Letter to CEO Powerlink 28 June 2011.
By Save Eumundi Team • Jul 4th, 2011 • Category: Featured Articles, Letters to Powerlink, The 'Jardine' CorrespondenceMr Gordon Jardine
Chief Executive Officer
Powerlink Queensland
PO Box 1193
Virginia Qld 4014
Dear Mr Jardine,
Re: Woolooga to Eerwah Vale Power Line and Substation Project
Whilst appreciating Powerlink has a large number of transmission line acquisition projects, it nevertheless is now approaching 12 months since your site visit to Cooroy on 12 July 2010 as part of Powerlink’s CID application process to the above named project.
PAGE remains keen to see the aims of both Powerlink and the community met in regard to the issues unveiled during the EIS and CID processes. We appreciate that Powerlink must maintain the infrastructure capabilities to carry energy to where demand requires it in a timely manner. Our consultations with both sides of politics have established, however, that all agree that Powerlink’s needs must be met in a manner that also preserves the environment and sensitive habitat of areas for future generations.
This is especially so when lower impact and lower cost alternatives can strategically deliver similar security of supply over what is currently proposed by your organisation in the EIS and CID. A key question that Powerlink has never answered remains: Why impact one of the last pristine habitat and healthy koala colonies when existing infrastructure corridors should be utilized avoiding environmental destruction when a viable alternative exists?
The complexities and difficulties of the approach Powerlink is seeking to impose on the Ridgewood and Eerwah Vale areas could be clearly gauged from the extended time and effort being taken by Powerlink to address the issues raised by the community and PAGE Inc. Unfortunately, it has become clear that this extra time has been spent simply attempting to justify Powerlink’s original position and countering and devaluing the merits of the PAGE alternative, rather than adopting a positive ‘let’s see if this approach works’.
This dismissive and counterproductive attitude is further evidenced by the fact that Powerlink has declined to engage with PAGE to ensure that there is no repetition, in the CID application to the Minister, of the significant errors and distortions by Powerlink of the community’s submission, which resulted in the flawed evaluations and costings in the final EIS document.
In addition to this “in bad faith” approach, you have also declined to provide the Powerlink review of PAGE’s electrical consultant’s report tendered as part of our final EIS submission, and which was requested during our meeting on 12 July 2010. Mr Jardine, will you now please arrange for the Powerlink review of that electrical report to be provided to PAGE so that the engineering consultant can evaluate and address any incongruities, as is required in an open and transparent process?
In addition to the consistent misrepresentation by Powerlink of essential points raised in community submissions, there are a number of other important issues that warrant a re-evaluation of your proposed CID application before it is presented to the Minister. For example:
Issues:
1. The present Powerlink proposal does not provide a true long term solution to the short term energy limitation identified. Additional network augmentation will be required to correct those limitations in the future, contrary to Powerlink statements made in the EIS documents.This will necessarily result in significant additional costs and environmental impacts not disclosed in the EIS.
2. The Powerlink proposal does not adequately support the Palmwoods substation for the long term, the real hub from where future energy growth will be supplied to Caloundra South, Palm View, and the main areas projected for greenfield population growth by the State Government.
3. Many important points in the EIS are incorrect and/or out of date, invalidating Powerlink’s conclusions supporting their CID. Some of the more glaring errors include:
a. The basis for the works to be ‘needed’ by 2014 should now be revised to indicate a more appropriate updated schedule, as per AER specifications.
The effects of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) have resulted in dramatic slowing on the northern Sunshine Coast area supported by the Energex network being addressed. The major section (viz. the Noosa area) had been significantly slowing even prior to the GFC.
b. The alternate proposal from PAGE is not evaluated or costed fairly – case in point, Final EIS, App U re Powerlink named options G1, and G2.
c. Information given to PAGE by you, Mr Jardine, on 12 July 2010 supports the PAGE proposal suggesting the augmentation required needs to be to the Palmwoods substation as part of the long term strategic energy solution for the Sunshine Coast.
d. The EIS does not include important indigenous cultural heritage issues involving impacting the Ridgewood Eerwah Vale view-shed, which Powerlink were informed of during the initial consultations in 2007.
It has been noted in other reviews that as an organisation Powerlink shows “no humility” in their dealings with the community. It is certainly PAGE’s experience that community consultations have been little more than lip-service, with a more environmentally sensitive and cost effective alternative dismissed out of hand. This characteristic approach of old-style bureaucrats does not adhere to the spirit or letter of Government and community expectations regarding genuine community consultation in the 21st century, and appears to reject out of hand the prospect that any option other than Powerlink’s original position could be the better option.
PAGE’s and the local community’s unfortunate experience with Powerlink is reinforced by the information that is provided in response to individuals’ letters to the Minister, which is so clearly self-serving misinformation that it defies belief that any senior officer in Powerlink could possibly have checked and approved this for the Minister’s signature. This is in strong contrast with PAGE and Noosa Biosphere’s experience in their dealings with Energex and that organization’s willingness to be open and transparent in their dealings with community groups.
We believe that a positive approach and appraisal of PAGE’s alternative, by Powerlink, would result in a win-win situation for all, as Powerlink would deliver the necessary energy needs and equally protect important environmental habitat areas. This in turn benefits the Queensland government as it would demonstrate that it actively supports its ideals of delivering power at cheapest cost and protecting the environment in the planning and construction of such projects.
PAGE is available to assist Powerlink in resolving and completing a proposal that meets both Powerlink criteria and community expectations of 21st century solutions.
Yours Sincerely
Jack Connolly
President, Powerlines Action Group Eumundi (P.A.G.E.)
Save Eumundi Team is a group of people who are keen to see our environment protected and insisting that the Queensland State Government and its agencies (like Powerlink) consider viable alternatives rather than the business as usual approach to electricity generation and transmission.
Email this author | All posts by Save Eumundi Team
Just had the letter to inform me of a 5 year project delay.This means corridor and substation site will be redone in 5 years.The project is not cancelled and all “iformation” gathered will be retained for future reference.So we now enter a five year limbo to be followed by the same farce all over again. This situation is beyond obsene.
Source: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=75546
Energy and Water Utilities
The Honourable Stephen Robertson
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Transmission line project deferred for five years
A proposed upgrade of the electricity transmission network supplying the Sunshine Coast and Gympie regions is being deferred until 2019, Acting Energy Minister Phil Reeves said.
Mr Reeves said as part of its annual network planning process, Powerlink Queensland has identified temporary change to the power flows into South East Queensland.
“This means the need for the proposed Woolooga to Eerwah Vale Transmission Line and Eerwah Vale Substation Project is being deferred by around five years,” he said.
“Powerlink is currently consulting with landowners and other key stakeholders directly affected by the proposed Woolooga to Eerwah Vale project to discuss what the deferral means.”
Powerlink Chief Executive, Gordon Jardine said the temporary change in power flows was a direct result of the recently-announced liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects in the Surat Basin area of South West Queensland.
“I’m sure that we’ve all seen the news about the rapid emergence of LNG projects in the Surat Basin. What people may not know is that during their start-up phase, while export plants and pipelines are being constructed, the initial ‘ramp up’ gas produced by these projects is being sold to, and used by, power stations in South West Queensland,” he said.
“This has the effect of significantly increasing the power flows into the major demand centre of South East Queensland from the Surat Basin.
“As a result, during this ‘ramp up’ period, less power than usual is needed to flow down from Central Queensland through the Sunshine Coast region and into South East Queensland.”
Mr Jardine said this temporary change to power flows would delay the overloads originally forecast for the electricity network supplying the northern Sunshine Coast and Gympie regions, which are located within the major flow path between Central Queensland and South East Queensland.
“Powerlink’s existing 275kV transmission lines in the Woolooga-Palmwoods area of the Sunshine Coast play a crucial role in transporting electricity from Central Queensland to South East Queensland. Increasing electricity demands from steady population growth and the ongoing uptake of air-conditioning meant that an upgrade to the network supplying the Sunshine Coast and Gympie regions had previously been forecast to be required by 2014 to ensure a reliable supply was maintained.
“This triggered the need for Powerlink’s proposed Woolooga to Eerwah Vale Transmission Line and Eerwah Substation Project for which Powerlink has been consulting with the community in recent years. However, given the recent temporary yet material reduction in the amount of power flowing through the Sunshine Coast while the new LNG projects are under development, the need to upgrade the network has been deferred by five years until 2019,” Mr Jardine said.
Mr Jardine said deferring the project would require the corridor and substation site selection process to be ‘redone’ in about five year’s time. This involves the assessment of a broad range of route options, including the prevailing environmental, social and economic conditions, and the legislative framework, at that point in time. All work undertaken to date on the project had been carried out in accordance with its Government-approved process under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
“I would like to thank and acknowledge all those who have contributed information to the project over the past four years during the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Although this latest development is due to factors outside of Powerlink’s control, we apologise for any impact that results from this change in timing,” Mr Jardine said.
- ends –
Media enquiries:
Powerlink Queensland – Leah Davis, Capital Works Senior Corporate Communications Consultant Phone 07 3860 2802 or 3860 2654 (24 hour media line)
Minister’s office – 3225 1819
About Powerlink Queensland:
Powerlink is a State Government-owned corporation, which owns, develops, operates and maintains a $6 billion high voltage transmission network that extends 1700km from north of Cairns to the New South Wales border. Powerlink’s primary role is to provide a secure and reliable network to transport high-voltage electricity from generators to electricity distribution networks owned by Energex, Ergon Energy and Essential Energy. Powerlink also transports electricity directly to large Queensland customers, such as aluminium smelters and New South Wales via the NSW/Qld Interconnector transmission line.
——————————————————————————–
Delay of Woolooga to Cooroy
When dealing with the dishonesty and deception that is part and parcel of the corporatisation of our modern lives it is worth considering the decisions that are made in terms of their bottom line. Superimposed on this prime motive is a weak, outdated regulatory framework designed to facilitate maximise corporate profit at the expense of the individual. Those reading this without first hand experience of corporate thuggery probably feel this description a little hysterical while those that have endured the last four years of abuse by Powerlink know the truth of it.
So why after grinding the residents into submission and spending huge amounts of money on the inadequate and inaccurate reports required by legislation have they “delayed” the project. Most would consider if you delay something you just pick up where you left off, not Powerlink. Delay apparently means you delete the corridor, file the reports and don’t seek designation from the minister and indicate the entire process will be repeated in five years. Given that Powerlink is a state owned corporation in which we are all shareholders we could reasonably ask what the hell are they doing. Is it possible that Mr Jardine really woke up one morning and discovered that the Surat Basin contained gas and wasn’t just an expensive French sink. Imagine his outrage at the Board meeting “Why wasn’t I told about this gas. Delay that Woolooga project immediately”. Yes seems unlikely but apparently we are to believe something not too far from this happened.
We can only speculate about the true motivation but at the heart of it will be profit. Assuming, as we have been told repeatedly the EIS process has been of the standard required to obtain ministerial designation why not request it rather than spend the money again in five years time. Is it possible that the EIS was not of a standard required? Is it possible Powerlink realised that the route chosen was in fact more expensive and disruptive than alternatives as indicated by PAGE? Is it possible the minister told them what was being presented was flawed? Is it possible that the consumption and growth projections were wrong as indicted by PAGE early in the process? Is it possible that Powerlink feels five years will dampen community opposition; only the hardiest of souls could fight for nine precious years of their lives while it will be just a blink to Powerlink. Finally could it be a way in which Powerlink could distance itself from the project without having to set a precedent that might give other communities hope. We will never know the real motivation only that profit is at is at its heart and the huge cost and ongoing trauma to the community was never a consideration.