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.)

Re: Unsustainable Development in Noosa Biosphere – Powerlink’s 275kV Transmission Line and Substation Project 

Dear Minister,

The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention the alternative proposal which P.A.G.E. has submitted to Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) and Powerlink Qld. The P.A.G.E. proposal not only minimises the impact both environmentally and socially, but is significantly cheaper by $70.2m.

This ‘common sense’ approach is endorsed by the Noosa Biosphere Reserve governance board.  The Noosa Biosphere is Queensland’s first Man and Biosphere Reserve and is severely impacted by Powerlink’s proposal.  Noosa Biosphere joins PAGE in asking that you appoint an independent party to examine all alternatives as a matter of urgency. 

Background:

Powerlink currently has a $110m project to construct a new 275kV transmission line from Woolooga to Eerwah Vale, which is in the final stages of preparing to seek Ministerial designation for community infrastructure. Powerlink state that 90% of the line will use an existing easement, but the other 10% requires a new easement.

The purpose of this project is to reinforce the existing 132kV Energex double circuit power lines between  (i) Woolooga and Gympie, and (ii) between Gympie and Cooroy.

Powerlink claim this project will provide the additional power to beyond 2050 for the Gympie, Tin Can Bay and north Sunshine Coast areas without further upgrades and expenditure in that period.

The residents of Ridgewood and Eerwah Vale represented by the action group P.A.G.E. do not object in principle to upgrading or reinforcing electricity supply. However, the community (including the Sunshine Coast Regional Council) strongly oppose the route chosen by Powerlink as it violates and destroys a critical portion of Noosa Biosphere’s pristine wildlife habitat. The clearing of a 60m wide easement and significant additional 8m wide access tracks through steep inaccessible old growth forest will cause erosion and fragment wildlife corridors, especially for the healthy resident koala population.

P.A.G.E. has researched and developed lesser impact and lower cost alternatives utilising existing, common infrastructure corridors (ref. SEQIPP). P.A.G.E. has presented these alternatives to Powerlink and PB during the EIS and CID processes. PAGE has met with Powerlink Chief Executive Officer and requested community involvement in the alternatives assessment process – this has been ignored and it is P.A.G.E.’s opinion that Powerlink and PB have a clear conflict of interest in properly assessing the alternative proposals at this stage in the process. In short, Powerlink has their predetermined plan and do not intend to change it in spite of the P.A.G.E. alternatives meeting the requirements of security of supply at lower environmental, social and financial cost.

Solutions:  

The P.A.G.E. solution can be staged over different time frames. Initially, Powerlink need only spend approx. $1.5 million at this time which can delay the necessity of building new infrastructure in the short to medium term (to 2028), whilst overcoming the short term Energex 132kV network limitations. These limitations are prime drivers of Powerlink’s justification for their project.

This solution provides breathing space to give emerging low carbon technologies, strategies and government programs time to be developed and implemented (such as the Sunshine Coast Council’s Energy Transition Plan targeting 100MW of new capacity by 2020) thereby reducing the demand or need for additional major infrastructure such as Powerlink’s proposal. If by 2028 more powerlines are still required, P.A.G.E.’s solution utilises 97% existing infrastructure corridors, thereby minimising environmental damage. This option is $70.2m cheaper than the Powerlink proposal. This appraisal has been independently assessed using Performance Electrics Pty Ltd, Greystanes, NSW

Furthermore, the P.A.G.E. solutions avoid the irreparable damage to existing wildlife corridors, and in particular, to one of the last existing healthy colonies of koalas in the Noosa Biosphere. This is a direct impact on tourism’s ability to be sustainable and underpin economic survival of the eco-tourism market.  The governments own SEQ Catchment Report of 2010 identifies such damage as critical and immediate (>2020) with many billions in economic benefit stripped away due to the proliferation of utility corridors impacting local economies, agriculture, tourism and resultant social dysfunction.  Change to prevent this has to start somewhere.  We believe it is here where the line should be drawn.

Nevertheless, if it is the wish of government to spend money now on infrastructure, the community’s wish – this includes our local State representative and Council – is that this is not done at the expense of destroying this key environmental area in the Biosphere as there are lower impact and cheaper solutions, such as presented by P.A.G.E.

For this reason, the last 10% of the Powerlink project should utilise other existing, common infrastructure corridors such as the current Bruce Highway upgrade and railway easements, as has been done in numerous other projects across Queensland and Australia.

The P.A.G.E. network solution (injecting supply to the north of Cooroy) offers superior design for future network development and is based on using existing infrastructure corridors on 97% of the route minimising environmental impact. This alternative also costs significantly less, with projected savings of some $20m on a like-for-like basis. These savings are significant in the current financial climate and Powerlink has the obligation of providing power at the cheapest cost to the consumer.

How much support could be provided via the Premier’s flood relief fund via these savings, how many houses and businesses could benefit from such support?

Detailed documentation is available as and when required.

Yours sincerely,

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/06/18/2931239.htm

Transcript

Kathy McLeish reports property owners fear for their livelihoods.

JESSICA van VONDEREN: Queensland is grappling with unprecedented growth. And one of the problems is accommodating more people while protecting the environment. Kathy McLeish reports on a Sunshine Coast group fighting a move to put powerlines through their rural community

KATHY McLEISH: Jack Connolly always wanted to own his own vineyard and his own business.

JACK CONNOLLY, RESIDENT: We spent 12 years looking for our piece of paradise my wife and I

(FOOTAGE OF EERWAH VALE, NORTH WEST OF NOOSA)

KATHY McLEISH: They found it here in Eerwah Vale North West of Noosa.

JACK CONNOLLY: An ancient volcano valley floor and the soil here is so fertile you can plant anything, it will grow

KATHY McLEISH: Jack Connolly says before buying the property he had extra searches done to ensure there were no easements or unknowns that would affect their long term plans.

JACK CONNOLLY’S WIFE: Did the mail come?

JACK CONNOLLY: Yes and I think we’ve got the information.

(JACK CONNOLLY SPEAKS WITH KATHY McLEISH)

JACK CONNOLLY: We even intended to be brought out of here in wooden boxes, but that was before.

KATHY McLEISH: The Queensland Government owned Energy Company Powerlink wants to run a high voltage transmission line through their property and eight and a half kilometres of their neighbours’ properties.

JACK CONNOLLY: Breaks our heart I’ve put my life on hold, I’ve put my business on hold I put my family on hold. We’ve got to just try and get this thing out of our life but if it does proceed it’s going to destroy not only our lives but nobody really wants to be anywhere near this obtrusive development.

(FOOTAGE OF PEOPLE WORKING ON EMISSIONS)

KATHY McLEISH: The land owners are now working on a submission to fight the move. They say though the environmental process is supposed to be centred on community consultation the process has been difficult and at times bordered on obstructive.

JACK CONNOLLY: Whatever we’ve asked they’ve just given a very generic reference: So the fact that they made it hard to access has just been more and more stress put on people.

KATHY McLEISH: Locals say there is a reasonable koala population in the area, but it’s never been mapped by the environment department.

JACK CONNOLLY: We’ve got documented evidence of koala, we’ve got photos of the koala here, we’ve got scratch trees, we’ve got scats, GPS recordings of every scratch tree we found and basically they just say that it is not high value koala habitat.

KATHY McLEISH: They say the habitat of the Richmond Birdwing butterfly will also be affected. Property prices have also been hit some falling as much as $400,000. Locals now fear for their businesses. Conservationist Simon Baltais says there are reasons for concern.

SIMON BALTAIS, QUEENSLAND CONSERVATION: 390 land species and 111 plant species are going to be directly or indirectly potentially impacted by this development. That is a lot of biodiversity that’s going to be impacted. And whether through direct clearing of habitat or reducing canopy which impacts microclimates which impacts a whole range of other species there will be impacts it’s just a matter how severe and how many but this is something we don’t have to do.

KATHY McLEISH; The powerlines action group paid $10,000 to have an independent energy engineer develop an alternative plan.

(JACK CONNOLLY SPEAKS WITH KATHY McLEISH)

JACK CONNOLLY: What we’re talking about in page is saying is not coming down this 18.6ks at all and coming off a family federal and across about 6.3klms to a substation site. What we’re saying is there’s a much cheaper better and doable alternative and using common infrastructure corridors where the land is already fragmented and there’s no social or environmental impact.

KATHY McLEISH: The group argues it’s the cheapest option.

JACK CONNOLLY: Powerlink drew a line on the map and they’ve been defending that drawing of the line rather than seriously looking at what we’ve been saying.

KATHY McLEISH: Powerlink says it has done exhaustive studies and the best option is the one that goes through the properties.

(KATHY McLEISH SPEAKS WITH GORDON JARDINE, POWERLINK)

KATHY McLEISH: The lines will be installed by helicopter but the pillions will be installed from the ground so there will be impact on the habitat won’t there.

GORDON JARDINE, POWERLINK: What we do is try and minimise the amount of clearing we have to by selectively locating these towers and bringing the conductor above the canopy. In relation to alternatives we will always look at alternatives that are put forward in terms of assessing them. There has been an alternative put forward into this latest round of consultation. We’ve only received that a week ago. It’s quite premature to be commenting on the merit or otherwise of that but that will have to be assessed.

KATHY McLEISH; The landholders say a representative should have met with a community group to discuss alternatives.

GORDON JARDINE: Well the way we’d go about this is dictated by the process under the sustainable planning act which has a structured process in terms of various times when we seek submissions and when we respond to those submissions so we’ve done that and then we do all these other things these 4,500 contacts the property owners on top of that.

KATHY McLEISH: Local member David Gibson says this issue shows it’s clearly time for regulations and environmental approval processes to be updated.

DAVID GIBSON, MEMBER FOR GYMPIE: Powerlink have been doing what they’re legally required to do and you know you can say well that isn’t enough but that’s all you know they’re obliged to do. I think what we’ve got to see is a real shift in the way in which Governments and Government owned corporations actually engage in their communities.

KATHY McLEISH: The final decision lies with the Environment and Resources Minister.

JACK CONNOLLY: We believe that we’re going to give them a bit of a shakeup the fights not over yet. They don’t know what’s coming but when they find out when they start reading I think they will be even surprised.

The warning follows the State Government’s release of shocking survey results on Saturday (23 May) which show that koala numbers in an outer Brisbane region – known as the Koala Coast – have more than halved from 4611 to 2279 since 2006, a 64% drop, as a result of habitat loss, vehicle strikes, dog attacks and disease.

Climate Change and Sustainability Minister Kate Jones used the figures to introduce tighter measures to ensure survival of the marsupials in the 375km2 zone, in effect accepting that the Koala Coast population is now in its way to extinction and should now be listed as Critically Endangered.

The Minister is also reported as saying that the already announced koala response strategy would see the immediate planning of tunnels or overpasses in koala blackspots along the Koala Coast’s main roads, another measure which the Australian Koala Foundation says will do nothing to protect the koalas now.

The findings now have Sunshine Coast residents facing major infrastructure projects bracing for impending doom.

“The Sunshine Coast is also home to koala populations which, at this point, are disease-free but are increasingly put at risk due more and more infrastructure projects inundating the region, carving up significant habitat all over the place,” said Powerlines Action Group Eumundi (PAGE) coordinator Graham Smith.

“The koala is listed as vulnerable here too and yet there is no surveying done here to monitor the affects of development or to more accurately assess the threat level.

“I suspect, like the situation along the Koala Coast to the south, these studies will only come when it’s too late and agencies are in damage control.”

The findings are part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Report on Koala Coast Koala Surveys 2006–2008.

The new report has further angered landholder Dr Carlos Sanchez, whose Eerwah Vale property is in the path of Powerlink’s proposed Woolooga to Cooroy South (Eerwah Vale) Transmission Line and Substation Project.

Dr Sanchez said prime koala habitat, including large Tallowwood Gums, had been marked for clearance on his property despite no project personnel ever stepping foot on his land and koala sightings being recorded just metres from his boundary.

“It’s a disgrace that such major, destructive projects can be proposed with such poor studies – or in some cases, no studies – being done,” he said.

Local residents’ quest to save healthy koalas living in the path of proposed infrastructure has received the backing of the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF).

The newly-released survey results add scientific weight to the AKF’s nomination of these koalas as Endangered under Federal Government legislation, namely the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

Australia Koala Foundation CEO Deborah Tabart OAM said: ”About 25,000 dead koalas have been found in south-east Queensland in the last decade”, adding that ”the hinterland of Noosa, and the Sunshine Coast in general, provided a sad example of this decimation as infrastructure continues to encroach on koala habitat”.

The draft EIS for Powerlink’s project was produced by paid consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) Australia. Submissions closed 15 May 2009, however, on 7 May, PB announced that people had until 29 May to submit supplementary or supporting information, provided that they submitted a response noting the kind of information to be supplied later by the original closing date.

PAGE, also known as People Advocating Green Energy, is a not-for-profit community organisation committed to promoting sustainable ways to meet the Sunshine Coast’s future energy needs, and to working constructively with the Queensland Government and its agencies to do so.

The group led the development of a viable non-network alternative, which includes significant ‘bankable’ demand management initiatives and scalable, local renewable solar-thermal generation with storage capacity, plus real employment opportunities for locals through the creation of green jobs.

To read PAGE’s 180-page submission or a summary, or to learn more about proposed alternatives and the campaign to date, visit PAGE’s website at www.saveeumundi.org or email contact@saveeumundi.org

PAGE MEDIA RELEASE Ends.

Note to editors:
•    Link to photos taken of koalas in the area in December 2008 – http://www.saveeumundi.org/2009/03/koalas-photographed-close-to-proposed-alignment/
•    For information about the Australian Koala Foundation’s campaign to save South East Queensland koalas, go to https://www.savethekoala.com/kc/joincampaign.html
•    The Koala Coast is located 20 km south-east of Brisbane, Queensland, and covers an area of 375km2. It is the largest population of koalas residing in such close proximity to a capital city anywhere in Australia. The region falls within the South East Queensland Bioregion where the koala is listed as vulnerable (Nature Conservation Act 1992).

In 2008, renewable energy accounted for about 6% (745MW) of Queensland’s total installed generation capacity, with more than half that derived from burning sugar-cane waste to generate electricity and useful heat (bagasse-fired cogeneration).

The renewable energy plan launched by Bligh yesterday, aims to ensure that Queensland positions itself as a “serious player” in the renewables sector, John Cole, head of the Office of Clean Energy, told CE Daily.

While the Rudd Government’s proposed Renewable Energy Target will provide a substantial incentive for new projects around Australia, its least-cost approach is likely to initially favour wind projects in southern states.

The Queensland plan is designed to assist solar and geothermal to come rapidly to the fore, while also fostering the development of wind projects in the state.

Regulatory reform package to be finalised this year

An initial component of the plan will be a “regulatory reform package” to remove or reduce impediments to new renewables projects and streamline planning processes.

This package will be delivered in 2009 based on options developed by a renewable energy regulatory taskforce, the plan says.

A key focus for the review will be scrutiny of the regulatory, technical and financial impediments that can hinder efforts to connect new projects to the electricity network.

The Government will also consider amending legislation governing the 71% of land in Queensland that is State-owned so that farmers with long-term leases can sub-lease to developers of wind farms and other renewable energy projects.

The Land Act 1994 currently requires that a lease be used only for the purpose for which it was issued.

Plan looks to state-owned utilities and developers

The plan notes that Government-owned energy corporations provide 55% of the State’s generating capacity but only about 28% of its renewable energy capacity.

It will require each of these corporations – Stanwell Energy, CS Energy, Tarong Energy, Ergon Energy, Energex and Powerlink – to annually submit a renewable energy network benefit statement detailing where deployment of renewable energy or demand management projects could help avoid building or upgrading electricity networks.

Cole said every megawatt of additional power demand deferred or avoided saved taxpayers about $3 million in electricity infrastructure development and noted the Government was likely to release an accompanying demand management strategy for the State by the end of the year.

In an effort to speed-up the deployment of clean energy technologies in major population growth hot spots, the plan also commits the Office of Clean Energy to working with developers and local governments to develop “clean energy plans” for all new master-planned communities, large-scale commercial developments and government infrastructure services.

Solar thermal park

The plan flags a pre-feasibility study into a large-scale concentrated solar thermal park, to be prepared with the assistance of the Clinton Foundation, with the first stage of the study to be completed this year.

Other components of the renewable energy plan include:

• encouraging the creation of consortia to deploy small-scale (5MW to 20MW) solar thermal plants throughout regional Queensland;
• investigating the construction of a large-scale demonstration geothermal project by 2014; and
• establishing pilot renewable energy priority zones.

By 2020, the State Government estimates wind could generate up to 750MW (up from 12MW in 2008), biomass 645MW (up from 415MW), 500MW of energy to heat water could come from solar (up from 144MW), geothermal could generate up to 250MW (up from zero), hydro could provide 200MW (up from 169MW) and solar PV could provide 40MW (up from 6MW).

The State Government also wants to leverage funding available through the $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative announced by Treasurer Wayne Swan in the this year’s Budget (see related article).

“The Office of Clean Energy will assist industry proponents form constructive partnerships to access this funding,” the plan says.

The renewable energy plan builds on existing measures including the solar hot water program (see related article), $50 million renewable energy fund and solar PV feed-in tariff scheme.

Source:  http://www.cedaily.com.au

“I don’t believe that we as an industry can continue to stand by and spend money at the rate we are doing to build poles and wires that are not being used all the time,” said McConnell, Energex’s business and industry relationship manager.

“We’ve got to do something to reduce kilowatt consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. “Energy efficiency and demand management are the key.”

McConnell said 65% of homes in south east Queensland now have air conditioning, resulting in a 30% increase in demand for electricity in the state in the last ten years.

He said the traditional approach to managing this growth was to expand and upgrade the network.

In 2008-09, Energex has invested about $830 million on upgrades just to handle peak demand for a few days of the year, with a further $340 million spent just to maintain the network.

“We’re spending about $3 million a day,” he said.

“That sort of expenditure is simply not sustainable.”

McConnell said customers in residential areas pay an average price of electricity, and “the mums and dads out there really don’t understand what demand means”.

“They expect to turn their lights on, they expect to have their plasma television, they expect to be able to turn their air conditioning on. They really are not aware of what electricity costs upstream,” he said.

‘Mutually beneficial’ approaches

McConnell said demand management and energy efficiency is clearly a more effective use of scarce capital, and Energex is trying to design programs that are mutually beneficial for customers and utilities.

The company is about to roll out a smart meter trial which will allow utilities to offer different price structures to customers.

“It puts the customer in charge of how they are using power, they can physically see something happening in the house with digital meters,” he said.

Following the successful introduction of remote cycling technology on electric hot water systems, Energex is trialling the technology on the air conditioners of 200 customers in Brisbane, enabling the company to remotely switch off the compressor in their air conditioners.

This has so far resulted in a 17% to 30% reduction in load in the area over a two-year period, he said.

Swimming pool pumps make a substantial contribution to summer peaks, and Energex is also about to start a trial with customers allowing it to remotely switch off their pumps at peak periods.

McConnell said Energex is actively supporting the shift to newer technologies like distributed energy, cogeneration and trigeneration, solar and wind, “but I think they’ve still got a way to go”.

‘Clear vision on energy efficiency still missing’

Meanwhile, Clean Energy Council policy manager Russell Marsh told the seminar that Australia needs a comprehensive strategy to make sense of the highly complicated and constantly changing mix of Federal and State energy efficiency measures.

Marsh said Australia has clear targets for renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction, but “no-one has a real sense of what we’re trying to achieve with energy efficiency and demand side response”.

“I would say that’s the one thing that’s missing.”

A comprehensive strategy would bring together existing energy efficiency measures and quantify the impact they’re going to have, argued Marsh.

He said Australia needs a vision of what it wants to achieve by 2030 through energy efficiency and demand side measures, so governments can put the necessary policy measures in place.

Source:  http://www.cedaily.com.au

The following letters outline and show what the Bligh government’s actual response is to alternative energies that have been proposed by the community group PAGE.

Ever since the CEO of Powerlink wrote to Mr. Geoff Wilson, Minister for Mines and Energy suggesting that PAGE were “deceitful and dishonest”, PAGE have had disappointment after disappointment in their dealings with the Minister. After 6 months of waiting (initial request 20 February 2008) the Minister finally afforded PAGE a meeting, at which PAGE were told to come up with an alternative within only 4 weeks. With all the resources at the DME and Powerlink’s disposal, it was left for the small community group to come up with a proposal. This proposal was submitted but the response received (below) does little to inspire confidence that the Minister and his department are interested in delivering an alternative solution.

It is also disappointing to see the ALP campaign rhetoric once again referring to Queensland as aspiring to be “the solar state” of Australia, and we continue to see little willingness to progress towards becoming a solar state, when we have a solar option on the table that could be further developed to meet their criteria.

PAGE has been asking the government to look at alternatives to Powerlink business as usual proposal since August 2007 – 18 months later they are still dragging their heels when they have an active and engaged community wishing to help find solutions to the energy requirements of the Sunshine Coast, and where the Sunshine Coast Regional Council have a mandate for cleaner greener alternatives.

Queensland despite the rhetoric lags well behind other countries and is a long way behind New South Wales in implementing clean energy alternatives and feed-in tariffs. (http://www.saveeumundi.org/2009/03/doing-green-business-in-nsw/)

Letter 1: PAGE letter (9 December 2008)

Letter 2: Department of Mines and Energy reply to PAGE’s 8 December letter (19 February 2009)

Letter 3: PAGE’s reply to DME (16 March 2009)

Letter 3: PAGE’s reply to DME (16 March 2009)

Your Ref: ME/08/2972, MC2046
Our Ref: February 19, 2009

Honorable Geoff Wilson MP
Minister for Mines & Energy
Level 17
61 Mary St
Brisbane QLD 4000
March 16, 2009

Dear Mr. Wilson,

RE: Sunshine Coast Energy Alternatives

Thank you for your reply, 19th February 2009, to our letter of 10th December 2008, in which we attached one feasible alternative to Powerlink’s transmission and substation proposal, as requested by the Minister in our August meeting.

However, your department’s reply contains several disappointing references which are of concern to PAGE  and the community as they appear to indicate and confirm community opinion that Powerlink controls the Department’s viewpoint and hence Government action on energy development in Queensland.

Q2 Targets and Powerlink’s Solution

Clearly, this Powerlink proposal is ignoring recent statements by both yourself and Ms. Bligh who are publicly seeking, correctly, to address and give direction to greener, sustainable energy generation to reduce Queensland’s carbon emissions. .

The Bligh Government’s goal of a 33% reduction in Queenslanders’ carbon footprint, by 2020, which is to be achieved by “reduced car and ‘electricity’ use” {Toward Q2}, will not be possible without changing the present reliance on coal fired generation and transmission. It appears that the Bligh government’s plan relies primarily on the success of this one technology. Can you detail the specific plans and projects that will deliver on this Q2 goal, bearing in mind that the Powerlink project will be facilitating an estimated additional 400,000 t CO2-e by 2020?

As you, Minister, have said “we cannot keep on as business as usual”. This however is precisely what the Powerlink project is proposing the Bligh Government does. Leaving your Government saying one thing and Powerlink doing another.

The Alternatives

The Sanctuary Energy proposal is an opportunity for the Bligh government to ensure that innovative proposals continue to be advanced and developed. The tone and content of your Department’s response appears to PAGE to be condescending, arrogant and dismissive. Minister, if you genuinely wish the community to be involved in a constructive capacity in delivering a better Queensland your Department’s response does nothing to move the process forward in achieving your stated aims or the community goals in this matter.

Improving energy management strategies and using the rapidly advancing technology of sources such as household PV and solar thermal generation are amongst the 21st Century solutions to responsibly match energy needs with environmental issues. Powerlink’s bulldozing through the Noosa Biosphere will result in the destruction of important natural wildlife and flora habitat, including prime koala habitat. It will also destroy the visual amenity of one of the Sunshine Coast’s tourist destinations, with resultant economic loss to the Sunshine Coast already under severe stress from the current economic crisis.

Leadership and Vision

Even more reprehensible on the Bligh government’s part, should they proceed with this project, will be their missed opportunity to provide clear leadership towards a cleaner, greener Queensland. To build this line on the new easement proposed, condemns the Sunshine Coast to “black power” [e.g. coal fired] usage for the next 30 years and undermines the Sunshine Coast Regional Council’s aim of being the most sustainable region in Australia.

To plan for more than 30 years hence with coal fired dependency is ecologically, economically and socially irresponsible given the major uncertainty in the energy sector – it is more prudent to develop in a staged manner, matching supply with proven demand, as it arises.

PAGE expects the Minister to provide leadership in setting energy policy and to follow this through with actions on the ground to back up the current rhetoric.

Response Timeframes

PAGE notes Mr Crowther’s drawing our attention to the extra time taken for the submission of a clean green alternative proposal from the community.  Indeed a four week period was nominated at our August 26, 2008 meeting with the Minister. While the Sanctuary Energy proposal had progressed well by that date, we believe that the brief extra time has provided the Minister with a reliable and credible proposal now.

Comparing the time that Powerlink claim they have been planning this upgrade (since the 1970’s), the resources available to the Minister and Powerlink and the resultant business as usual solution proposed, that lacks innovation, ignores climate change imperatives, has not seriously considered alternatives and delivers a solution which does not meet community expectations, PAGE believes that the Ministers repeated references to a four week deadline does your Department and you no credit and suggests a lack of genuine interest in receiving credible alternatives.

Action Now

As a community group, we are pleased to assist the Minister and his Department in showing Powerlink that 21st century solutions can be designed. We expect the Minister to ensure that this proposal is not summarily discarded. As your Department has said, refinements and development will be ongoing. Confirmation that the Minister is indeed serious about delivering cleantech solutions would be welcome.

Indeed a clear statement that the Sunshine Coasts’ future energy needs be delivered via renewable energy and demand management provide the Bligh Government with a clear opportunity to show it is serious in tackling energy provision in an environmentally responsible manner – the last week of this election gives the Government the perfect opportunity to do this.

Has the Minister demanded that Powerlink seek other local clean energy proposals to seriously compare them against their preferred solution? Is this the reason that the EIS has been delayed by many months, despite the significant resources available to them?

Examination of previous projects appears to indicate that Powerlink usually leave this too late into the process for possible proponents to respond with credible alternatives.

Powerlink and the community

We are also concerned that your department seems to be content to allow Powerlink to control the agenda under the guise: “we need infrastructure”, to the extent that rights and expectations to have fair consultation and involvement of the community impacted by these decisions are disregarded by Powerlink. We continue to maintain that Powerlink’s consultation process is a farce. We are still waiting for a response to our briefing note provided to the Minister in August 2008 regarding the consultation process and the approach that Powerlink have had towards this community from the CEO down to the consultants on the ground.

We look forward to your prompt response and can only hope that as timeliness appears to be important to you and your department that a response is provided more quickly than has occurred in the past.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Smith,
Coordinator,
P.A.G.E.

CC:    Hon Peter Wellington MP
Mr. Cameron Crowther, Dept. of Mines and Energy

(back to top)

Letter 2: Mines and Energy reply to PAGE’s 10 December letter (19 February 2009)

Queensland Government
Office of Minister for Mines and Energy

19 February 2009

Mr Graham Smith
Coordinator
Powerlines Action Group Eumundi Inc.
PO Box 950
COOROY QLD 4563

Dear Mr Smith

I refer to your letter of 12 December 2008 and the accompanying Report by Sanctuary Energy addressed to the Honourable Geoff Wilson MP, Minister for Mines and Energy concerning Powerlink Queensland’s proposed Woolooga to Cooroy South transmission line. The Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.

In September 2008, the Honourable Anna Bligh MP, Premier of Queensland outlined her Government’s long-term vision for Queensland in Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland. Q2 creates bold targets that will drive Premier Bligh’s vision for a strong, green, smart, healthy and fair Queensland.

The Bligh Government welcomes your thoughts and ideas on how Queensland should head Toward Q2. For more Information on Q2, please visit www.towardq2.qld.gov.au.

At the 26 August 2008 meeting regarding potential alternatives to the proposed Woolooga to Cooroy South transmission line, I note that the Powerlines Action Group Eumundi (PAGE) advised the Minister it would formulate a commercially-viable, non-networked alternative to the proposed new Woolooga to Cooroy power line project in line with the requirements outlined in the Department of Mines and Energy’s technical information paper. It was also agreed that a draft proposal would be provided within  four weeks This information was received on 12 December 2008.

The Queensland Government has a strong commitment to ensuring the reliability, affordability and security of electricity supplies to the region are maintained. To this end, it is important that any proposal meet the longer term energy needs of the region. In particular, the technical information paper provided to PAGE advised that the proposed alternative solution would need to start in the summer of 2014 -15, and progressively increase to 75 megawatts (MW) over the 10-year period to 2024-25. It will then need to increase to 140 MW by 2034-35, 240 MW by 2044-45 and continue to increase to an estimated 425 MW by the end of the 40 year study period.

The scope of Sanctuary Energy’s position paper is limited to the first 10 years of demand forecasts, and does not address the region’s long-term energy needs (i.e. 40 years) that were identified in the technical information paper. As a result, further refinement of the position paper is required before a comprehensive assessment of the proposed alternative can be made.

I further note that the concept proposed by Sanctuary Energy relies on the development and undertaking of a number of feasibility studies in order to establish the commercial viability of the project. These studies will take up to 24 months to complete. This time frame may be problematic given the need to ensure electricity supplies to the region by 2014 – 15. It is suggested that further consideration be given to reducing the timeframe required to undertake the feasibility studies.

I have forwarded a copy of Sanctuary Energy’s position paper to Powerlink Queensland for their consideration. I understand that Powerlink Queensland will liaise with Sanctuary Energy to further discuss the proposed alternative solution including its suitability to meet longer term energy demand and timing requirements in line with the technical information paper

I understand that PAGE has requested an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss the position paper from Sanctuary Energy. A meeting with the Minister would be most beneficial once further refinement of the position paper and proposal and discussions with Powerlink Queensland have been undertaken. I would also encourage PAGE to provide feedback on Powerlink Queensland’s draft Environment Impact Statement (EIS). The draft EIS will be published for community consultation in the first quarter of 2009.

The Minister thanks you for bringing this matter to his attention and trusts this information is of assistance. Should you have any further enquiries, please contact Mr Robert Barton of the Office of Clean Energy on telephone 3227 7570.

Yours sincerely

CAMERON CROWTHER
Senior Policy Advisor
Office of the Honourable Geoff Wilson MP Minister for Mines and Energy

(back to top)

Letter 1: PAGE letter – (10 December 2008)

Your Ref: ME/08/2972, MC2046
Our Ref: 9th December 2008
Honorable Geoff Wilson MP
Minister for Mines & Energy
Level 17
61 Mary St
Brisbane QLD 4000
Dear Mr Wilson,

I refer to your letter dated 14 October 2008 concerning Powerlink’s proposed Woolooga to Cooroy South transmission line and the meeting on 26th of August, 2008, between Powerlines Action Group Eumundi Inc (PAGE) and yourself.

Subsequent to this meeting, PAGE now confirms that at least one commercially viable alternative option to the proposed network augmentation has been identified and discussions undertaken with regard to others.

The identified alternative option is commercially viable and would deliver reliability and security of supply to Sunshine Coast households and businesses within the required timeframes, while meeting the environmental agenda of the QLD state Government . A detailed paper on this alternative is attached for your information. It outlines a solar thermal renewable generation plant complemented by a range of distributed energy and demand management options that would deliver reliable “bankable” peak demand management to mitigate the forecast peak demand in the area. Furthermore, with the addition of thermal storage capability this alternative would provide reliable “bankable” base load generation.

To identify this alternative, PAGE worked with Sanctuary Energy who facilitated a consultation process with numerous stakeholder including Energex, Powerlink, the Department of Mines & Energy (DME), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. Through this process Energex and Powerlink have been cooperative in exploring potential alternatives and have provided support to Sanctuary Energy’s proposal for a solar thermal alternative.

Sanctuary Energy is an incorporated electricity Retailer established for property developers to optimise and integrate services and energy infrastructure from initial project planning to development, operation and subsequent stage development.

A solar thermal renewable generation alternative is scalable and modular which will allow the plant to increase in size (MW) over time in line with Energex’s projected demand growth between 2014 and 2024. At the same time it will achieve significant capacity increases in the short term to offset immediate capacity requirements. The solar thermal alternative is comparable in cost to other renewable technologies currently available; however, it is more reliable with the addition of storage capability that provides better reliability when demand is high. In addition, solar thermal economies of scale indicate cost efficiencies of 15-25% as the size (MW) of the plant doubles.

The current network augmentation proposal delivers a transport mechanism only. However the solar thermal alternative delivers a renewable solution that also localises the generation source close to the existing distribution network, minimising the impact on the local community. Furthermore local jobs will be created through the development of the solar thermal plant, and opportunities exist to establish a Mirror factory on the Sunshine Coast to supply this plant and other solar thermal plants being developed nationally.

PAGE, through consultation with Sanctuary Energy will continue to engage Energex, Powerlink, the DME, the EPA and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council to prepare a submission for the regulatory test.

We seek an urgent follow-up meeting with the Minister to discuss this matter further with a view to finding a path forward that takes into consideration these viable alternatives and which can speed up the deployment of clean energy technologies in Queensland, leading to the establishment of local manufacturing and create new clean energy jobs.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Smith,
Coordinator,
Powerlines Action Group Eumundi

CC: Hon. Peter Wellington, MP for Nicklin
Hon. David Gibson, MP for Gympie
Cllr. Vivien Griffin, Sunshine Coast Regional Council

(Refer to an overview of Sanctuary Energy’s alternative here.)

(back to top)

The Project entails construction, operation, and maintenance of a 275 kV double circuit transmission line and substation in order to provide high voltage reinforcement of the northern Sunshine Coast and Gympie regions.  Powerlink proposes to commence construction in 2012 if their proposal is approved.

One Feasible Alternative

The load forecasts predict an estimated a deficit of 70MW starting to emerge in 2013/2014. This is a large capacity upgrade and Sanctuary Energy’s proposed approach is to work with the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, the local community, Energex and Powerlink to simultaneously pursue two complementary opportunities. These are:

1. Large scale renewable solar thermal and
2. Broad based demand management and distributed energy [note 1]

By 2014, the project aims to deliver 30MW of Large Scale Solar Thermal renewable generation coupled with 10‐20MW demand side response; this would be more than sufficient to offset the immediate peak capacity requirements in the area and would be scalable over time (with the construction of additional solar thermal dishes) to meet projected peak capacity requirements in 2024.

The approach is to start deploying small scale demand management whilst planning and land acquisition begins for the large scale solar thermal plant. Once the demand management process is underway, it is likely that demand can be reduced further in the area than currently anticipated due to increased familiarity with and uptake of the process by local businesses and residential communities.

This solution can meet demand locally and offset other higher greenhouse gas emitting energy sources. The Powerlink proposal only delivers a transport mechanism but does not ensure the generation capacity will be available to the community when required. A Large Scale Solar Thermal plant that delivers 100MW generation capacity would require 220 hectares of available land (75MW is the projected peak capacity requirement by 2024). The availability of suitable land and proximity to Energex’s 132kV distribution network will be considered when selecting the location for the solar thermal plant.

Large Scale Solar Thermal Renewable Technology

Solar thermal generators harness the power of the sun to collect thermal energy (heat). This thermal energy generally heats a liquid, such as water, and uses the steam from this process to run a steam turbine.  There are three main types of solar thermal technology:- Towers, Troughs and Dishes.  The advantage of a dish system is that it can achieve much higher temperatures due to the higher concentration of light than other technologies.  Higher temperatures lead to better conversion to electricity and the dish system is very efficient in producing such temperatures (1,200+ degrees). A dish system uses a large, reflective, parabolic dish (similar in shape to a satellite television dish).  It focuses all the sunlight that strikes the dish up on to a single point above the dish, where a receiver captures the heat and transforms it into a useful form. For this reason, dish technology is generally the most cost effective and has a lower footprint than other forms of solar thermal. Increased efficiency can also be achieved by using the residual steam for small scale desalination, secondary steam generation, heating and reverse cycle refrigeration

An energy storage solution

The other advantage of these high temperatures is that the heat can be used to crack other materials, such as ammonia, that can be used to store energy – this is vital to provide generation when there is no direct sunlight such as overnight.    Large scale solar thermal projects are generally scalable, in blocks as small as 1MW and the size can be incrementally increased as required.

This solution was arrived at from a full day workshop facilitated by Sanctuary Energy on 17th September 2008, involving representatives from PAGE, Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Energex, the Environmental Protection Agency, and independent energy industry consultants plus subsequent meetings with the DME, Powerlink, Energex and the community. A variety of alternatives were reviewed and this solution considered the most appropriate given the time constraints for delivery and the scale of the solution required.

Sanctuary Energy

Sanctuary Energy is an energy retailer/wholesaler providing competitive end consumer rates and renewable infrastructure. We are a community and environment conscious company with a great focus on our carbon footprint and those of our customers. Sanctuary Energy is already committed to working with the Sunshine Coast Community to deliver a clean energy transition as demonstrated by our existing projects and the local engagement processes we have undertaken to date. Sanctuary Energy is keen to collaborate further with the Council to help the community to achieve its energy transition objectives.

Benefits to the Sunshine Coast

• Innovative renewable energy technology which aligns with Council’s long-term renewable and sustainability goals.
• Local jobs created in construction, supply and ongoing maintenance.
• Cost competitive community energy.
• Aligns with incoming State Government goals.
• Provides a secure and reliable source of power as required by the Minister for Mines and Energy.

Next Steps

• Engage with council and community to identify sites.
• Engage with Energex and Powerlink to:

-    Confirm requirements and costs to integrate facility into current infrastructure.
-    Ensure placement of plant will alleviate the need for network augmentation.

• Engage the community in Sanctuary Energy’s Renewable Energy supply arrangements

For more information

For enquiries and further information with respect to this project please contact: Alexander Brasier, General Manager, Investment and Business Development on +61 (0) 2 4351 5599, mobile number 0407 447790 or by email: alex.brasier@sanctuaryenergy.com.au.

A copy of this article can be downloaded from this link – sunshine-coast-energy-aternatives-2009.pdf

PAGE recommends that you investigate with the appropriate Government agencies the status of these proposals and more details over their timing and location. It may also be appropriate and timely to raise these issues with you State Member or responsible Minister. If you don’t know this is happening you won’t be able to do anything about it – with advance warning you can make your voice heard and lobby for more sustainable generation and delivery of energy.

Stuart,

I have been asked by a number of PAGE members to request information be included within the upcoming draft EIS relating to the legal basis upon which Powerlink is basing its right to access the proposed transmission line and the associated easement in the event that it is approved.

As you are aware, the alignment of the proposed transmission line that you have selected would present access challenges to stay wholly within the forcibly acquired 60m easement due to the difficult nature of the terrain. It follows that you have suggested that Powerlink will seek off easement access through landowner’s private property in order for Powerlink to construct the towers. In addition, will Powerlink seek ongoing off easement access over landowner’s private property? In conversations with you in the past you have stated that Powerlink prefer off easement access to be “informal agreements”. Specifically can you outline the nature of these agreements by providing general background information including answering the questions below:

• How the informal agreements negotiated and documented?
• What are the terms and conditions usually applied under these informal agreements?
• Does Powerlink pay compensation for these informal agreements?
• What is the proposed tenure of the informal agreements?
• What is the liability of Powerlink under such an agreement for damage caused by Powerlink when on private property?
• What mechanisms are in place for landowners to claim compensation if damage is caused by Powerlink?
• What liability is placed upon landowners in respect of Powerlink and its agents while on private property under these informal agreements?
• How does a landowner cancel the informal agreement?
• What happens to the informal agreement when the original landowner sells or transfers the property?
• What specific terms and conditions will Powerlink agree to?
• What specific guarantees will Powerlink provide against damage and the spread of noxious weeds for example?
• Will Powerlink respect landowners’ right to restrict access on occasion as necessary?

In the event that a landowner is uncomfortable or unwilling to enter into an “informal” agreement, with Powerlink, please state how Powerlink intend to access the proposed transmission line easement for this project proposal if it is not wholly staying within the forcibly acquired easement?

Assuming that the answer to the last question is the acquisition of yet another easement to access the first easement please state the legal basis upon which Powerlink would attempt to proceed with a secondary forced easement acquisition? Have these costs either as internal real costs for Powerlink or as externalities (yet more costs borne by the landowners, but uncompensated by Powerlink) been included within the project costings to be set out in the draft EIS?

Regards,

Graham Smith,
Coordinator
P.A.G.E.