Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri Power Station)

Cessnock City

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

A Critical State Significant Infrastructure application, involving construction and operation of a 750 megawatt (MW) gas fired power station, electrical switchyard and ancillary infrastructure.

Consolidated Approval

Consolidated conditions

Archive

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Application (2)

SEARs (3)

EIS (16)

Response to Submissions (5)

Additional Information (8)

Determination (3)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (25)

Agreements (6)

Reports (2)

Independent Reviews and Audits (4)

Notifications (6)

Other Documents (25)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

23/01/2024

25/01/2024

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 61 - 80 of 261 submissions
Kate Radford
Object
CHARLESTOWN , New South Wales
Message
An unnecessary piece of infrastructure that doesn't help us move away from reliance on fossil fuels.
Name Withheld
Object
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Large-scale battery storage is already being built and more is planned. The Colongra power station is barely ever used, and has at least once been unable to start due to low pressure in its pipeline. The pipeline to supply natural gas to the proposed Kurri Kurri station does not exist, which means that it would have to run on diesel for the first few years of its proposed lifespan, further increasing its environmental impact.
Ian Dance
Object
Wollstonecraft , New South Wales
Message
I am an Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the University of NSW with much experience teaching environmental science. The proposed Kurri Kurri gas powered plant must not proceed. It would exacerbate global climate change, harm the health of the local community and disturb the development of new technologies.
The private sector is driving the new sustainable technologies. These are long-term investments producing low-cost electric power, in stark contrast to the proposed gas-based facility that will generate more expensive power, cause health issues locally and will result in stranded infrastructure.
The proposed plant makes no economic sense. The role of government is to provide a favourable regulatory framework so that the private sector can accelerate the development of sustainable technologies. The proposal to build a fossil fuel plant at Kurri Kurri is doing the opposite. It is indefensible.
The science is clear, and the experts are unanimous:
• The recent report by the International Energy Agency “Net Zero by 2050: a Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector (https://www.iea.org/events/net-zero-by-2050-a-roadmap-for-the-global-energy-system) reached the same conclusion “If we want to reach net zero by 2050 we do not need any more investments in new oil, gas and coal projects.”. Note that BP, Shell and ENI contributed to this report.
• Kerry Schott, Chair of the Australian Energy Security Board, has stated the key argument that the private sector would not build this plant because it will generate expensive electricity and makes no commercial sense. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/30/australian-energy-board-chair-says-gas-fired-power-plant-in-hunter-valley-doesnt-stack-up
• Ross Garnaut, economist and author of the Climate Change Review (2008, 2011), has damned the project as a colossal waste of money. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-re-burying-banknotes-ross-garnaut-rubbishes-government-s-600m-gas-plant-20210525-p57usa.html
• The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (an international body) concludes “anyway you look at it, it just doesn’t make sense” https://ieefa.org/ieefa-australia-why-gold-plated-gas-plan-makes-zero-sense/
Regarding global climate change, Australia is becoming a politically isolated country with commercially stranded fossil-fuel infrastructure. Now is the time to start making decisions that recover our international position and our national economy.
Attachments
Miklos Bolza
Object
Granville , New South Wales
Message
I object to the development of the Kurri Kurri plant as a concerned NSW citizen. Please see the attachment for reasons backing my stance about the project
Attachments
Dorothy Robinson
Object
Armidale , New South Wales
Message
I am concerned that this power station is unnecessary, that it will increase power prices, and is being funded by public money that could be put to much better use.

Snowy Hydro already owns a large gas power station in New South Wales: the Colongra gas power station. Colongra, was used just 0.9% of the time in 2020 (VEPC 2021). Why does Snowy Hydro want another 750MW of gas capacity when their existing gas power station of similar size hardly ever turns on?

On the rare occasions when Colongra was turned on last year, it bid in almost all of its capacity at over $5,000 per MW (VEPC 2021). For comparison, the Liddell power station provided most of its capacity at or below $0 per MW (VEPC 2021). Neither Colongra nor any other gas-fired power station represents value for money compared with alternatives such as demand management and batteries

The Hornsdale battery in South Australia provided almost half of its capacity below $1,000 on average (VEPC 2021). A big battery in Kurri Kurri would therefore be a much more sensible option.
Marjorie Martin
Object
Muswellbrook , New South Wales
Message
Dear Mr Stokes,

My name is Marjorie and I am lodging this submission to express my opposition to the Kurri Kurri gas plant.

I live in Muswellbrook and am a long-time resident of the Upper Hunter. This area suffers some of the worst pollution in NSW stationed as we are north of the Liddell and Bayswater Power Stations and surrounded by numerous coal mines. I have had more than my share of pollution caused by these projects during my time here and have seen the effect fossil fuel extraction and usage has had on my community.

Kurri Kurri has it’s own air pollution problems. Their local air quality is already recognised as bad. Now the federal government has announced the building of the gas plant immediately outside the town. I can see the parallels, the pattern repeating itself in Kurri Kurri. The problems my area has suffered from the burning of fossil fuels already plays out in the Kurri Kurri community and will continue to do so in the future to an even greater effect.

The proposed Kurri Kurri gas plant has a 2 year construction period and 30 year period of operation. Both phases add significantly to fallout pollution to the surrounding area.

The plant will be run on gas, a recognised dirty fossil fuel. Currently there is no gas supply to the site. This will be supplied by the Queensland Hunter Gas Pipeline which at the time of writing has to be built. The pipeline itself will run through rich agricultural lands, destroying them and removing precious land from areas on which we need to grow food for our people. It is envisaged that the plant will initially operate on diesel fuel. Diesel is a highly polluting fossil fuel which will add even more pollution to the Kurri Kurri area.

In short, enough is enough. The Hunter Valley already has it’s fair share of pollution problems brought on by the burning of fossil fuels. The valley really does not need another fossil fuel project to add to our air quality problems. I strongly oppose the construction of a gas plant at Kurri Kurri for these reasons.

We, the people of the Hunter Valley have had enough of the pollution caused by fossil fuel industry. We want our green valley back.

Cancel the Kurri Kurri gas plant!

For the only planet we have.

Marjorie E. Martin
James Mansell
Object
WESTON , New South Wales
Message
I am writing in response to submission SUB-21556004. The proposal to build a gas power station in Kurri Kurri is completely illogical and short sighted. It is imperative that the concerns raised by this submission are addressed by Snowy Hydro.

The International Energy Agency recently published a report calling for an end to gas projects if the world is to meet the world target of non-zero emissions by 2050. The Australian government, however, has no overarching climate control policy and Mr Morrison repeatedly proclaims that the lack of response from the private industry to meet the intermittent possibility of electricity shortfall, has promoted the Federal Government (Hydro Electricity) to build this gas-fired power station. The private industry has not met his demands of working with gas because it is not economically feasible: there are more affordable and cleaner options available and gas is the most expensive option.

There is currently no available gas in the area to run this power station and it will be initially running on diesel, an even worse pollutant, which will be transported by road. The further environmental impacts from additional transportation vehicles should be considered.

The Environmental Impact Statement states that the site is in "a relatively isolated location surrounded by forest and rural or semi-rural land uses". This is categorically false. Within a five close radius there are several towns that collectively comprise a population of over 20,000 residents. This area is also growing in population rapidly, and the submission fails to consider this. The basis of several arguments specifically related to air quality rely on the assertion that the surrounding urban areas are “small”. The report should quantify the number of residents in the surrounding zone, as this was obviously not considered by the report author.

Furthermore, values shown for air quality indicators are based on proposed OEM equipment data, not a confirmed equipment supplier, so the data informing the report is speculative at best. The report must be more conservative and consider data from worse performing equipment in order to ensure the safety of the surrounding residents.

The Air Quality Impact Assessment in particular uses flawed and incorrect information when making assertions also. It states that air quality can be shown to not worsen significantly, but also considered data from 2019 during the bushfires that severely impacted air quality. Table 4.2 uses data from a Beresfield measurement site, but wind speed is higher in the proposed area due to the terrain, which the submission fails to consider. Table 4.3 considers several sites much further to the East, away from local industry and new, more relevant data should be obtained to inform the reports assertions.
The impact of the proposal on surrounding residents land values should also be considered. The Effect of Undesirable Land Use Facilities on Property Values: New Evidence from Australian Regional Fossil-Fired Plants, Renuka K. Ganegodage & Peyman Khezr & Rabindra Nepal, 2016, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia shows modelling demonstrating the impact of fossil fuel plants in close proximity to residential areas, and shows a real negative impact. Whilst the argument that real sale prices will decrease due to market factors is obvious (some people won’t want to live near a power station, so demand logically decreases, and values fall) it is logical to consider that the Valuer General office should revalue property prices following the construction of any power plant. This decrease in value would result in significant financial strain to current residents of surrounding towns, but also to councils if a land value adjustment was made, and rates decreased. The submission should address this point.

There are several further factors outlining why a gas fired power station in Kurri Kurri is a poor idea, however these are a few key areas of concern that the original planning submission failed to consider. Some of these problems are not possible to correct from planning, such as the long term environmental impacts of another fossil fuel power station. The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment should reject the proposal on this basis.
Stephen McGrath
Object
KURRI KURRI , New South Wales
Message
I am writing in response to submission SUB-21556004. The proposal to build a gas power station in Kurri Kurri is completely illogical and short sighted. It is imperative that the concerns raised by this submission are addressed by Snowy Hydro.

The International Energy Agency recently published a report calling for an end to gas projects if the world is to meet the world target of non-zero emissions by 2050. The Australian government, however, has no overarching climate control policy and Mr Morrison repeatedly proclaims that the lack of response from the private industry to meet the intermittent possibility of electricity shortfall, has promoted the Federal Government (Hydro Electricity) to build this gas-fired power station. The private industry has not met his demands of working with gas because it is not economically feasible: there are more affordable and cleaner options available and gas is the most expensive option. It is a clear waste of taxpayer money to fund this project.

There is currently no available gas in the area to run this power station and it will be initially running on diesel, an even worse pollutant, which will be transported by road. The further environmental impacts from additional transportation vehicles should be considered.

The Environmental Impact Statement states that the site is in "a relatively isolated location surrounded by forest and rural or semi-rural land uses". This is categorically false. Within a five close radius there are several towns that collectively comprise a population of over 20,000 residents. This area is also growing in population rapidly, and the submission fails to consider this. The basis of several arguments specifically related to air quality rely on the assertion that the surrounding urban areas are “small”. The report should quantify the number of residents in the surrounding zone, as this was obviously not considered by the report author.

Furthermore, values shown for air quality indicators are based on proposed OEM equipment data, not a confirmed equipment supplier, so the data informing the report is speculative at best. The report must be more conservative and consider data from worse performing equipment in order to ensure the safety of the surrounding residents.

The Air Quality Impact Assessment in particular uses flawed and incorrect information when making assertions also. It states that air quality can be shown to not worsen significantly, but also considered data from 2019 during the bushfires that severely impacted air quality. Table 4.2 uses data from a Beresfield measurement site, but wind speed is higher in the proposed area due to the terrain, which the submission fails to consider. Table 4.3 considers several sites much further to the East, away from local industry and new, more relevant data should be obtained to inform the reports assertions.
The impact of the proposal on surrounding residents land values should also be considered. The Effect of Undesirable Land Use Facilities on Property Values: New Evidence from Australian Regional Fossil-Fired Plants, Renuka K. Ganegodage & Peyman Khezr & Rabindra Nepal, 2016, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia shows modelling demonstrating the impact of fossil fuel plants in close proximity to residential areas, and shows a real negative impact. Whilst the argument that real sale prices will decrease due to market factors is obvious (some people won’t want to live near a power station, so demand logically decreases, and values fall) it is logical to consider that the Valuer General office should revalue property prices following the construction of any power plant. This decrease in value would result in significant financial strain to current residents of surrounding towns, but also to councils if a land value adjustment was made, and rates decreased. The submission should address this point.

The consultation with the community has been virtually non-existent. Although it is acknowledged that some consultation events were held, these were held during business hours and thus community members could not attend to voice their concerns. Further to this fact, the people most susceptible to the polluting effects of a gas-fired power station also represent those at the highest risk of COVID-19. Further community consultation should occur following the containment of COVID-19, and this should occur outside of business hours.

There are several further factors outlining why a gas fired power station in Kurri Kurri is a poor idea, however these are a few key areas of concern that the original planning submission failed to consider. Some of these problems are not possible to correct from planning, such as the long term environmental impacts of another fossil fuel power station. The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment should reject the proposal on this basis.
Name Withheld
Object
Albert Park , Victoria
Message
It is premature to proceed with an assessment of the EIS for the Hunter Power Project until the remaining works for the remediation project, particularly the containment cell and treatment of waste water, for the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter have been approved by the EPA and the NSW DPIE. The cumulative effect of the two Hunter Power and the smelter Remediation Project need to be assessed. The fire risk of the Hunter Power Project has also not been assessed and no evidnec is provided that the fire risk has been mitigated to a an acceptable level.
Please see further submissions attached.
Attachments
Kym Evans
Object
HAWTHORNDENE , South Australia
Message
I object to this project because the International Energy Agency has made it very clear that if we are to meet our commitment under the Paris Climate Agreement to stay below 2 degrees of warming, above pre-industrial levels, we can have no new fossil fuel projects or expansion of existing projects. This proposal clearly contradicts the obligations the NSW government has to the Australian people to help reduce our carbon emissions and protect the health and safety of future generations.
This proposal is wrong for so many reasons such as:
1. $600m is a waste of money. International Energy Agency urged the world to abandon plans for new coal power, gas and oil investments, and predicted big drops in gas demand
2. The gas plant is not needed. Prime Minister Scott Morrison claimed the proposed Kurri Kurri gas plant would fill the energy gap left by the closure of the Liddell power station in 2023. This is disputed by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which said in September that only 150MW would be needed following Liddell’s closure - a gap that could be easily filled by renewable energy and battery storage, with a number of new projects already announced
3. Strong pipeline opposition. The gas for this power plant could come from Santos’ proposed Narrabri coal seam gas project and be delivered via the proposed Hunter Gas Pipeline, which is slated to run across prime agricultural land from southern QLD to Newcastle in NSW via Narrabri, with a proposed offshoot to the Kurri Kurri site. Both the Narrabri Gas Project and the Hunter Gas Pipeline face overwhelming opposition from Traditional Owners and local farmers.
4. Incompatible with climate targets and environmental laws including EPBC Act. The project is incompatible with NSW Government’s legal and moral obligations and its ability to meet its own targets. The recent Federal Court case Sharma v Minister for Environment (May 29, 2021) established a new duty of care to protect young people from foreseeable future climate change harms and establishes a clear link between fossil fuel projects and those harms.

I am a father of two young children and I want to see the Government take action to reduce our carbon emissions so that we can save our planet from further global warming. My children deserve a world worth living in and our Government needs to abandon this proposal and work towards more environmentally friendly, sustainable projects that protect my children’s future.
Hui Ang
Object
KENSINGTON GARDENS , South Australia
Message
I strongly object to the Kurri Kurri gas project. We need to move away from gas. Gas does not stack up economically or environmentally.

Gas employs around 42,000 people, representing 0.28 per cent of total employment in Australia. This number has declined since Covid period when the gas industry shed another 3800 jobs. The money that is being spent on the Kurri Kurri project is better off spent elsewhere which will generate significantly higher number of jobs.

We have sufficient gas supply to meet our current energy requirements; only 4% of gas extracted is used domestically while approximately 80% is exported overseas (2018-2019 statistics). More gas field does not benefit Australians and only benefit the gas industry who are already receiving significant subsidies from the Federal Government.

Environmentally, gas is not the "cleaner" fossil energy source. Gas has very high emissions due to methane leakage from gas fields which are often escape unrecorded. Carbon capture storage (CCS) is often touted as the way to reduce gas emissions, but it costs billions of dollars to set up CCS, with very limited effectiveness. Again, our taxpayers money is better off spent elsewhere, such as renewable energy (wind and solar), education and public health.
Stephanie Wysser
Object
MUSWELLBROOK , New South Wales
Message
Dear Mr Stokes,

My name is Stephanie and I am a concerned citizen opposed to the construction of the gas plant planned by the Australian Government at Kurri Kurri.

I hereby lodge my submission to express my opposition to this project.

For Australia to have a successful future hinges on it’s ability to fight climate change. Climate change is here and now. Australians are experiencing it and recovering from it’ effects. To combat climate change we must discontinue the use of all fossil fuels, coal, oil AND gas, immediately. Public money must not be used to pay for gas industry infrastructure like the Kurri Kurri gas plant. Government at all levels, federal, state and local, must prioritise the funding of climate solutions like renewable energy and storage. We do not want to be left behind in the development of technologies of the future which could become important export revenue streams for the country. Australia has the possibility to become a green energy superpower, another potential export earner.

I reject the use of $600 million of public money to build the new Kurri Kurri gas plant in the Hunter Valley. This project’s announcement came just a day after a report by the International Energy Agency urged the world to abandon plans for new coal power, gas and oil investments, and predicted big drops in gas demand. This project is a complete waste of money.

Before closing, I would also like to highlight the following points:

1.This project makes absolutely no economic sense to me. $610 million of taxpayers’ money is to be invested in infrastructure that the energy sector has already deemed unnecessary. The money could be well spent in other departments in desperate need of funding.

2. The plant will create only 10 permanent jobs a year. $610 million is an obscene amount of money to pay to create only 10 jobs.

3. This project will adversely affect the air quality and ultimately the health and wellbeing of local families in the area and the Hunter community as a whole.

The only sensible solution is to cancel this project immediately!

For the only planet we have.

Stephanie Wysser
Colleen Wysser - Martin
Object
MUSWELLBROOK , New South Wales
Message
Dear Mr Stokes,

My name is Colleen and I am lodging this submission to express my opposition to the Kurri Kurri gas plant.

As a concerned citizen and speaking for future generations who cannot speak for themselves, I oppose the building of this plant.

This project will adversely affect the already bad air quality in Kurri Kurri and ultimately the health and wellbeing of local families in the area and the Hunter community as a whole. The proposal lodged by the federal government neglected to include the significant amounts of air pollution the plant will emit if it allowed to go ahead.

The Kurri Kurri gas plant will generate:

*NOx: which aggravates asthma, increases the risk of respiratory infections and symptoms leading to hospitalisation and death. It also contributes to the creation of smog.

*CO2: which can affect the heart and brain. Studies have shown that for every increase of 1 ppm of CO2, heart failure hospitalisations or mortality rate increase by 3.25%.

*PM10 and PM2.5: are linked with reduced lung function, asthma and heart disease.

*SO2: increases the risk of respiratory problems, asthma and symptoms like wheezing and dyspnoea.

Almost two thirds of local residents in Kurri Kurri and Cessnock are families with children who face a greater risk from air pollution. This plant will result in additional medical, economic and social costs for these communities, their councils and the New South Wales Government.

The federal government has clearly ignored the NSW Clean Air Strategy 2021 - 2030 when proposing this plant. The Hunter Valley population is entitled to breath clear, fresh air untainted by such chemicals. The Kurri Kurri gas plant must be cancelled immediately as the Morrison Government shows no respect for the people of these communities.

For the only planet we have.

Colleen Wysser - Martin
steven ellwood
Object
PENNANT HILLS , New South Wales
Message
Introduction
This submission is in response to the invitation for submissions as set out on the website of the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (the Department).
The Proposal
The Australian Government has proposed the construction of a gas fired power station at Kurri Kurri in New South Wales, to be constructed and operated by Snowy Hydro as part of their suite of generation assets.
The proposal followed the refusal of private enterprise to invest in such an enterprise by the deadline set by the government.
Context
A recent report “Net Zero by 2050” by the International Energy Agency, a body originally set up to support the global fossil fuel industry, states that there must be no new fossil fuel sources developed from this year. This would include the uneconomic and environmentally hazardous Narrabri gas field and all other possible gas fields, without which the pipeline infrastructure necessary for the Hunter Power Project will not be built.
At a time when we must transition away from fossil fuels to ensure we minimise the catastrophic impact of global heating the proposal for a new gas fired power station does not make any sense.
Even without taking into consideration the dire ecological consequences it is economically unsound. An estimated 2% utilisation means it will be loss making which explains why private enterprise declined to invest. Any power produced would only act to increase power prices because of the high cost of fuel .
The proposal is not supported by AEMO or by the Energy Security Board whose chairperson Kerry Schott has indicated that there are other projects in the pipeline which will satisfy energy security requirements as Liddell closes down. The NSW Minister for Energy and the Environment has also criticised the proposal on the basis that gas fired power is simply uneconomic .
The proposal makes no economic sense, it is dependent on other developments which cannot proceed if Australia is to meet its climate change commitments, and it is not supported by the key authorities responsible for the electricity market and energy security.
Given this it doesn’t make any sense why we would proceed with a development which conflicts directly with the need for international action on climate change.
Objections
a) Natural gas (methane) is NOT a transition fuel. Gas is primarily methane.
Methane emissions are 120 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere. When measured over a 20 year period they are 84 times more powerful. One of the major problems with gas is the fugitive emissions that result before the fuel is used productively. Leaks into the atmosphere as a result of flaring, venting, leaking and migration from natural fissures close to the well heads cause major emissions which are very difficult to measure and contain. There is already a massive global problem with leakages from abandoned gas and oil wells , Hence the construction of a gas fired power station is directly contrary to the concept of transitioning away from fossil fuels to non-greenhouse-polluting sources of energy.
b) We note the recent court case which imposes on governments a duty of care to consider the climate change impacts on future generations .
c) The proposal is dependent on development of gas fields and pipelines which simply cannot be developed. It is based on concepts which are at least a decade out of time, and which fail to recognise the current reality of a desperate need to urgently transition away from fossil fuels.
d) The proposal is in direct contradiction of the NSW government’s plans for transition away from fossil fuels (the renewable energy roadmap) .
e) The proposal is in direct contradiction of the Australian government’s responsibilities under the terms of the Paris Accord, which require Australia to increase its ambition and associated targets on the basis of carrying its fair share of climate change burden .
For all of the above reasons the proposal must be rejected.
Attachments
Hornsby Shire Climate Action Group
Object
ARCADIA , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached PDF file
Attachments
Samir Hussein
Object
HIGHFIELDS , New South Wales
Message
I am Samir Hussein, a GP in the Hunter area. I object to the project on 3 main grounds:

1) It is unnecessary. The Colongra Gas Station already in NSW is hardly ever used. The AEMO have already identified that the gap of Liddell power station closure will be filled by the Emerging Energy Program.

2) It is a waste of money. I am seeing increasing numbers of patients suffering from the housing crisis in the Hunter. The waiting lists at our local hospitals are increasing and recently the rural hospital at Singleton has had several resignations from medical officers due to working conditions. The Federal government cannot afford to waste $600 million on a project with such little benefit, given the deficit in the budget ahead of us.

3) The health impact of the diesel that the station will burn will affect surrounding residents in the short term. The noise pollution will be disruptive for local communities. The long term impacts of climate change on the nation's health must be minimised by committing to reducing emissions rather than continuing to fund projects that will accelerate this process.
Lee Horsley
Object
ARMIDALE , New South Wales
Message
I am writing to object to the proposal for a new gas plant at Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley.

I am very proud of the personal responsibility my children and their families have shown in response to the damaging impact of climate change due to global warming, caused largely by the profligate extraction, use and abuse of fossil fuels. I commend their understanding of the urgency of the need for changed behaviour, as well as their commitment to the elimination of fossil fuel use, for the health and safety of their families and their communities. It is time our leaders listened to their voices and followed their example, so that their push for changed attitudes is led from the top and becomes an effective nationwide effort. There is no excuse for governmental inaction.

I acknowledge that I, and many of my own generation have wilfully missed the boat by ignoring the evidence before our eyes of the changed nature of our environment. We have left an abysmal legacy. Now we must all embrace the scientific evidence and support the efforts of our children, and grandchildren, and work collaboratively to stop the greed-driven destruction of the very life forces that sustain us and our beautiful natural environment.

Yours sincerely

Lee Horsley
Name Withheld
Object
BIRCHGROVE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Mr Stokes,

My name is Jessica and as an Australian and NSW taxpayer I strongly object to the huge amount of public money being invested to build the Kurri Kurri gas plant.

In lodging this submission, I oppose the construction of the gas plant planned by the Australian Government at the Kurri Kurri site.

$610 million. It really is an obscene amount of money for a project which is uneconomical and unnecessary. When complete the plant will run for only 2% of the time. Which is the equivalent of running for one week a year. This is an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money. A huge investment in hardware that will produce only 2% of it’s capacity. Just no! The gas plant will be built less than an hour’s drive away from an existing Commonwealth-owned gas plant which uses less than 1% of it’s total capacity. We do not need duplication of old technology. The Kurri Kurri gas plant is a white elephant.

The capital cost is $610 million but the plant is likely to cost 30 to 50% more as stated by Tom Parry, AFR on 24th May 2021. We will be throwing even more precious money at this project when there are so many other priorities in the country. The project will employ 250 people during it’s construction phase and 10 ongoing jobs during it’s anticipated life of 30 years. That is a lot of money just to create 10 jobs. The people of Kurri Kurri and surrounds need good sustainable jobs in industries of the future, not a handful of jobs based on last century's technology.

Using gas to generate electricity is the most expensive way to produce electricity. This will not result in cheaper electricity prices. It will drive up the price and consumers like myself will be forced to pay those prices while my tax dollars are used to build this plant. A double whammy.

This $610 million would be better invested in:

1. Green energy generation and infrastructure to help NSW in it’s battle against climate change and

2. To help establish a system of recharging stations throughout the state to prepare for the coming generation of electric vehicles.

The whole plan for a gas plant at Kurri Kurri is ridiculous. This project should not even be at the planning stage. It must be cancelled immediately!

For the only planet we have.

Jessica Wysser
Kathy McKenzie
Object
PUTTY , New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri Power Station).

Gas is a fossil fuel, and experts tell us a gas fired power station at Kurri Kurri is reckless and
1. Not needed to maintain reliable electricity (Ref 1)
2. Businesses have committed to 600 megawatts of battery capacity already (Ref 2)
3. Government intervention in the electricity market is discouraging private investment in cheaper renewable energy (Ref 3, 4, 6, 8)
4. Gas is expensive. This unnecessary project will raise electricity prices for consumers, not lower them. (Ref 3, 4, 5, 8)
5. Battery storage is significantly cheaper (Ref 9)
6. Gold plating the energy system is a waste of public money (Ref 8, 12)
7. It doesn’t make commercial sense and there is no business case (Ref 4, 5, 6)
8. It will increase our emissions. The International Energy Agency head says there should be no new oil, gas or coal development if the world is to reach net zero by 2050 (Ref 7, 8)
9. Additional air pollution will come from mining, refining, transporting and combusting the gas (Ref 4)
10. It undermined efforts “to deliver lower-cost power, reduce emissions and build a reliable energy system”. (Ref 6)
11. It will reward major Liberal and National Party donors (Ref 6, 10, 11)

I listen to experts and so should the government.

References:
1. Tony Wood, head of the energy program at the Grattan Institute says ‘This is an extraordinary intervention by a Liberal-led government that is not justified by the needs of the market. The investment is not needed to maintain reliable electricity in NSW after the Liddell coal-fired plant closes in 2023.’ https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/kurri-kurri-decision-an-extraordinary-intervention-in-market-20210519-p57tcr.html

2. ‘Data from the Clean Energy Council show that businesses committed to 600 megawatts of new battery capacity in Australia in the first quarter of 2021 alone, roughly equivalent to the 660MW gas peaker plant the Morrison government plans for a site at Kurri Kurri.’ https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/barrage-of-batteries-to-undermine-new-gas-plant-before-it-s-built-20210519-p57t70.html

3. ‘The Australian Energy Council, representing the nation’s big power suppliers including AGL, Origin and EnergyAustralia, on Wednesday immediately warned that the rising tide of government intervention in the market was deterring the very private investment Mr Taylor says is needed.’

“Gas is expensive, the idea you can use it to bring prices down is silly,” said Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood.

“The government’s chair of the Energy Security Board, the widely respected Kerri Schott has said and I quote, ‘It doesn’t stack up because it’s expensive power’,” Labor climate change and energy spokesman Chris Bowen said.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-s-gas-fired-power-play-sparks-investment-warnings-20210519-p57tag.html

4. Dylan McConnell, an energy expert at the University of Melbourne, said last week that the Kurri Kurri gas plant was unnecessary even before EnergyAustralia’s Tallawarra B announcement.

“Building a new gas power station in NSW will raise electricity prices for residents and businesses, not lower them,” said Andrew Stock, a long-serving energy executive and spokesman for the environmental advocacy group Climate Council.

“Gas is expensive and gas peakers that rarely run need to drive up prices to get a return. Federal interference in the electricity market also discourages private sector investment.

Bruce Robertson, an energy analyst with the pro-renewables Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis described the decision as “strange” and one without a business case.

The Singleton doctor Bob Vickers, a member of Doctors for the Environment, said the new gas plant would add air pollution in mining, refining, transporting and combusting the gas.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-government-bankrolls-600m-hunter-valley-gas-plant-20210519-p57t2u.html

5. Chair of Australia’s Energy Security Board Kerry Schott says private sector won’t back ‘expensive power’ when there are cheaper alternatives such as renewables and batteries

“Nobody is going to build it from the private sector because it doesn’t stack up. Because it’s expensive power, it’s hard to see it makes commercial sense.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/30/australian-energy-board-chair-says-gas-fired-power-plant-in-hunter-valley-doesnt-stack-up

6. Chris Bowen said Tuesday night’s announcement looked “like a cynical attempt to pick a fight on gas and continue the climate wars, or to reward the major Liberal donor who owns the Kurri Kurri site”.

The Kurri Kurri site was previously an aluminium smelter. It was bought by Hunter Valley property developers Jeff McCloy and John Stevens in 2020. Officials in the federal energy department were asked last month whether they were aware that McCloy “was found by NSW Icac to have made illegal donations to Liberal party politicians?” The officials said they were unaware of that history.

Australian Energy Council Chief Executive Sarah McNamara said the constant government intervention made it difficult for the private sector “to make final investment decisions”.

The Clean Energy Council described the government’s decision as “reckless” and said it undermined efforts “to deliver lower-cost power, reduce emissions and build a reliable energy system”.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/19/labor-demands-government-release-business-case-for-600m-hunter-valley-gas-plant

7. No new oil, gas or coal development if world is to reach net zero by 2050, says International Energy Agency head. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/no-new-investment-in-fossil-fuels-demands-top-energy-economist


8. “The proposed Kurri Kurri gas power station is a waste of public money that will push up electricity prices and emissions, especially since the proposed project will initially run on diesel fuel,” said Richie Merzian, climate and energy program director The Australia Institute.

Analyst Bruce Robertson from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis said there was no justification for the government to use public funds to build the Kurri Kurri plant.

“This is just gold plating of the energy system, which will lead to lower private sector investment in cheaper renewable energy and higher electricity bills for consumers. We don’t need over investment in expensive gas power generation.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/taylor-commits-600m-to-kurri-kurri-gas-in-fossil-fuel-spending-spree/

9. The Clean Energy Council, which represents the renewables industry, has slammed the federal government’s decision to go ahead with the new gas-fired power station in New South Wales as “reckless,” noting that battery storage is significantly cheaper. https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalition-gas-plant-reckless-battery-storage-is-much-cheaper-says-cec/

10. Kurri Kurri’s new gas plant is a field day for party donors
Jeff “walking ATM” McCloy owns the land
Hilton Grugeon and Graham Burns developers of the Hunter Gas Pipeline
Santos – developers of the Narrabri Gas Project

The government is subsidising the new gas plant through Snowy Hydro, which is fully owned, controlled and financed by the Commonwealth. Its joint shareholder ministers are Taylor and Finance Minister Simon Birmingham.

At the start of last year the government appointed David Knox, former CEO of Santos, to be the new Snowy Hydro chair.

Also on the Snowy board is former federal director of the National Party of Australia Scott Mitchell, who is registered as a lobbyist for major corporations including Rio Tinto, which has been campaigning the government on energy prices. Rio stands to be one of the only companies affected by the shutdown of the Liddell coal-fired power station, as one of the owners of the Tomago aluminium smelter, which has been powered by it.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/05/19/kurri-kurri-conflicts-why-exactly-has-600m-been-announced-for-this-hunter-gas-plant/

11. Snowy CEO denies conflicts of interest over Kurri Kurri land deal - https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-ceo-denies-conflicts-of-interest-over-kurri-kurri-land-deal/

12. Eminent Australian economist Ross Garnaut has slammed the federal government’s $600 million backing of a new gas-fired plant as a “waste of money” and likened it to the exercise of burying money and asking the unemployed to dig it up as a way of keeping them productive.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-re-burying-banknotes-ross-garnaut-rubbishes-government-s-600m-gas-plant-20210525-p57usa.html
Ewan Regazzo
Object
ASHTONFIELD , New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed development of the fossil-fuelled Hunter Power Plant. I object because the Hunter Power Plant further promotes the damaging effects of climate change, will likely lead to higher electricity prices, and is an economic failure compared to current and emerging battery storage options.

Promotes Further Climate Change:
The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report in May 2021 stating that "The path to net‐zero emissions is narrow: staying on it requires immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies".[1] The IEA report also states "… make the 2020s the decade of massive clean energy expansion - All the technologies needed to achieve the necessary deep cuts in global emissions by 2030 already exist, and the policies that can drive their deployment are already proven." Australia is a member of the IEA, yet the construction and operation of the Hunter Power Plant clearly goes against the findings and proposed solutions for reducing CO2 emissions detailed in the IEA report.

Increases Electricity Costs:
In addition to contributing further to climate change due to burning gas, the high cost of gas means the Hunter Power Plant cannot expect to meet its goal of reducing electricity prices. The use of gas as a fuel is the most expensive option for producing electricity, and more than twice as expensive as renewables with storage.[2] Further, the Hunter Power Plant is expected to run on diesel fuel until the as-yet-unbuilt gas line is constructed.[3] Diesel is even more expensive than gas, meaning the plant will likely make electricity prices more expensive, and the use of diesel means the plant will also produce even more pollution.

Economic Failure:
The modelling used to predict the impact of the Liddell Coal Power Plant's closure failed to recognise the rapid uptake of batteries. For example, 100MW/135MWh of batteries are being constructed in NSW and due to operate in 2022. There is also a proposal for 700MW/2,800MWh at Eraring that could operate by 2022).[5] The Eraring battery installation on its own could make the Hunter Power Plant requirement completely redundant, prior to the Hunter Power Plant even being completed.
There is also a proposal by CEP Energy to build a 1,200MW battery (storage amount unknown) at Kurri Kurri[6] and a 500MW/1,000MWh battery in Western Sydney, due to be operational by 2023[7]. It is clear the decreasing cost of electricity generation from wind and solar, and the increased storage through pumped hydro and batteries, means the Hunter Power Plant will become a stranded asset that is too expensive to run, and yet too expensive not to run. It is important to note that private industry clearly no longer supports building such a gas fired plant, and is moving rapidly towards battery technology.

Conclusion:
I request the Hunter Power Plant proposal be rejected. A decision to build a gas plant in 2021 not only demonstrates a pitiful reluctance to embrace new technologies, it fails to produce cheaper electricity, and it puts future residents of NSW at significant risk when faced with the inevitable emergency caused by climate change.




[1] International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050 - A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector <https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4482cac7-edd6-4c03-b6a2-8e79792d16d9/NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector.pdf>

[2] Graham, P et al 2020, GenCost 2019-20 Consultation draft, CSIRO, https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2020/renewables-still-the-cheapest-new-build-power-in-australia

[3] Jacobs 2021, Hunter Power Project Environmental Impact Statement, https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-12590060%2120210427T001516.283+GMT

[4] Snowy Hydro, Hunter Power Project - Project Overview, https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SH_53946_Snowy_Hydro_HPP_Project_Overview_booklet_Update_01web-5-1.pdf

[5] Big Battery Storage Map of Australia, https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-battery-storage-map-of-australia/

[6] Morton, A 2021, World's biggest battery with 1,200MW capacity set to be built in NSW Hunter Valley, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/05/worlds-biggest-battery-with-1200mw-capacity-set-to-be-built-in-nsw-hunter-valley-australia

[7] Peacock, B 2021, Neoen plans whopping 500 MW big battery to provide for NSW’s ambitious vision, pv-magazine, https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/01/12/neoen-plans-whopping-500-mw-big-battery-to-provide-for-nsws-ambitious-vision/

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-12590060
EPBC ID Number
2021/8888
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Local Government Areas
Cessnock City
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister
Last Modified By
SSI-12590060-Mod-2
Last Modified On
16/11/2023

Contact Planner

Name
Jack Turner