Queensland’s state-owned power grid reached into people’s homes 6 times and turned down 170,000 air conditioners.
It’s called PeakSmart limiting and they don’t tell you when they’ve cut your cooling — instead they tell installers and repairers in case you call them out thinking there’s a problem.
They hope you won’t notice… Have we reached Peak Stupid yet with the government’s Net Zero target?
Australia has the most wind, solar and batteries on the grid ever. PM Albanese promised cheaper power yet his government’s commitment to Net Zero drives up your power bills and the cost of living.
While unsustainable wind and solar fail to provide baseload power, their subsidised existence is driving up energy bills.
I’ve been fighting the Net Zero scam for over a decade in the Senate and will keep on fighting for all Australians.
With the most wind, solar and batteries on the grid than ever, Australian power bills have never been higher.
For over a decade and almost everyday in the Senate since being elected, I have been fighting the net-zero scam.
I’ll be fighting even harder next year.
Watch some of my speeches about this issue here at https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/?s=net+zero
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) assures me that as Australia has very good sunshine and solar energy is the cheapest form of energy on the planet, we can expect to have cheap electricity. That’s nonsense because they don’t take into account all of the extra costs of firming, storage, extra transmission lines and general unreliability. Any Australian who looks at their electricity bill knows solar isn’t cheaper.
I was even more surprised to learn about the agency’s support of solar in renewable iron and steel manufacturing on a massive scale. The idea of such energy intensive industrial process being powered by cheap solar, which is currently too expensive and unreliable for Australian households, is pipe dream stuff.
This government is driving Australia off the cliff and is in the drivers seat essentially saying – “It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I’m just driving the car.” The idea of a net zero future with wind and solar providing base-load power and creating “green steel” is not real.
The net zero pipe dream is a nation killing fantasy that is already hurting the regions, ruining small business and driving up the cost-of-living all over Australia.
The $100-$200 million tunnel-boring machine known as Florence has been bogged in muddy water on soft ground for a year.
I followed up on previous estimate questions, where I was categorically lied to by bureaucrats who were trying to cover up this expensive and embarrassing disaster.
Why is the government allowing executives from the Snowy Hydro Authority to deliberately mislead the committee about the main tunnel being blocked by a boring machine that has not moved in a year? Why did Snowy 2 executives and the government cover up the toxic gas in the tunnel that is coming from the chemicals used to unsuccessfully free Florence?
The cost has now blown out to $12 billion, with another $5 billion needed to carve a 50 metre wide easement through the Snowy Mountains National Park. This is to build transmission lines to take the power into the grid and to upgrade, to carry 2200 MW of power for 20 minutes in the morning and evening peak, which is all Snowy 2.0 will generate.
I look forward to receiving the answers to my Questions on Notice for the Minister.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again today. Mr Whitby, in the November 2022 estimates, I asked you:I note that the tunnelling machine Florence was bogged up near Tantangara Reservoir. Can you confirm how long it was bogged and confirm that it’s now back in operation? The answer you gave was: The tunnel-boring machine hasn’t been bogged. It encountered soft ground, which we expected. We have been progressing the tunnel-boring machine through that zone with care and diligence. In February 2023, I was reassured Florence was not bogged, and, in May 2023, was advised it would progress shortly. Minister: today, the ABC published photos of Florence clearly in mud and water in a story that says it was flooded in and unable to function from the moment it hit the soft ground a year ago. It moved a matter of metres. Further, the article goes on to say Snowy Hydro authority knew it was bogged even as they testified in senate estimates that it was not. The authority was covering up the machinery to progress Florence. A slurry machine that lays down a base for the machine to travel over was not ordered when the waterlogging was discovered. It was only ordered when Florence became bogged. Why is the government allowing the authority to deliberately mislead the committee?
Senator McAllister: Thank you for the question, Senator Roberts. I don’t quite recall the evidence being provided in the terms that you suggest in your question. But I confess I don’t exactly remember all of the
testimony that was provided at all of the estimates. I will invite Mr Barnes to respond.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, before you do, were they lying to you? When did you know about the machine being bogged?
Senator McAllister: I will take that on notice. You will understand that I don’t have all of the communications between the authority and shareholder ministers, so I will see what I can provide.
Senator ROBERTS: I would like to know when you found out the machine was bogged, if you made inquiries beforehand, were they lying to you, and whether or not you were misled.
Senator McAllister: I will take those questions on notice.
Mr Barnes: Obviously, there are many engineering terms, but bogged, paused or stuck, all have subjective definitions. There has been no point since Florence encountered this incredibly soft and wet ground in November 2022 that the machine has not been able in some way to move forward. In fact, as part of its stabilisation and commissioning of the slurry treatment plant since December 2022, it has in fact moved 10 metres as part of that activity, so it is not bogged; it is able to move. In May I apologised for my perhaps optimism regarding the ability to get Florence moving at pace again. The full story on the slurry treatment plant is that Florence is going to hit what we know to be naturally occurring asbestos about seven kilometres into its journey.
Senator ROBERTS: Naturally occurring what?
Mr Barnes: Asbestos.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you mean naturally in the strata?
Mr Barnes: Yes, and the slurry treatment plant is designed to handle those conditions. The incredibly soft ground it hit early in its journey was not predicted at that stage, so the slurry treatment plant, which was always
envisaged—just not envisaged that quickly—was ordered and started to be designed as early as December 2022. It is now complete, commissioned. Once we receive an approval from the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment, we will be able to move forward.
Senator DAVEY: I agree with your recollection, Senator Roberts. Mr Barnes, you spoke in May about the fact that the slurry treatment plant was coming. I took it from that evidence that it would be activated sooner
rather than later, but are you saying it still hasn’t been turned on?
Mr Barnes: To jog your memory, I think I said weeks, not months. I should have said months, not weeks. It wasn’t a mistake, it was my optimism at the time. The physical works to get the slurry plant complete and
Florence able to move. We’ve all progressed. What I underestimated was the process with which to go through the approval process, given the sinkhole that formed in December is just outside our construction boundary.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Barnes, could you give me on notice the movement of the machine, in metres, between November 2022 and February 2023, between February 2023 and May 2023, and from May 2023 to now?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, it seems on the face of it that this is government misinformation covering up a massive failure. I’m not blaming you entirely for that, because this whole thing was started under
Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister and Scott Morrison as prime minister. There was no fully disclosed business case. It was heavily redacted. There was no cost-benefit analysis done. The whole thing is based on a false premise. This is what happens when the top is rotten. I’m not referring to you as being rotten, Minister; I’m referring to the project when it was first given the go-ahead. But you’re now carrying the can.
CHAIR: Is there a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, what questions are you asking about the rest of the project, because this is serious stuff?
Senator McAllister: You are right in this regard: the project as first announced by the Turnbull government does not reflect the dimensions and characteristics of the project as we now understand it. Some of those changes and issues were known to the previous government and not revealed. Minister Bowen has made it very clear how disappointed he was when he came to government and discovered that aspects of the project, including significant delays in cost increases, had not been communicated. As I indicated earlier in my evidence, when Mr Barnes was appointed, the expectation from the shareholder ministers was communicated very clearly to the board and, I understand, through the department to Mr Barnes that we wanted to see this project back on track. We wanted the new management to examine it and provide advice about how to get it back on track. It took some time. It wasn’t possible to do that in weeks; it has taken Mr Barnes some time. When that advice was provided, it was to the Minister, who then sought to communicate it directly to the Australian public. These are complex projects. We accept that. We have noted a constructive tone and a more open approach to communication from the engagements we are presently having with Snowy Hydro, and we hope to see this project—which, as I indicated, is an important project for the energy system and the Australian people—back on track.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move to something else that the government has lied about. This might not be ministerial staff or the ministers themselves, but we know that the agency has lied about the toxic gas in the shaft
coming from isocyanate, used to strengthen the ground in the absence of proper machinery—the slurry machine. That was more government misinformation, wasn’t it, Minister?
Mr Barnes: I’m happy to talk to this. You are referring to an incident that occurred in early July. When polyurethane foam, which is sometimes used in front of the tunnel boring machine, comes into contact with water
it can create isocyanate gas. It did so. The incident was reported quickly, access to the site was restricted, additional personal protective equipment was provided and monitoring was put in place.
Senator ROBERTS: What was that personal protective equipment?
Mr Barnes: You can do positive-pressure face masks which stop any gases entering.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that involve carrying air or oxygen?
Mr Barnes: No. I don’t how the reverser flow works, but you picture the large face masks with a positive flow meter. They have a filter. I don’t know the details of how those machines work, but they do protect the individual. We have actually stopped using the polyurethane foam and reverted to grout on that.
Senator ROBERTS: So lives are at stake?
Mr Barnes: Absolutely. This is a complex project with many hazards.
Senator ROBERTS: And the economy is at stake if this project doesn’t live up to nameplate design. How much is Florence worth, and who pays if you can’t get it out or if it comes out as scrap?
Mr Barnes: Florence is not identified as a single item in the project line, but between $100 million and $200 million would be an estimate of a tunnel boring machine. But Florence is able to progress its journey once we
receive the necessary approvals.
CHAIR: We’ll need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. Do you have a final question? We can come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: In May I asked about the updated cost, and Mr Barnes replied, ‘We haven’t got an updated cost here and will provide that in months.’ Your updated cost is now $12 billion? Is that it?
Mr Barnes: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include two major expenses: transmission lines to get the power in and out and the ongoing cost of Florence still being bogged?
Mr Barnes: It is the cost to complete the project to the transmission lines at the power station, including all action necessary to complete the head race tunnel, which is where Florence is.
Senator ROBERTS: So any additional transmission lines needed to take the power out are not part of that project cost?
Mr Barnes: We have one transmission connection from the power station up to the grid, which Snowy Hydro pays for on an ongoing tariff.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that the current transmission lines will not be adequate after Snowy 2 comes in.
Mr Barnes: For snowy 2 to get its full potential, there is an extension to the transmission grid required.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So the total cost of this project—
CHAIR: We need to move on, Senator Roberts. We need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Senator McAllister: Senator Grogan, I took on notice a series of questions from Senator Roberts. I had previously indicated that these were questions for shareholder ministers and I would take them on notice on their
behalf. I just want to clarify that that’s also what you were seeking in the other questions that you put to me later on?
Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to get an answer from the government ministers. It doesn’t have to be you; just the person in charge would be perfect.
Senator McAllister: Thanks, Senator Roberts.
Everyone’s power bills are going up, which made me wonder why the Australia Council was happy to make their power bill 7% more expensive for no reason at all.
Despite the same power coming through the plug (probably from a coal fired power station) the council elects to make their bills 7% more expensive so they can buy “green power”. What a scam and a waste of money.
Senator Roberts: I want to follow up on something we discussed last time. You may recall that last estimates we had a conversation about your power bills.
Mr Collette: Yes.
Senator Roberts: A lot of people are talking about power bills these days.
Mr Collette: They are.
Senator Roberts: This is estimates, and one of the purposes of estimates is to assess how you are spending taxpayers’ money. That is what I want to revisit. Firstly, thank you for your detailed response, when you took my question on notice. That was SQ 23-003317. I hope all of the Public Service takes notes from you about how questions on notice should be answered. We appreciate it.
Mr Collette: Thank you.
Senator Roberts: In that answer, you said that you elect to add the green power product to your power bills. That is totally optional. You opt in, and you take extra money from the taxpayer to pay that expense. That is making your power bill 6.8 per cent—say seven per cent—more expensive than otherwise. Whether you opt in to pay the extra for green power or not, the same power comes through the same plug, probably from a coal-fired power station. But you are choosing to waste taxpayers’ money on this optional expense that makes no difference to what is turning the lights on. How much did you pay for green power over the last year?
Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice, unless my colleague has the answer.
Mr Blackwell: I don’t have it.
Mr Collette: We will try to come back to you with an equally exemplary response.
Senator Roberts: Good, thank you. I don’t expect this of you, but do you have any guess as to what your power bill is?
Mr Collette: I would not like to guess, no.
Senator Roberts: Can you also tell me how much you expect to pay this coming year?
Mr Collette: I can’t tell you that, but I will certainly get that information for you.
Senator Roberts: You were established under legislation; correct?
Mr Collette: We are.
Senator Roberts: So I assume you have been established with the objective of funding the arts.
Mr Collette: Yes, we have, investment and advocacy.
Senator Roberts: Investing in arts and advocacy on behalf of the arts. Thank you, that is clarifying. What part of your objectives enables you to waste an extra seven per cent a year on a core component, power, when it is literally the same power coming through the plug whether you pay the extra expense or not?
Mr Collette: What part of our objectives? I think the Australia Council—Creative Australia to be—does have sustainability goals, and we try to exemplify those, which are important to the sector that we serve as well. Given that we invest in the sector, and we advocate for the sector, I think this is generally respected by the arts and creative industry.
Senator Roberts: I think you are wasting taxpayer money and that should be cancelled. Would not that money be better spent on the art that you are supposed to be funding?
Mr Collette: There is always a cost to investing in servicing the art that we are funding, and I think you will find that this is significantly respected by the sector.
Senator Roberts: The point is that you are spending an extra seven per cent on a key component—
Mr Collette: I understand that.
Senator Roberts: Same plug, same power.
Mr Collette: I understand that. But there are different kinds of value as well.
Senator Roberts: I am not arguing with you on that point.
Mr Collette: So this would be a small contribution to social and environmental value that is respected by the sector, and I am sure if you ask their general view on whether we should save whatever the sum is—seven per cent of our power bill, and I confess I don’t know our power bill as I sit here—you would find very broad support for what we do.
Senator Roberts: I think there is a lot of ignorance—and I am not singling you out; I think it goes right through the community—about this green power, because the same power comes from the same place through the plug, regardless of whether you pay that seven per cent or not. So I would like to know what benefit you get from that seven per cent.
Mr Collette: I will take that on notice and come back to you, once I understand the argument that I think you are making—that there is actually no difference in this power. I need to satisfy myself on that argument and then we can come back to you with a response.
Senator Roberts: I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.
The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner has a sole focus on receiving complaints about wind, solar, pumped hydro, battery and power line projects among others.
If you have been affected by a project underway or even one that is proposed you need to submit a complaint by following the steps at https://www.aeic.gov.au/making-a-complaint
Chair: Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. I understand one of my staff called you yesterday?
Mr Dyer: Yes.
Senator Roberts: He had a very pleasant talk. Thank you very much for opening the door. Is it accurate to say that you are the national commissioner for complaints about wind and solar projects?
Mr Dyer: I’d like to characterise it as the ombudsman of first and last resort. If you have a concern about a powerline, a wind farm or whatever that might be in our jurisdiction and you don’t know how to get it solved, you can come to us and we’ll figure out the right process to get the concern addressed.
Senator Roberts: When you say ‘you’, that was used in a colloquial sense. This is open to any citizen in Australia?
Mr Dyer: Yes. We’re a national service and we get complaints from around the country.
Senator Roberts: That’s wonderful to hear. So anyone who has a complaint about wind projects, solar projects, batteries or transmission can make a complaint to you?
Mr Dyer: Yes. If you go to our website, which is aeic.gov.au, the second or third tab along says ‘making a complaint’. There’s the process, the form and the policy. You can call us, you can mail us, you can email us or you can arrange to meet with us.
Senator Roberts: How many are in your office? I understand you have a small office.
Mr Dyer: We’re a very efficient team.
Senator Roberts: I wasn’t being critical.
Mr Dyer: We have, I think, five people.
Senator Roberts: And you’re meant to take care of people’s complaints about solar and wind. And you work with the state government, with the federal government, with private entities?
Mr Dyer: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Thank you.
Mr Dyer: The respondent is usually the developer to a concern. But sometimes it’s a planning process or an EPBC issue. It’s not always the developer, but usually that’s the case.
Senator Roberts: So it could get pretty complex?
Mr Dyer: Yes. We’ve had some of them going for a long time, but we get through them.
Senator Roberts: Can you perhaps talk a bit more about what you can do for someone who has a complaint that you can look at, because people are not aware. Talk to everyday Australians.
Mr Dyer: I don’t have the budget for a front page ad in the Sydney Morning Herald. But people do find us. If you’ve got constituents who have concerns, we should talk about how they can come to us. The best thing to do is promote our website, and that has all of the details. Typically our process is that, if we get a complaint, we’ll do some research on the project and the proponent, and what is going on. If we don’t already know the proponent, and in many cases we do, we will go and get a briefing or open the door, and sometimes the complainant is known to the proponent. Often they’re not known, and so we’re able to build and bridge a relationship between the complainant and the proponent to work through whatever the concerns are. Many concerns are solved by just provision of factual information. It’s often a misunderstanding or misperception that has caused them to come to us.
Senator Roberts: I certainly agree with that. I would like to ask whether you’ve received any complaints in relation to the proposed Eungella or Burdekin Pioneer pumped hydro project in the hinterland near Mackay and the proposed Borumba Dam pumped hydro and the transmission lines around Widgee, which is near Gympie in Queensland.
Mr Dyer: No.
Senator Roberts: Not any?
Mr Dyer: No.
Senator Roberts: There’s a massive community movement in both cases.
Mr Dyer: Then feel free to connect them to us and we’ll work through it.
Senator Roberts: Okay. It’s shocking to me that, in both of those projects, it appears there has been an appalling level of community consultation. This is entirely from the Queensland government. In Eungella, for example, people who were going to have their houses compulsorily resumed and flooded for the new pumped hydro dam found out via media release. Then they found out that they couldn’t get loans for their business, renovations or sell their house, because their land is now jeopardised. Transmission lines for the Borumba project near Gympie are currently proposed over prime agricultural land, which would be again compulsorily resumed despite the community pointing out that there are state-owned land corridors available nearby. Does this lack of consultation sound like it meets the needs for best practice that your office would recommend?
Mr Dyer: We find that most proponents need help in some way, shape or form. I did have a look last night at the Queensland hydro website, and it didn’t jump out to me how you might make a complaint, for example. So, it’s possible that we may need to help them get their complaint process in place. We’ve had to do that with all the TNSPs, and help them get that in place, and the policies put in place, make it transparent on the project website, and away they go.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. What does the best practice consultation look like?
Mr Dyer: It’s a long topic, but it’s about knowing who your stakeholders are and being fairly well advanced in your thinking about what you’re trying to do. If I reflect on a call I had last night, it’s don’t go about it in secret. We often get developers that want to have one-on-one discussions with the landholder to sign them up for hosting the wind farm or the solar farm and say, ‘This is very confidential. We can’t let you talk to your neighbours.’ Before the developers leave the front gate, the whole street knows what the deal is.
Senator Roberts: And they know that these guys are wanting to cover it up?
Mr Dyer: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Which doesn’t build trust.
Mr Dyer: Yes.
Senator Roberts: To build trust, developers need to listen first and then talk once they understand people’s needs?
Mr Dyer: Yes. It’s, for want of a better word, not a crude word, it’s a professional sales role that they’re in. But it’s got to be done with ethics and transparency and thinking like a landholder will think—how you go about matters.
Senator Roberts: I’ve been up to both projects, but already there are many constituents who are saying that this will never be built. It’s just going to do enormous damage. It’s just the Queensland government diverting attention in the media and in the community from serious problems like the Mackay Base Hospital. That straightaway has destroyed any trust in that community.
Mr Dyer: It sounds like they might need some help, so I’ll approach the chair and we’ll start the process.
Senator Roberts: We’ll get your website and your name and we’ll send it to—
Mr Dyer: I’ve got a card here for you. You can take that after the session.
Senator Roberts: I’m intrigued about bonds on solar and wind generators. In the coal industry, for every acre that a surface mine uncovers the coal company has to provide a bond to the government, and then it doesn’t get that bond back until the land is fully reclaimed. Sometimes the reclaimed land is far more productive and far cleaner than the original scrub. What is the bond on solar and wind generators?
Mr Dyer: It’s up to the commercial arrangement between the landholder and the proponent. It’s no different from you owning the milk bar as a commercial landlord down the main street of town. If the tenant defaults and leaves the building, you’re stuck with the bain-marie.
Senator Roberts: So, without a bond, at the end of life, solar and wind generators can just walk away from it? Where are the funds to ensure remediation?
Mr Dyer: Some landholders are quite savvy, and I have seen everything from bank guarantees to bonds being in place, but it’s not across the board. That’s not to say it’s not happening and not being done, but it needs to be a standard practice.
Senator Roberts: There is a standard in the coalmining industry, but there’s no standard in the solar and wind industry?
Mr Dyer: It’s something I’ve advocated for a long time. It’s in section 8 of my report in appendix A, that is, the need to have licensed developers accredited to have the skills to carry out the process, as we are doing in offshore wind, and also that the area being prospected has been sanctioned ahead of time.
Senator Roberts: I want to put on the record that I appreciate Mr Dyer’s frank and complete comments and his openness. It’s much appreciated. Thank you.
Chair: I think we would all agree.
Mr Dyer: Thank you.
Senator Roberts: Thank you all for being here today. The national electricity objectives include price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. The government is now intending to add emissions reduction to those objectives. You, the Australian Energy Regulator, have made a submission to the government’s consultation process on the draft National Energy Laws Amendment (Emissions Reduction Objectives) Bill 2022. In that submission you said, ‘The AER supports including an emissions reduction objective.’ This is support for a proposed government policy. Surely the very first value of the Australian Public Service is meant to be impartiality. Why are you commenting one way or another on support for a government policy?
Ms Savage: I guess my objective from that would be that we are there to try and meet Australia’s emission reduction targets in the least-cost way. That’s part of our job, and our decision-making needs to ensure that happens. Our purpose as the Australian Energy Regulator is to ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future, so when we assess what tools we need, as the Australian Energy Regulator, to actually do our job effectively and to make sure that we can deliver upon that purpose, our considered view is that change to the legislation, to the objective for which we have to use our decision-making, is required and is important to us being able to deliver upon our purpose. So it speaks fundamentally to our role rather than to the government’s policy.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct apply to you?
Ms Savage: I absolutely do, Senator.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service value of impartiality applies to you?
Ms Savage: Yes, I do.
Senator Roberts: Why are you stating support for a proposed government policy, rather than impartially commenting on your ability to carry it out?
Ms Savage: I’m not commenting on the policy; I’m commenting on the importance of the change to the work of the Australian Energy Regulator. In that regard, my obligation is to make sure that we have the tools we need to discharge our function such that we can ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.
Senator Roberts: I put it to you that you are breaching the Australian Public Service value of impartiality by advocating support for a government policy. I would like you to take on notice to fully explain how advocating support for government policy in a submission is impartial.
Ms Savage: Senator, as I’ve said, we didn’t advocate support for the policy. We’re advocating support for the changes to the laws that are required to enable us to do our function.
Senator Roberts: ‘The Australian Energy Regulator’—your words—’supports including an emissions reduction objective.’
Ms Savage: That is the change to the legislation required to do our function.
Senator Roberts: You’ve taken a side in this debate even before it’s started. You’re required to be impartial. Why were you not impartial?
Ms Savage: I have—
Senator Roberts: I don’t accept your answer.
Ms Savage: I hear that you don’t accept my answer, but my answer remains that we have asked for changes, and we constantly and repeatedly ask for changes to legislation—and it’s in our strategic plan to do this—when it’s required for us to fulfil our strategic purpose, and that is to ensure that energy consumers are better off now and in the future. Limb 4 of our strategic plan actually says we will inform debate about Australia’s transition, and that’s to ensure that we can do our job to make sure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.
Senator Roberts: I suggest you read the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct.
Ms Savage: I have, Senator.
Senator Roberts: The current objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security are sound objectives. What level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction?
Ms Savage: When it comes time for us to consider the new objectives, with all of the limbs in them, including the emissions reduction objective, we’ll need to think about the value of carbon emissions reductions in the context of the target to achieve net zero by 2050, to ensure that the investments that happen in things like transmission or gas networks are consistent with achieving that goal at least cost to consumers, which is where that element of making sure consumers are better off now and in the future arises.
Senator Roberts: So my question—I’ll say it again—is: what level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction? You’ve now got a new objective.
Ms Savage: I don’t see it as compromise; I see it as optimising.
Senator Roberts: Can I take note of that?
Ms Savage: Absolutely.
Senator Roberts: It will be interesting in the future. What are you going to do if the objective of emissions reduction conflicts with those existing objectives?
Ms Savage: We will need to optimise against the current list of objectives, and the inclusion of emissions reduction which become another limb. Already, today, we have to make judgements and choices between the existing elements of those objectives. We constantly have to be thinking about trade-offs on behalf of customers in terms of price, quality, safety and reliability, and we will also be considering emissions reduction in that context.
Senator Roberts: I put it to you that there is no way that the objectives of price, reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time, so which one will you prioritise?
Chair: Senator Roberts, I wonder if your questions are getting a bit accusatory. You have asked questions, and Ms Savage is responding to your questions with her perspective.
Senator Roberts: I have constituents that are deeply concerned about electricity prices that have trebled in a couple of decades.
Chair: You are open to ask your questions, but I would ask you to mind your manner.
Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair. I say it again: I put it to you that there is no way the objective of price reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time—the facts show that—so which one will you prioritise? You’ve actually supported the government and its policy, so which one will you prioritise?
Ms Savage: An example might help. Currently, we have to think about price, safety, security, reliability. When we make a judgement, we have to think about price and reliability, and those two things aren’t always the same thing. More reliability can mean higher prices, and higher prices can mean lower reliability. On safety and security, we just gave, in response to Senator Van’s question, an example of abolishing gas connections; there is a safety issue there. We’re always and constantly in our work needing to optimise across those different objectives within the national electricity and gas objectives, and, with the inclusion of emissions, it will be the same type of task. We have to look at it in its whole, and we have to optimise across all of those objectives. We do it today and will be able to it tomorrow.
Senator Roberts: My view is that the people who tell us wind and solar are the cheapest form of electricity are lying. If they are the cheapest form of electricity, why do we need to change the electricity objectives to include emissions reductions, so they are favoured?
Ms Savage: You are thinking about generation technologies. We do a lot of work with the Australian Energy Regulator in electricity and gas networks, and that’s nothing to do with renewable energy necessarily. If I take a gas network, for example, and if you came to me as a gas company and said, ‘I need to invest in an electric compressor instead of a gas compressor because I’m trying to meet my emissions reduction objective,’ then that is something that we could not consider necessarily under the existing obligations. Under a future set of arrangements that’s something we could consider, so it’s not necessarily about wind and solar; it’s about lots of little choices that go along in the system to make sure it all adds up to the least-cost way of meeting our climate goals.
Senator Roberts: If the ministers past and present are not lying and solar and wind are cheap and reliable, it would fit into existing objectives of price and reliability. Why do we need to change the objectives if the climate ministers are not lying?
Ms Savage: As I just said—and I’ll repeat my answer—it’s not always about wind and solar. Sometimes it will be about networks, and, in fact, most of the changes to the objective for the work of the Australian Energy Regulator will be about transmission, distribution, electricity and gas networks.
Senator Roberts: So it won’t be about price versus emissions, yet everywhere in the world every country that has a substantial proportion of solar and wind has had a dramatic increase in prices—that’s fact.
Ms Savage: Are you asking me a question?
Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m asking you a question. How can you justify the statement that there won’t be a trade-off between emissions and price?
Ms Savage: I have covered that in answering the question before, which is that we’ll be optimising across the new emissions reduction objective with the other elements of the national electricity and gas objectives.
Senator Roberts: What is the Australian Energy Regulator’s position on nuclear energy?
Ms Savage: We don’t have a position on nuclear energy.
Senator Roberts: So now you’re impartial?
Ms Savage: We’re always impartial.
Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: You say as part of your retail energy market regulation, your other roles include, secondly, reporting on performance of the market and energy businesses, including affordability and disconnection of customers for non-payment of energy bills. What is the latest disconnection rate in each state? Could you take that on notice?
Ms Savage: I can tell you at the macro level and take the state based data on notice. For ’21-22, which is the last full financial year of data we have, the number of disconnections was about 30,000, which is significantly less than what we saw before COVID. At the time before COVID it was 70,000 customers per year.
Senator Roberts: Could you take on notice to give us the five years—actually the three years?
Ms Savage: I have the five years here at the macro level if you’d like it.
Senator Roberts: I would like to know the states as well because I want to see how the different states are behaving.
Ms Savage: Actually, I have got the states here. Would you like me to read them out?
Senator Roberts: If you could put it in writing, that would be good.
Senator McAllister: As you can imagine, it ends up being like 20 numbers.
Chair: I wonder if we could just copy it in the break and circulate it—just for ease. Is that okay with you, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: That’s fine.
Ms Savage: At a cumulative total, in 2017-18 it was 72,000 and in 2018-19 it was 70,000. The Australian Energy Regulator then asked retailers to stop disconnecting customers during COVID and we saw a big drop down: 43,000 in 2019-20; 17,000 and 2020-21; and then it’s back at 29,000 in 2021-22.
Senator Roberts: Thank you.
Former Snowy 2.0 boss Paul Broad has just SLAMMED Bowen’s ‘transition to renewables’, calling it ‘bull***t’.
“The notion that you can have 80% renewable in our system by 2030 is, to use the vernacular, bull***t. The truth is, this transition, if it ever occurs, will take 80 years, not eight.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Paul.
Ben: 17 minutes after 7:00. Well, we’ve said this line a number of times, don’t jump off the boat until you’ve reached the shore, and we say it about Australia’s dramatic switch to renewable energy. We’re switching off coal at rapid rates. The backup plan isn’t ready to go just yet. Take the massive hydro energy project, Snowy 2.0. It’s long been promised to store enough energy for 3 million homes. The project is disastrously delayed and over budget. The former prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said in 2017 it would be up and running by 2021. Now they’re saying 2029. It’s gone from a $2 billion price tag to 10 billion, including all of the linked transmission lines.
I wanted to have a chat to someone who knows about this backwards. His name is Paul Broad. He’s one of Australia’s leading experts on infrastructure. Now, Paul Broad was the CEO of Snowy 2.0 for a decade, but his tenure ended shortly after Chris Bowen became the federal energy minister. Paul Broad delivered Mr. Bowen some home truths about how the project was going. He was sent packing shortly after, or maybe he decided to leave. Paul Broad, the former boss of Snowy 2.0 is on the line. Paul, thanks for joining us.
Paul Broad: Thanks. My pleasure, Ben.
Ben: Did you leave or were you shoved?
Paul Broad: Oh, a bit of combination. The word was filtering down. In fact, I think when Bowen was elected, I was dead in the water, so it was only a matter of time. But I formally resigned.
Ben: Why were you dead in the water? What was it that was such a sticking point between where you stand and where Chris Bowen stood?
Paul Broad: Oh, a series of things, particularly the gas plant at Kurri Kurri, Angus Taylor and I were very strong that you needed gas to keep the lights on. And we had more gas in New South Wales than we know what to do with. We need gas. So when the sun’s not shining, wind’s not blowing, gas, hydro are incredibly important. And Chris Bowen was against Kurri Kurri. Then he said we’re going to run Kurri Kurri 30% on hydrogen. There is no hydrogen in the Hunter, and there won’t be for another 10, 20 years at the earliest.
Ben: You were just trying to help, right?
Paul Broad: Well, yeah, trying to help. I think in the 18 months leading up to it, in the senate estimate, the parliament asking us lots of these sort of questions. So you got a sense of where Chris was coming from, and that’s his political view. I respect that, I just didn’t agree with it and there’s no point being somewhere if you don’t agree with it.
Ben: You could have just drunk the Kool-Aid and said, “Oh yeah. No, this is going to be the answer to all of our problems. It’ll be able to carry the load.” But you were being realistic and he didn’t want to hear it?
Paul Broad: Yeah. Plus the fact, the notion that you can have 80% renewable in our system by 2030 is, to use the vernacular, is bullshit. It’s bullshit. Ben, the truth is, this transition, if it ever occurs, it will take 80 years, not eight. So there’s massive changes need to occur. And I’m deeply concerned about the rush, the notion that somehow this is all magic, I’m going to wave a magic wand, we’ll close a big baseload power plant that’s kept our lights on for yours of my life, we’re just going to close it and there’s all these alternatives out there. Well, it’s not. I can be absolutely 100% certain it’s not available, and the transmission lines are miles late. 2.0, which is a part of the thing is late. I think their own reports tell them you’ll need at least eight 2.0s to achieve their goal, and that’s 80 years not eight.
Ben: Let’s just have a look at 2.0. So the biggest issue is these giant tunnelling machines. They weigh 2000 tonnes. They keep falling through the soft ground. Do we know how far along this project is? Is it halfway? Beyond halfway?
Paul Broad: Yeah. Look, I’ve got to defend 2.0, it was a huge part of my creation, and I’m quite proud of the attempt to build a big pumped hydro, but it’s complex. These tunnel-boring machines have got to do through heaps of rock. There’s 28 kilometres of tunnels, 11 metres diameter. And one of them has got to actually bore uphill. So they’ve got to come in and get access to a cabin, and then you’ve got to drill out a cabin, which is 400 metres long, a kilometre under the mountain. So the complexity of this thing is enormous. So I’m not surprised that we’ve got delays. I suppose what worries me more is the lack of transmission.
So you have this big power plant, it’s of no use to you if you haven’t got a transmission line out the front to run it into where the people are. So the lack of transmission is going to be a big, big problem for us. The lack of transmission to bring all these renewables. The power plants we have are just up the road here in the Hunter, all these new renewables are out west or somewhere else. There’s no power lines to get it here. So the notion you can have all this occurring without transmission and all the other investment which will cost the customer, the consumers a lot, the suggestion you can do all that and price is going to come down. It’s just wrong. It’s absolutely wrong. It’s misleading, it’s false and to keep suggesting that, I think eventually, eventually the average punter wakes up, and there’ll be a reaction.
Ben: We’re listening to Paul Broad, the former of boss of Snowy 2.0. Just on the timeline, I actually had a meeting with someone who’s associated with the project about a month or so ago. And I said, “What’s going on with this thing? Because we were told it’d be done by 2021, and now you’re talking about 2027.” And then they said to me, “Oh, it might be late 2027.” And I said, “Well, that sounds to me like 2028.” Now they’re saying December 2029. When I hear December 2029, I think 2030. Realistically, when’s it going to be done?
Paul Broad: Well, the transmission line is ’27, so I suspect they’ll get first power, I suspect… Now something else will happen. I think the challenges for building it are still in front of them. The biggest challenge they have for this whole project is still to come. So there’s lots of risk with it yet, but I suspect, given the fudges the engineers do, I’m suspecting end of ’27, middle of ’27, that sort of timeframe. But Ben, there’s no point having it if the transmission line… So we’ve got to work out, someone’s got to tell us when are the farmers going to agree to run power lines over their properties? When are they going to agree to pay the farmers a reasonable annual sum to access and run their lines over their property? When all that’s agreed and they work out the direction these things are going to come… We haven’t upgraded them in 50 years, let alone in five.
Ben: We’ve spoken to some of those farmers and they’re worried because they say they’ve got to knock down all of these trees to put the lines in. We’re worried about bush fires. And the other issue is just that old line, “It’s my land, it’s my property.”
Paul Broad: Absolutely. Then well what happened, the truth of it, they had all these shiny asses from Sydney rock up to the farms and say, “I’m going to put a power line over your property.” Well, the farmers said, “Get lost. You’re not coming on my property.” It is their livelihood. It is what they live for. So they got off to a really bad start. All the people around Tumut and Gundagai, all those people are now up in arms because these things have got to be done right. You’ve got to sit down and you’ve got to be able to be flexible about the direction you go to minimise the impact on farmers. They had some power lines going right over the farmer’s house.
So there’s still a lot of work to be done on the transmission. There’s still a lot of work to be done on 2.0. And the reports out saying you’re going to need lots of 2.0. So it’s really just the start of the journey. It’s not the end and I think the notion that we can close these plants, no, Eraring can’t, cannot close. Even now, we’re closing Liddell. We’re on a knife’s edge. You watch when it gets really hot or really cold, just how tight it gets in New South Wales. If the lights don’t go out, I’ll be awfully surprised.
Ben: A couple of quick ones, one of the private contractors went into administration in December. We’ve heard there are still unpaid bills to both workers and to ongoing construction.
Paul Broad: Yeah, the contractor’s got a lot to answer for. And I don’t want to go on air and bag a contractor, but they’ve got a lot to answer for. And I think they were trying games by not paying the local small contractors, and as soon I was there, I was prepared to go and pay the contractors ourselves, and then extract it from the big contractor later. The major contractor has safety problems. They tragically lost a life down there a week or so ago. The contractor has a lot of questions to answer. They’re under a fixed-price contract, so these prices shouldn’t be going up, but they are. They’re on a performance-based contract, they’re not performing. There is some big question marks and Clough going broke halfway as well, 12 months ago, it’s been a big problem. The Clough guys were integral part of delivering it. So the contractor has a huge challenge in front of them and they’ve got huge questions to answer.
Ben: Just on question marks, were you hiding some of the delays from Chris Bowen? Because I’ve seen the Financial Review. A spokeswoman for Mr. Bowen told the Financial Review that, “It was no secret that the government was disappointed in the hiding of delays to major energy projects by the former government including Snowy Hydro 2.0.”
Paul Broad: That is just bullshit. The first meeting with Bowen, my first meeting with Bowen, he asked me and I said, “Yeah, 12 to 18 months.” When I was with last meeting with Angus, which was back in April when the contractor rocked into Angus’s office and said that, “We think you’re going to be delaying going [inaudible 00:09:41] cost increase,” Angus kicked him out of the office and said, “It’s got to be delivered on time and on budget.” That’s the truth. I mean why does his office on this political spin? What is he trying to do? Fair dinkum. Why not just tell the truth? It’s really easy. In life, I find if you tell the truth, you can remember it and you don’t get yourself in too much trouble.
Ben: I said at the start of my introduction, that line that a talk back caller said to me once about the switch to renewables, “Don’t jump off the boat until you’ve reached the shore.” Can you reflect on that for a moment before we say goodbye?
Paul Broad: Yeah, that’s absolutely true. We can’t make this transition until we’re absolutely convinced that the alternative’s going to work, and is going to be at a price point that it won’t kill the economy. At the moment, we’ve got neither of those.
Ben: You say the idea of getting to 80% renewables by 2030 is complete BS. You say closer to 80 years?
Paul Broad: Yeah. Well, you got to build these things. Transmission lines, their own reports say you’ll need eight 2.0s or their equivalents. One 2.0 takes 10 years, so get eight. I could do my maths, it’s got to be 80, 70, so it’ll be another generation before anything like what they’re talking about occurs.
Ben: We know it’s never too late to learn a lesson. What would you say to Chris Bowen if he’s listening this morning?
Paul Broad: Oh, take a big deep breath. You’re a minister now, you’ve got responsibilities. You got to put it all on the line and you got to be honest to everybody about it.
Ben: We really appreciate you coming on the line. You haven’t mucked about, you’re pulling no punches this morning, and we appreciate that, Paul.
Paul Broad: Thanks, Ben.
Ben: Paul Broad, the former boss of Snowy 2.0 and I can only imagine the reaction in Chris Bowen’s office right now. They won’t be liking what they’re hearing, but it sounds to me like he’s just given a unfiltered view of Snowy 2.0, and also the transition to renewables. And you heard what he said about the government’s targets, BS. And he didn’t put it the way I just put it then. He’s also weighed into the other issue, which is just so obvious, about needing to keep our major coal plant open. That is something that Chris Minns entertained during the election campaign, and thankfully since winning the election, he suggested that that is a must, that he’s got to work out how we can keep the supply going and keep the prices low. And the discussions are underway with the operators.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am