I am writing in response to your recent article on Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facilities proposed for the New England region. While the article presents these projects as environmentally friendly and beneficial, it fails to address several critical issues that are of genuine concern to local communities.
Firstly, BESS facilities are not as “green” as they are often portrayed. The environmental cost of battery production, including mining, processing, transportation, and eventual disposal, is substantial. These impacts are rarely accounted for in public discussions, yet they are integral to assessing whether such projects are truly sustainable.
More concerning is the clear and present risk to public safety. Large-scale lithium battery installations carry well-documented fire, explosion, and toxic smoke hazards. These risks are magnified in regional areas where emergency services are limited, response times are longer, and local infrastructure is not designed to manage industrial-scale battery incidents.
It is also important to note that many of these facilities are owned by foreign interests and are heavily subsidised by Australian taxpayers. Without government subsidies, grants, and favourable regulatory treatment, these projects would not be commercially viable and would likely never proceed. Despite this public investment, there is little to no meaningful return for local communities in terms of lower power prices, energy security, or long-term economic benefit.
The broader move away from fossil fuels has also exposed a troubling trend: successive governments have sold critical energy assets to private companies that prioritise profit over people. This is not an abstract concern. While not directly related, the privatisation of Telstra provides a clear warning. Promised improvements never materialised; instead, cost-cutting and shortcuts degraded services, forcing the government to spend billions on the NBN to repair the damage.
There is a real risk that energy policy is following the same path. If these projects fail to deliver reliability and affordability, it will ultimately be government—and taxpayers—who are left to clean up the mess by rebuilding publicly funded power generation to restart the economy.
For communities to make informed decisions about their health, safety, and economic viability, reporting on BESS facilities must be balanced, transparent, and honest. This includes acknowledging environmental trade-offs, safety risks, financial realities, and long-term consequences—not just the promotional narratives provided by developers and government agencies.
I encourage more critical examination of these projects so regional Australians can have a genuine say in decisions that will affect them for decades to come.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.