If the Battery is integrated into the distribution network, it is not a Back Up Battery. It is a Battery that has an additional function in name only. By definition, this functional demand is outside the intent of the regulation, imo.
This battery has the elements of a reliable back up source. Too much was expected, and demanded. Is it a legacy of antiquated obsession with pounds of weight? It may be down to Fire, or reliability. Choose wisely. This situation was predictable, and was predicted. The failure in implementation is down to lack of test, and lack of in service experience. Or, worse.
The CT scans of sections of even the JAL exemplar show problematic bunching, packing, wrinkling and pinching of the electrode stacks. Given the design, the geography of the enclosure, and its attendant kit, to ignore the probability that failure is merely a shortened service life due environmental impacts and/or excessive demand is a mistake.
If this type,
specific storage battery is not suitable, and cannot be made safe, then the outcome of the public hearings might be "game-changing".
The box was a stupid
PR move, a non starter.....