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 81 - 100 of 261 submissions
Ying Gu
Object
HAWTHORN EAST , Victoria
Message
My name is Ying Gu and I’m an obstetrician and a mother of two. I’m deeply concerned about the construction of the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power plant. It will worsen global warming which is already evident in our geographically vulnerable country in the form of more extreme weather events and will continue to risk public health.

I thank the NSW government the opportunity to make this submission regarding the Hunter Power Project and request an independent review by the NSW Independent Planning Commission.

As a doctor, I value and believe firmly that evidence-based practice is critical to accountable patient-centred care. Similarly, the scientific consensus is that there should not be any new fossil fuels expansion in order to stop irreversible global warming with carbon emission reductions set in line with the Paris Agreement. Building the Kurri Kuri power plant goes against the science and international climate commitments. The megafires in the summer of 2019/2020 and floods of 2020/2021 have highlighted Australia’s vulnerability to climate change and how our health is fundamentally dependent on our environment.

Fossil gas extraction, processing and use exposes Australian communities to unnecessary health risks (1-2). Well-established examples include triggering asthma and contamination of the local environment through airborne pollution and wastewater. The cost to public health is not justified.

Storage, demand management and energy efficiency investments provide the answers to dispatchable power while not jeopardising the local and global population’s health and safety.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this submission and the independent review from the NSW IPC.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ying Zhi Gu
MBBS BMedSci FRANZCOG DDU COGU
Obstetrician and Gynaecologist Consultant
Royal Women’s Hospital and Mercy Hospital for Women
Electorate: Kooyong, Victoria

Reference:
1. Climate Council Report: How Gas is Harming Our Health. Accessed from https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/gas-habit-how-gas-harming-health
2. Shearman D. Renew Economy. 6 May 2021. Australia must kick the gas habit because it is bad for our health. Accessed from https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-must-kick-the-gas-habit-because-it-is-bad-for-our-health/
Attachments
Ben Ewald
Object
THE HILL , New South Wales
Message
Hunter Power Project SSI-12590060
Personal submission from Ben Ewald
The proposed electricity generator at Kurri Kurri fuelled by fossil gas is not in the public interest for the following reasons:
The proposal has the wrong proponent. While the general electricity market in NSW has a range of suppliers, the market for peaking generation is highly concentrated. Flexible generation at scale is only from hydro and gas as NSW has no substantial batteries yet. Snowy Hydro has control of most of the hydro and gas in the state giving it huge market power which will only be exacerbated by the Kurri Kurri generator. As an example of the harm from such market power, during the $7000/MWh price spikes in May that caused Tomago to briefly turn off its pot lines, Snowy Hydro kept Colongra off line as it bid that output at the market cap of $15,000 per megawatt, hoping to cash in at the extreme price. NSW will be much better served if expanded flexible capacity is in the hands of a competitor.

The proposal is over sized. While AEMO identified a potential 154 Mw shortfall after the closure of Liddell if no other capacity was built, this proposal is many times larger. It would only make sense if a decision has been made but not announced that Vales Point is about to exit the market. The predicted shortfall is even less likely with the recent announcement of new transmission capacity from South Australia to NSW to be completed by 2023 which increases the geographic diversity of wind generation and makes a system wide calm period less likely.

The project is a large investment of public money in a fossil fuel project which will continue to worsen global heating, when Australia and the world should be urgently moving to zero carbon energy sources. That the proposed generator would be slightly less carbon intensive than the average of the existing grid is irrelevant.

The EIS lacks important detail required to establish the environmental impacts. For instance:
• There are no details of the emissions control equipment that will be installed. Apart from general mention of “dry low emissions burners” for gas and “water injection technology” for diesel there is no further detail. There is no post combustion exhaust treatment. No figures are presented on the effectiveness of these emissions control technologies.
• The air pollution assessment presents a set of model inputs for the purpose of studying atmospheric distribution, but there is no reason to believe that these model inputs are the expected outputs of the generator. They could be from any other generator, or pulled from thin air. Like all modelling, the results are subject to the garbage in, garbage out principle.
• The proponent would like to distance their proposal from the 17 Km gas pipeline lateral required to operate it, and while the planning rules allow them to be considered separate projects this is does not reflect environmental reality. Section 1.4.1 lists potential future growth in gas use in the area as a benefit, when the science tells us that growth in gas use is universally a hazard to climate stability.
• The proposed plant is not “hydrogen ready”. Section 4.4.3 clearly states that the plant could not operate on hydrogen without modification. This is incompatible with the NSW electricity Infrastructure roadmap which states: “Gas peaking plants would need to be hydrogen ready, which would mean that the plant is capable of running on hydrogen for a minimum proportion of its operating time each year.”
Suraya Coorey
Object
WOY WOY , New South Wales
Message
My objection to this Snowy Hydro company proposition for Kurri Kurri gas power station is based on the following rationale:

• The proponent, Snowy Hydro, does not provide any information to back its claim that this gas power station is necessary. In fact, Snowy Hydro already operates a gas power station not far away at Colongra on the Central Coast which is used less than 1% of the time.
• The high cost of gas has been driving up electricity prices and this will only get worse if we dig deeper into our dependence on polluting and expensive fossil fuels.
• As the government knows. gas is a polluting fossil fuel and extraction and transport of it is bitterly opposed by communities in the North West and Hunter. We don’t need or want to create new demand for destructive unconventional gas.
• The 14.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its thirty year operation that the power station will create is unacceptable. The people in New South Wales are already enduring the impacts of climate change, but the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this gas plant makes no mention of NSW’s commitment to net zero greenhouse emissions by 2050. The International Energy Agency has said that achieving zero emissions by 2050 means no more fossil fuel developments of any kind.
• Despite known contamination of soil and groundwater on the site, no detailed investigations of existing water or soil contamination was provided with the EIS. Contaminants of concern include fluoride, cyanide, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), aluminium, heavy metals and potentially PFAS.
• Using diesel to run the power station will create even more fine particle (PM2.5) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) pollution. Annual average PM2.5 levels at the nearest monitoring station already exceed national standards and ozone, which forms in the atmosphere as a pollution by-product of NOx emissions, already “occasionally” exceeds assessment criteria nearly every year.
Katherine Jacka
Object
ARTARMON , New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri Power Station). I am a mother of a three-year old and stepmother to three teenagers and I am deeply concerned about their future which will be significantly affected by climate change.
This proposed project makes no sense in four important ways. Firstly new fossil fuel projects are not compatible with what experts are telling us we need to do to mitigate the effects of climate change and ensure global warming does not exceed 1.5 degrees. The recently-released International Energy Agency (IEA) road map has clearly stated that no new fossil fuel projects can go ahead if we hope to keep warming to a manageable level (see Source 1).

Secondly, the NSW Government’s Net Zero Plan Stage 1: 2020-2030 provides the foundations for reaching net zero emissions by 2050 with a focus on reducing emissions by 35% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels; however, the Kurri Kurri project’s Environmental Impact Statement estimates it will emit 500,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses per annum, equivalent to approximately 0.4.% of NSW annual emissions, despite operating for the equivalent of a week per year (see Source 2). It is unclear to me how NSW with be able to meet its Net Zero Plan Stage 1 target given this fact.

Thirdly, 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 stated there was a clear link between fossil fuel projects and those harms (see Source 3). The federal environment minister now has a duty of care to ensure that projects such as the Hunter Power Project will not adversely affect future generations. Given that the IEA road map cited above has stated that no new fossil fuel projects can go ahead if we are to keep warming to 1.5 degrees, how can the minister guarantee that this project will not adversely affect future generations?

The 2020 UN Emissions Gap report states that at current projections the world is heading for around 3 degrees of warming, a level that would be catastrophic to future generations. In addition the report stated that G20 members are not on track to achieve their unconditional emissions reduction commitments and that ‘five G20 members are projected to fall short and therefore require further action (Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America)’ (see Source 4). Given this finding, rather than financing new fossil fuel projects, Australia needs to be switching to renewable energy as a matter of urgency in order to meet our Paris commitments; the proposed Kurri Kurri gas project is not in line with these commitments.

This issue means so much to me and to millions of other parents around the world who have very real fears for our children’s future, we are desperate for our leaders to listen to the experts and follow their advice as did they did with the Covid 19 pandemic. We have a small window to act and drastically reduce emissions, and as the experts keep telling us, if we miss this window our children’s future is in jeopardy.

Yours sincerely,

Katherine Jacka



Sources:
Source 1:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/top-energy-chief-tells-australia-to-get-to-net-zero-emissions-before-2050-20210517-p57sq7.html?fbclid=IwAR1AmOC4p5WhD1Nb5StDa7Qomy2dUWXjsPRZz1BYJq7J00vyT7Nkuu-bQE8
Source 2:
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/climate-change/net-zero-plan
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-12590060%2120210427T001516.283%20GMT
Source 3: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2021/2021fca0560
Source 4: https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020
Les Johnston
Object
BALMAIN , New South Wales
Message
Please find the attached submission
Attachments
Lesley Walker
Object
NORTHCOTE , Victoria
Message
I have attached some of my reasons for the immediate cancelation of this project.
Attachments
Norman Sage
Object
LORN , New South Wales
Message
Please see the attached document.
Attachments
Llynda Nairn
Object
MILLFIELD , New South Wales
Message
I object to the Kurri Gas Plant proposal. Many experts have refuted the claim that it is necessary to build the gas plant. It’s claimed that it will be used just 2% of the time snd cost $600 Million Dollars.

Renewable energy project would be a better investment of public money. Investing in a fossil fuel project at this time is wanton recklessness.
We should be closing the door on fossil fuels.

The building of the gas plant is said to provide about 250. But once built it will only provide 10 full time jobs. And the control room will be in Cooma! This is not the kind of industry that Kurri needs. Kurri needs a lot more jobs that could be generated with investment in in renewables snd other sustainable industry. Waste recycling for example. Glass recycling for road base materials too is needed in the area.

It looks to me like the government is investing in Gas as a form of payback to the fossil fuel companies that donate to the government and to the opposition.

$600M on old technology is not a rational decision and we expect more from our leaders. We need leaders who will take us into the future. We need leaders who will enthusiastically embrace new technologies that will help mitigate climate change, instead we have A government that will do the bare minimum to meet benchmarks and even look for ways to justify not meeting them.

The Kurri Gas Plant proposals a rotten idea. Kurri deserves better. NSW doesn’t need it. And the whole of Australia is expected to bear the cost of the madness.

Please pull the pin on this project and invest in something that will be useful, that will employ many many people, and will be a genuine investment in our future.
Northern Beaches Climate Action Network
Object
BEACON HILL , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached document with my grounds for rejection of the Kurri Kurri gas peaking plant white elephant.
Attachments
Liora Ballin
Object
LAWSON , New South Wales
Message
I am opposed to the new gas-fired power plant at Kurri Kurri in theHunter Valley, NSW. I am making this submission because I am a parent and I am concerned about the impact that climate change will have on the lives of my children, their generation, and the generations to come. I wish to raise two important concerns: the impact of the power plant on greenhouse gas emissions and the economic impacts of expensive power from gas.

Firstly, this gas plant will add to greenhouse gas emissions and thus contribute to climate change. In their report from May 2021 Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, the International Energy Agency made it clear that we require “a total transformation of the energy systems that underpin our economies” (page 4). The report sets out a pathway, albeit a “narrow” pathway, by which nations may meet the goals of the Paris agreement and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Their report stipulates that there should be no new investments in fossil fuel projects, including gas projects.

There is a wealth of scientific evidence which supports the causal link between fossil fuel projects and climate change harms. Australians are already experiencing harm from climate change. In this country in particular, we will experience increasingly extreme weather events. It is clear that climate change poses a threat to our way of life.

Secondly, this power plant does not make economic sense. It is expensive to use gas to create electricity. Of note, the Energy Security Board chair, Kerry Schott, recently said that gas is “expensive power”. Additionally, this gas plant will be committing $610 million to infrastructure that the energy sector has said is not necessary. Indeed, gas makes little commercial sense, given the alternative and cheaper sources of energy in the market. There is an abundance of alternative renewable technologies, including batteries, all of which are cheaper. Australians should not be subsidising a gas industry that is headed for decline in the next decade.

https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/30/australian-energy-board-chair-says-gas-fired-power-plant-in-hunter-valley-doesnt-stack-up
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-12/four-corners-gas-plan-pressured-experts/100055730
Name Withheld
Object
EARLWOOD , New South Wales
Message
I believe that this proposal of a gas power plant is poorly thought out and a good case for it has not been made. There are many other ways that peak power can be met - for instance through a combination of mass batteries, peak demand management and energy efficiency measures. Burning fossil fuels to make electricity on rare occasions is something that should be left in the past. This gas plant is in direct conflict with the NSW Government's stated aim of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Please reconsider this.
Name Withheld
Object
BOLWARRA HEIGHTS , New South Wales
Message
Kurri does not need more pollution. What NSW needs is renewable energy and a good plan to achieve renewable energy. The Kurri power plant simply means a cheap way of planning and short vision.
Thank you
Terry Holdom
Kim Loo
Object
RIVERSTONE , New South Wales
Message
Hunter Power Project SS1-12590060
Personal Submission from Dr Kim Loo
General Practitioner Riverstone, NSW. Mother of two children.
The proposed generator at Kurri Kurri fuelled by gas is not in the public interest.
Australia is the most climate vulnerable first world country.
I have been working in Western Sydney for 32 years. Heat, the direct impact of climate change is already impacting the health of our Western Sydney population with 37 days over 35 degrees during our Black summer. Penrith reached 48.9 degrees which is 2 degrees above the preindustrial average.
The increased risk of more prolonged droughts and a longer bush fire season led to the Black Summer bush fires that clouded most of Sydney in toxic smoke for 80 days. There were 33 direct deaths from the bush fires with subsequent 400 deaths because of the smoke.
The methane generated by gas at the point of extraction, transport and burning will further add to our emissions. Methane is more potent greenhouse over a 20-year period than CO2.
The International Energy Agency May 2021 ‘If we want to reach net zero by 2050. We do not need any further investment in coal, oil, or gas’. The world will move to cleaner energy. Australia could be a renewable energy hub exporting clean energy to the world.
In Australia we are already getting more intense and more frequent heat waves. Western Sydney Councils already are working towards adaptation and mitigation strategy with their Heat Tool.
If we continue expanding our fossil fuel projects. We will reach a point heat waves above 40 – 45 degrees will become more frequent. We know the impact of heat waves in our population. The brunt of rising heat with the rising emissions will be borne by NSW Health.
Wind and solar is already cheaper than all other forms of energy. Any gas generated will not be cheaper than sunshine and wind. Battery technology is rapidly evolving and becoming cheaper.
I resent my tax dollars going to an energy project that worsen climate change and could potentially be an expensive stranded asset.
And there is enough gas in our energy market. We do not require firming capacity system costing $600 million dollars. Predicted to function 2% of the time employing 10 workers.
A new gas plant is not consistent with the NSW targets of a 35% emissions reduction by 2030.
Name Withheld
Object
BRUNKERVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I object to the Kurri Kurri gas plant because it will contribute to global warming and catastrophic climate change. The extraction and burning of natural gas emits methane gas which is 84 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. This is not an energy source we should be using when we need to slow down and reverse climate change! The government should be taking a war time response to stopping climate change! Not pouring 600 million of tax payers money into funding a new gas plant.

As a resident of Australia, I have the right to actively oppose projects that degrade our environment. I don't think I need to bang on about the effects of climate change. It's already evident in the horrendous bush fires, warming temperates and increasing number of flood we have experienced the last few years.

The Australian Energy Market 20 year plan outlines better alternatives for transitioning our energy system to rather than gas. Augmenting the transmission grid, renewable energy zones, transmission between states and batteries. Batteries appear to be a much smarter option for dispatchable energy rather than gas generators. Also, nowhere in the report does it recommend building NEW GPG plants. It only recommends using existing plants. "This favours existing GPG plants, but further investment in GPG is less likely based on the assumptions used in this ISP, particularly in scenarios that have carbon budgets to meet." Opting for batteries instead of gas plants means that we will not be affected by variability in gas prices or future scarcity of gas. The report goes onto state "Based on the cost assumptions in the ISP, new batteries are more cost-effective than GPG in the 2030s." Why, when the cost of batteries will reduce due to global demand and innovation, is our government choosing to invest in a new gas plant? It does not stack up!
Rick Madigan
Object
WENTWORTH FALLS , New South Wales
Message
I strongly oppose this project - the government is spending $600M of our money on an infrastructure project whose utilisation will be minimal - 2 weeks in the year - and be responsible for creating more emissions at a time when we have an obligation to reduce these. The science and in-depth independent research shows that this project is not necessary and will shortly become a white elephant. Meaning the government will have wasted $600M of our money.
I would far prefer to see this money spent where it will have meaning for our people - health and education. This invests in our future.
Thank you.
Rick Madigan
Name Withheld
Object
CARRINGTON , New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the project.
1) The justification is not credible as dispatchable power can be provided by batteries. Batteries should be paid for by the government , not gas.
2) the assessment is inadequate as it does not include consideration of the impacts of the gas supply chain that is sponsored and facilitated by government. This inadequacy highlights the lack of ESD performance of the proposal.
3) the air quality impacts to the local area and hunter region are not acceptable as they impact on health of the population
4) the surface and ground water impacts are not acceptable as they pose an ongoing negative impact to biodiversity and the receiving environment.
5) it is not acceptable for the government to directly control the open energy market. This proposal has negatively impacted the market where other private suppliers were going to fill the energy requirements with either gas or renewables. They will not provide that investment due to the proposal.
6) the government is now a socialist organisation that is taking public money to renationalise the energy market. I did not vote for socialism.
7) the company used to write the eis is not acceptable to complete the assessment as they do not have adequate skill or capacity to complete the task. They are implicated in many other deficient assessments that need significant rework after submissions. The certification of the document needs to be reviewed for adequacy due to the lack of skill and capability of the authors
Patricia Lane
Object
Balmain , New South Wales
Message
I totally object to this project
Richard Stanford
Object
Randwick , New South Wales
Message
We must stop all new fossil fuel projects, which create atmospheric CO2 pollution. The climate is being destroyed for all future generations by excess CO2. To stop this we can transition to 100% renewable energy, which is cheaper for consumers and does not damage our climate.
Mirinda Boaz-Cole
Object
THE POCKET , New South Wales
Message
The recent report by the International Energy Agency, found that the world shouldn’t invest in any new gas or oil if we want to meet the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement.

Gas is polluting and expensive, while battery-backed renewable energy is cheaper, cleaner and doesn’t drive catastrophic climate change!

Its not complicated is it?

Please do the right thing for our plant & future generations as well as the indigenous people who really own this land. I guarantee you don't have their blessing.

Many thanks,
Mirinda
Lida McCool
Object
UMINA BEACH , New South Wales
Message
The proposed Kurri Kurri gas plant is a waste of tax payers money and a dangerous and polluting investment. The International Energy Agency has recently stated that no new gas and oil projects should be undertaken if we are to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement to stay below 1.5 degrees of warming.
Gas generates powerful green house gas emissions and is harmful to the climate. Australia needs to urgently invest in battery-backed renewable energy projects to reduce emissions and save our economy and the planet.

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