, and water skiing have been enjoyed by generations since the dam’s construction. The proposed project threatens to fundamentally change the character of the lake, making these activities difficult or unsafe due to fluctuating water levels, exposed shorelines, and operational restrictions.

This is not just a recreational issue—it is a loss of cultural and social value that has been built over many years within the community.

Infrastructure and Traffic Concerns

The construction phase would involve heavy machinery and a substantial increase in vehicle movements through local roads that are not designed to accommodate such loads or traffic volumes. This raises serious concerns about road safety, increased maintenance costs, and long-term damage to local infrastructure.

The increased traffic will also disrupt the peace and quiet that currently defines the area, negatively affecting residents’ quality of life.

Economic Consequences

The project is likely to have adverse financial impacts on local property owners. Changes to the landscape, increased industrial activity, and reduced amenity may lower property values in the surrounding areas.

Furthermore, Lake Lyell is an important local tourism destination. Visitors are drawn to its natural beauty and recreational opportunities. The transformation of the lake into an industrial energy facility is likely to deter tourists, reducing income for local businesses and harming the broader regional economy.

Conclusion

While the need for renewable energy solutions is acknowledged, this project represents an inappropriate development in a location that holds significant environmental, recreational, and community value. The long-term costs to the ecosystem, local residents, and the regional economy outweigh the potential benefits of the proposed facility.

I strongly urge decision-makers to reconsider this proposal and explore alternative energy storage solutions that do not impose such extensive and irreversible impacts on Lake Lyell and its surrounding community.
Sincerely
Leanne Dick

I strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds:

1. Destruction of significantly scenic geography - the removal of a significant portion of Mt Walker, and its replacement with a concrete tank greater in size than the Sydney Harbour bridge, plus the alteration of the terrain at the pumping station and worker residential area, will destroy what is a scenic rural area, and create a large eyesore which will be visible from the town of Lithgow. If the stated purpose is to move on from coal fired power generation, we must create opportunity for those living in Lithgow to also move on. The town already suffers from an undeserved reputational disadvantage because of the negative connotations of its history as coal, steel and gas mining/manufacturing town, yet none of these industries are practised any more within the town. Building the huge and ugly structures associated with the pumped hydro will only further discourage a wide variety of the population to visit or settle in this very pretty area, and prevent the town growing growing and developing in the manner it deserves, after more than a century of faithfully servicing many of Australia's industrial needs.

2. Significant construction emissions - I have even queried Endeavour Energy consultants on this issue when they attended Lake Lyell while I was there, and they showed every indication of being indifferent to this issue. The two main elements of this significant area of concern are the production of the concrete and the transportation emissions involved in re-modelling an entire mountain combined with the transport of the concrete up to an elevated site. Structural concrete emits over 400 kg of carbon dioxide per tonne simply from its production, and a similar amount is emitted from the other ingredients and simple transport emissions on a level site. If transport to the elevation of the final use point of the concrete on top of Mount Walker is factored in, it is conceivable that the embedded emissions in the construction of the tank alone could approach 1500 kg of carbon dioxide per 1 tonne of concrete produced. (Add to this all of the construction emissions of the rest of the infrastructure, over many years, which will particularly affect the town of Lithgow). Given the size of the tank being proposed, and its huge mass, this would produce a significant carbon dioxide emission deficit that is unlikely to ever be offset, particularly given the point below...

3. It is unlikely that true "renewable" energy will actually be used for pumping - Given the tardiness of its uptake in this country, and the significant height that over 5 gigalitres of water will need to be lifted daily, it is highly unlikely that only "green" power will be used to undertake this task, and far more likely that it will be a power draw burden on coal generated electricity, for a very significant period of time. This will further destroy any green credentials that the project is claimed to provide, supposedly justifying the destruction will will wreak on the landscape.

4. Inefficiency - As the Lake Lyell project is claimed to have a vertical water head of somewhere between 250 metres to 300 metres, it falls below the bottom of the window for efficient operation of a pumped hydro project, generally considered to be 300 metres to 900 metres.. Adding this inefficiency to the other greenhouse gas emitting issues mentioned above, is seems unlikely that the project will ever truly offer an emissions benefit in a reasonable timeframe, and will instead fall short in that claimed benefit, at great cost to the town, local community and businesses.

5. Impact on the businesses of the town - Endeavour Energy plan to only use a very few local workers for construction and operation, and may bring in cheap labour via labour hire companies - no benefit to to Lithgow. The long period of construction will destroy both the leisure and tourism attractions of Lake Lyell and its associated recreational areas, again at great cost to the town. The daily significant tidal movement, along with the steep banks of the lake, lined with very hard granite fragments, will render sensible boating recreation difficult, damaging to boats and likely dangerous. Many businesses with views over the lake, or their suppliers, have already suffered significant cancellations due to nothing more than the proposal for construction of this system, they will doubtless suffer even more greatly, or go under, once construction commences.

6. Destruction of Indigenous sites and Native Habitat - Mt Walker has been flagged as having Indigenous site significance, and should not be vandalised in this way. Despite the glib reassurances about the platypus habitat being able to survive, given the large water movements and the location of the habitat, and its likely proximity to the pumping station pickup, that is highly unlikely.

7. Future, irreversible degradation - The concrete will be subject to extensive weathering and significant daily changes in its stress loading. This will doubtless cause significant flexing and degradation of the exterior surface of the tank, not matter what surface treatment is applied. This will further add to a very ugly structure in an otherwise beautiful area, for what is likely to be a project resulting in an overall environmental "detriment", even after years of operation..

8. Lack of future proofing - Renewable and environmentally friendly power generation methods are a rapidly emerging field, with many refinements of current technology and new developments occurring constantly. A different power generation facility of equivalent output, even utilising our current infant technology of rigid solar panels and storage batteries, would have a smaller storage footprint and none of the environmentally destructive construction issues of this hydro project, and the storage components could, for instance, easily fit on the flat land immediately adjacent to the now decommissioned Wallerawang Power Station, with transmission lines on site, ready to feed into the grid. If, in the future, an even better method of power generation was developed, decommission and removal of such a facility would be feasible. That will not be possible following the irreversible destruction of Mount Walker and Lake Lyell. We MUST keep in mind that this project has every potential to become obsolete in this rapidly advancing technological world, and that we should keep that in mind before committing to a construction that thoroughly and permanently destroys so much land, history, wildlife and amenity, all of which have much greater value in their current state.

In summary, I believe the above points make a strong case for not proceeding with this project. It is my personal belief that this project is not necessarily being put forward solely for environmental reasons, but rather because it will allow the purchase of cheap blocks of electricity at off-peak times when the price is low or negative, (which will be used to pump the water uphill), then allow a "zero cost" generation of power which then can be sold as expensive blocks during peak times. Regardless of the ownership status of that lake, in no way should the desire to make money from that asset be allowed to wreak the amount of damage to the Lithgow area that this project will cause. The lake has now become a community asset that must be respected, not exploited.

So, for the reasons above, I ask that this development be DENIED.

Thank you for allowing me to make this submission.

I am writing to object because the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not properly assess or reflect the project's true impacts on Mount Walker, the Coxs River, and the Platypus Dreaming story.
I am a local resident who has lived in this area for over 40 years, and while I support progress, I believe it must be in the right place and for the right reasons. In my view, this proposed hydro project is not appropriate for this location due to its high cultural and historical significance.

1. Cultural Landscape Has Not Been Properly Considered
The EIS describes impacts as a “partial loss of value,” but this does not align with how cultural heritage is understood. Both policy and court decisions in NSW recognise that Aboriginal heritage includes broader landscapes, cultural connections, and intangible values. This area should be assessed as a whole, not broken into separate parts.

2. Mitigation Is Being Used Instead of Proper Assessment
The EIS relies on mitigation measures such as management plans and consultation.
However, NSW court decisions have made it clear that significant cultural impacts can outweigh project benefits, and impacts must be properly assessed before approval. In this case, the impacts are acknowledged but then pushed into future mitigation rather than being properly addressed now.

3. Platypus Dreaming and the Coxs River
The EIS understates the significance of the Platypus Dreaming story. Cultural value comes from the connection between the story, the river, and the landscape. The Coxs River should be treated as a continuous cultural corridor. Fragmenting it into separate impacts does not reflect its true significance.

4. Impact on Mount Walker
Mount Walker is part of a broader cultural and landscape setting. NSW decisions have recognised that landscape character matters, sense of place matters, and visual impacts can be significant. Introducing large infrastructure into this setting will permanently change its character.

5. Historical Impacts Are Understated
The EIS relies on the absence of listed heritage items. However, heritage includes broader landscape values. The Coxs River has clear historical importance that has not been properly assessed.

6. Too Much Reliance on Future Plans
The EIS relies heavily on future management and unknown outcomes. However, established planning principles require impacts to be assessed before approval, to exercise caution where there is uncertainty, and to avoid irreversible harm. This project does not meet that standard.

7. Conclusion
Based on both my long experience in the area and the issues outlined above, this project would:
• cause irreversible damage to a connected cultural landscape
• disrupt the Platypus Dreaming story
• alter the setting and meaning of Mount Walker
• diminish the historical significance of the Coxs River

8. Recommendation
I recommend that the project be refused or redesigned to avoid impacts to these key areas. This proposal is not suitable for this location and should not proceed in its current shape or form.