News
11 March, 2025
Battery proposal shrinks
THE company behind a controversial battery energy storage system at Hazeldean has submitted a new document, reducing the size of the project, including fewer batteries.
The amendment was revealed when battery storage outfit Enervest lodged answers to further questions from Somerset Council.
The scope of the project would now consist of approximately 387 battery enclosures and 155 inverters, with a storage capacity of 400MW/1,600MWh.
This is a dramatic change from its originally proposed 512 battery enclosures and 256 inverters, with a battery storage capacity of 800MW/1,600MWh, which would have made it one of the largest in Queensland if approved.
Among the various concerns and requests for further advice from Council was the fire risk depending on the outcomes of Cyclone Alfred.
“To be kept informed of all BESS hazards and risks,” with the Hazeldean project committing to training first responders, emergency services, firefighters, and of a Community Benefits Survey (CBS), which took place three weeks ago, were also made public, with a lack of training and equipment for local fire brigades.
Enervest responded to Council’s requests with a Hazard and Risk Analysis (HRA), which includes two case studies of previous BESS fires and explains how these risks are addressed with the proposed Hazeldean project.
Enervest stated that a major point of difference was its proposal to use a battery chemistry that “exhibits higher onset temperature for thermal runaway and significantly lower self-heating rate than other battery chemistries, therefore presenting lower risk of thermal runaway events” (Lithium Iron Phosphate).
“In terms of the impact of fumes and smoke emissions from a potential fire event, smoke plume contaminants will quickly disperse in the atmosphere and dilute with little or no observable effect,” the company stated.
The HRA also stated one of the takeaways from a BESS fire in McMicken in 2019 was “the need for ALL parties, ambulance personnel on how to respond, assess, and extinguish BESS fires and treat any related injuries if they occur.”
“The proponent will engage with QFES following completion of construction to undertake site familiarisation and finalise the site-specific Emergency Response Plan (ERP),” the HRA read.
This comes as the results identified as one of the main concerns raised by residents.
Toxic fire runoff was also named as one of the top concerns for residents, along with noise and light pollution, loss of property values, water contamination and environmental risks, perceived lack of direct community benefits, and concerns about local governance and decision making.
The survey also showed residents would like to see “tangible, long-term benefits that addressed essential community needs rather than short-term or symbolic contributions.”
Investment in community infrastructure was named as the most preferred benefit area, including investment in roads and bridge upgrades.
“Many participants felt that if development were to proceed, it should contribute meaningfully to local assets that benefit the entire community,” the survey read.
Participants also debated whether direct financial compensation should be provided to those living closest to the project.
While some supported compensation for impacted landowners, others argued that benefits should be equitably distributed across the community.
Enervest said it is planning on hosting information sessions for community members, with dates.
“We will provide opportunities to meet with the project team to discuss the project and ask any questions in the coming weeks once the upcoming catastrophic weather events have passed,” Enervest said in a statement.
“These sessions will be scheduled for an appropriate time, expected in mid-to-late March. We will make sure you receive timely updates about these upcoming events.”
Council has extended the decision period by an additional 30 days to ensure it has adequate time to thoroughly assess the response package, with the decision period now ending on April 14.
To read Enervest’s full response to Council’s Further Advice requests, including the HRA, noise assessment and visual amenity report, and the CBS, visit https://eservices.somerset.qld.gov.au/propres2.asp?lp=13SP294647.
