Batteries caught in the Queensland planning net
Just before Christmas, the Queensland Government confirmed that large scale battery energy storage systems will now be assessed under the same impact assessable planning framework as wind and solar projects. Under the new rules, standalone battery projects of 50MW or more must undertake a social impact assessment, enter into community benefit agreements with local governments, and be assessed centrally by the State Assessment and Referral Agency rather than local councils (1)
In political terms, the decision is being framed as a move to consistency, transparency and community empowerment. In economic terms, it risks doing the opposite of what Queensland’s energy system actually needs right now.
Batteries are not wind farms. They are not solar farms. Treating them as such may feel neat from a regulatory perspective, but it ignores the functional role batteries play in keeping the grid stable, reliable and affordable as coal exits the system.
What exactly has changed
The planning amendment applies to large standalone battery projects that have not yet received approval. These projects are now deemed impact assessable, triggering mandatory public consultation and a more complex approval pathway. Developers must complete a social impact assessment and negotiate community benefit agreements with councils before lodging a development application with the state.
The government argues that this replaces a fragmented system where battery projects could be assessed under dozens of different local planning schemes, many of which were never designed to handle this type of infrastructure. Centralising assessment and introducing a dedicated State Code is intended to provide clarity and consistency.
On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, industry groups and planning lawyers are warning that the new framework adds steps, cost and time, with estimates suggesting approval timelines could be extended by up to 12 months for many projects (2).
Why the government says it did this
Politically, the rationale is clear. Community opposition to renewable projects has been growing in parts of regional Queensland, particularly where large scale developments overlap with agricultural land. The government has made local consultation and social licence a central theme of its energy policy, and batteries have now been swept into that narrative.
The Deputy Premier in the media release has argued that communities previously lacked confidence in the planning process, and that bringing batteries into the same regime as wind and solar restores fairness and trust. Several councils had also pushed for batteries to be explicitly included in renewable planning reforms, rather than assessed under legacy schemes never designed for them.
From a political management perspective, this is understandable. From a system planning perspective, it is far harder to defend.
Why industry is frustrated
Battery developers and investors are not pushing back because they oppose consultation or safety standards. The frustration comes from timing, process and unintended consequences.
As per the ABC’s reporting, industry representatives have described the change as volatile and unwelcoming, with some investors already reconsidering whether Queensland remains an attractive destination for capital (3). As per the same article, the Clean Energy Council has warned that projects already well advanced may need to effectively start again under the new rules, adding years rather than months to delivery.
This matters because batteries are not a nice to have addition to the energy transition. They are the infrastructure that allows variable renewables to displace coal without blowing out prices or risking reliability. Slowing battery deployment does not pause the transition in an orderly way. It increases the likelihood that ageing coal assets stay online longer, at higher cost and higher risk.
The irony at the heart of the decision
There is a deeper irony here. Batteries are being subjected to heavier planning scrutiny at precisely the moment when they are most critical to system stability.
Coal generation in Queensland is ageing and increasingly unreliable. As units retire or fail, the system needs fast responding storage to manage peaks, firm renewables and reduce reliance on expensive gas and coal generation. Batteries do this quietly, efficiently and with a much smaller physical footprint than most generation assets.
Delaying battery approvals does not reduce the need for energy. It simply shifts how that energy is supplied. More coal. More gas. More exposure to volatile fuel costs. None of that aligns with the stated goal of a stronger economy or lower power prices.
What this means for Queensland as an investment destination
Queensland has spent years positioning itself as a leader in renewable energy development. Policy stability and clear pathways to approval are central to that proposition. Each time the rules are materially changed mid cycle, confidence takes a hit.
The Renew Economy analysis notes that renewable and storage investment in Queensland has already slowed sharply over the past year, with regulatory uncertainty cited as a key factor (4). Batteries were one of the few areas still seeing strong investor interest because of their essential role in the grid and improving economics. Adding friction here risks pushing capital to other states with clearer and faster approval pathways.
For investors, this does not kill the battery story. Demand for storage is structural and growing. What it does is introduce jurisdictional risk. Timelines lengthen. Development risk increases. Capital becomes more selective about where it is deployed.
What investors should take away
For energy transition investors, the lesson is not to abandon batteries in Queensland, but to price risk more carefully. Projects with existing approvals become more valuable. Developers with strong community engagement capabilities gain an edge. States with simpler planning frameworks become more attractive on a relative basis.
More broadly, this decision highlights the growing tension between political idealism and economic reality in energy policy. Community consultation matters. So does system reliability and affordability. When the balance tips too far in one direction, the consequences show up in higher costs and slower progress.
The Bottom Line
Queensland’s decision to subject batteries to the same planning regime as wind and solar may look consistent, but consistency is not the same as good policy. Batteries are critical infrastructure for a lower cost, lower risk energy system. Slowing their deployment risks prolonging reliance on more expensive fossil fuels and undermining investor confidence. For investors, the transition continues, but policy risk now demands closer attention.
References
Bleijie J, Queensland Government media release, “Crisafulli Government empowers communities on battery energy storage systems.” 11 December 2025. https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/104178
Cropp R, Australian Financial Review, “‘Baffling’ state battery crackdown adds to transition delays” 18 December 2025. https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/baffling-state-battery-crackdown-adds-to-transition-delays-20251218-p5noou
Beavan K, ABC News, “New large scale battery approval laws in Queensland draw mixed reaction.” 18 December 2025. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-18/what-new-large-scale-battery-approval-laws-mean-for-queensland/106156666
Vorrath S, Renew Economy, “Big batteries to face same strict planning rules as solar and wind projects under Queensland’s new regime.” 18 December 2025. https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteries-to-face-same-strict-planning-rules-as-solar-and-wind-projects-under-queenslands-new-regime/
Important Information
EnviroInvest Pty Ltd ACN 685 107 957 (“EnviroInvest”) is an Authorised Representative of Daylight Financial Group Pty Ltd ACN 633 984 773 (“DFGPL”) which is the holder of an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFS Licence No. 521404).
Information in this commentary is current as at date prepared unless otherwise stated. However, please bear in mind that investments can go up or down in value, and that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. For more Important Information please refer to the Disclaimer section of this website.
This communication may contain general financial product advice. It has been prepared without taking into account your personal circumstances, and you should therefore consider its appropriateness in light of your objectives, financial circumstances and needs before acting on it.
If our advice relates to the acquisition or possible acquisition of a particular financial product, you should obtain a copy of and consider the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) before making any decision.