“Paint the bloody things green”: Big battery developers are facing local push back – are they ready?

It is probably not surprising that big battery projects have become the new target of anti-renewable campaigners, given the fact that they are now clearly the most investible part of the green energy transition, and an essential component of the future grid.

Some of the campaigns against individual projects have been wild and ideological, and based on myths and misunderstandings, which is why the NSW planning department has tightened up its planning rules to stop project applications being hijacked by organised groups of long distance objectors.

Indeed, battery storage projects are now exempt from the process that triggers an automatic referral to the Independent Planning Commission. But they still need to go through the planning department’s full process.

But there is genuine concern in some local communities about the potential impacts of these assets – what they look like and questions over noise and fire risk.

And this week, at the Australian Battery Asset Management conference in Sydney, battery storage developers were reminded that social licence was fundamental to their success, and local concerns should n0t be ignored. Some of the concerns can be easily addressed.

In a panel discussion entitled “From development to decommissioning”, Sabiene Heindl, the CEO of Energy Charter, reminded developers of how deeply the success of their projects depends on social acceptance.

“So this has been a really fascinating conversation, and if I was a community member, I’d be completely glazed over by this point,” Heindl said. “Lots of acronyms, no idea what they’re talking about. Sounds super smart, but frankly, experts. I don’t really trust them or believe them.

“No offence, you do sound completely smart. I guess I want to just go back to the beginning because actually commissioning is a back to the beginning discussion …. and we know from our social license work, and we kick this off with transmission businesses and the ag sector, a pretty fierce sector when it comes to renewables.

“There’s an easy framework that can be applied. Everything you do in in these projects needs to be viewed through the lens of trust, and that’s hard because that sounds very, very fluffy. But there’s the economics of trust – either building trust or reducing trust – and your first element is authentic engagement with landholders and communities.

“So how your asset works absolutely relevant to that conversation.”

Heindl said developers needed to understand the community’s concerns right at the beginning, and address them in a genuine way. She cited visual amenity as one obvious example. Do people really want to see rows and rows and white shipping containers across paddocks that once housed sheep or crops.

“Visual amenity is definitely an issue that can be dealt with pretty easily, but not if you don’t ask the question,” Heindl said.

“Paint the bloody things green! Nobody wants big white batteries in their paddocks, and we might say it’s just a paddock, another paddock.

“I can assure you that the people in Central West Orana (the renewable energy zone in NSW) don’t feel that way. So thinking flexibly about how we can respond to some of those concerns, and we may think, “Oh, how is that a concern?”

Heindl later told Renew Economy’s podcast that she is aware of at least one big battery project that is planning to do just that – paint their containers green (presumably a light shade to minimise potential heating issues) – but is not at liberty to say which one at this stage.

“Then we get to the next phase, which is cumulative impacts, and I’m going to really reinforce the word cumulative,” Heindl told the conference. “It’s not just about your project. By the time there are about three renewable development projects in a region, most communities are saying no to them in in their entirety.

“Why? Because the cumulative effect of ‘this is being done to us’ starts to get to a tipping point in terms of saying we don’t want any more projects, no matter if you’re the fourth project and you’re actually doing an amazing job, that’s the reality of things.

“So working with other developers, which might be best developers, it might be others, to address some of those cumulative impacts in the construction phase, workforce issues, where are these workers going to live, etc. is going to be critical.”

Heindl, who also attended the recent Renewables in Agriculture conference in Orange, which heard of local communities seeking to maximise benefits from new developments from renewable investments – be it in electrification or even green fertilise supply, says this is also true for battery storage.

“I think the reality for solar and wind is it’s pretty established now what the benefits are, what sort of money you have to pay per megawatt to communities, and of course every state has been a little bit different in terms of how they address the community benefit regimes.

“But the reality is that there is a growing expectation on BESS projects that they would be contributing. And again, don’t make a tiny pot of money; add to the big pot of money, so that community aren’t just getting footy shirts; they’re literally getting something that will benefit them.

“Many of these communities don’t have reliable power if they’re out west, and the truth is, a community battery, which I know Energy Queensland has done a number of, as have some of the other networks, can be a really positive contribution to a community.

“Now, is that any project’s responsibility to build a community battery? Probably not. But if collectively a group of developers could come together and think about what benefit can we genuinely offer this community, that’s worth thinking about.

“And then finally, accountability and transparency. If you’re doing the right thing, then share that message with the community, and better still, have people in your community that are willing to talk on your behalf.

“So whether it’s decommissioning, fire risks, visual amenity, you want people from the RFS, the rural fire folk, to be talking positively about. Yep, that that project came and spoke to us at the get-go about the fire concerns that we had.”

On the issue of decommissioning, local communities and landholders needed to have confidence that the issue has been addressed from the get go – even if with project lives of 25 years the issue appears far away.

“Landholders do not want to be in a position where they’ve got assets that are stranded on their properties, and then the obligation is upon them to move them on or decommission them, and I think we can all understand that that’s fair enough, right?

“We’ve talked about flipping, and the reality is, in most cases, the developer that the landholder signs the first agreement is not going to be the owner and operator of that asset, and so we need to give the communities and landholders confidence that the decommissioning issue has been addressed from the get go.”

You can hear an interview with Heindl in the latest episode of Renew Economy’s Energy Insiders podcast, published on Friday. See Energy Insiders Podcast: Why we need regional leaders for renewable transition

To join more than 29,000 others and get the latest clean energy news delivered straight to your inbox, for free, click here to subscribe to our free daily newsletter.

To support independent media, and help combat the spread of deliberate misinformation and disinformation about the energy transition, you can click here to make a one off donation or become a regular supporter of Renew Economy.