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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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