Posts

Listen to this if you’ve been affected by a wind, solar or power line project

,

The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner has a sole focus on receiving complaints about wind, solar, pumped hydro, battery and power line projects among others.

If you have been affected by a project underway or even one that is proposed you need to submit a complaint by following the steps at https://www.aeic.gov.au/making-a-complaint

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. I understand one of my staff called you yesterday?

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: He had a very pleasant talk. Thank you very much for opening the door. Is it accurate to say that you are the national commissioner for complaints about wind and solar projects?

Mr Dyer: I’d like to characterise it as the ombudsman of first and last resort. If you have a concern about a powerline, a wind farm or whatever that might be in our jurisdiction and you don’t know how to get it solved, you can come to us and we’ll figure out the right process to get the concern addressed.

Senator Roberts: When you say ‘you’, that was used in a colloquial sense. This is open to any citizen in Australia?

Mr Dyer: Yes. We’re a national service and we get complaints from around the country.

Senator Roberts: That’s wonderful to hear. So anyone who has a complaint about wind projects, solar projects, batteries or transmission can make a complaint to you?

Mr Dyer: Yes. If you go to our website, which is aeic.gov.au, the second or third tab along says ‘making a complaint’. There’s the process, the form and the policy. You can call us, you can mail us, you can email us or you can arrange to meet with us.

Senator Roberts: How many are in your office? I understand you have a small office.

Mr Dyer: We’re a very efficient team.

Senator Roberts: I wasn’t being critical.

Mr Dyer: We have, I think, five people.

Senator Roberts: And you’re meant to take care of people’s complaints about solar and wind. And you work with the state government, with the federal government, with private entities?

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Mr Dyer: The respondent is usually the developer to a concern. But sometimes it’s a planning process or an EPBC issue. It’s not always the developer, but usually that’s the case.

Senator Roberts: So it could get pretty complex?

Mr Dyer: Yes. We’ve had some of them going for a long time, but we get through them.

Senator Roberts: Can you perhaps talk a bit more about what you can do for someone who has a complaint that you can look at, because people are not aware. Talk to everyday Australians.

Mr Dyer: I don’t have the budget for a front page ad in the Sydney Morning Herald. But people do find us. If you’ve got constituents who have concerns, we should talk about how they can come to us. The best thing to do is promote our website, and that has all of the details. Typically our process is that, if we get a complaint, we’ll do some research on the project and the proponent, and what is going on. If we don’t already know the proponent, and in many cases we do, we will go and get a briefing or open the door, and sometimes the complainant is known to the proponent. Often they’re not known, and so we’re able to build and bridge a relationship between the complainant and the proponent to work through whatever the concerns are. Many concerns are solved by just provision of factual information. It’s often a misunderstanding or misperception that has caused them to come to us.

Senator Roberts: I certainly agree with that. I would like to ask whether you’ve received any complaints in relation to the proposed Eungella or Burdekin Pioneer pumped hydro project in the hinterland near Mackay and the proposed Borumba Dam pumped hydro and the transmission lines around Widgee, which is near Gympie in Queensland.

Mr Dyer: No.

Senator Roberts: Not any?

Mr Dyer: No.

Senator Roberts: There’s a massive community movement in both cases.

Mr Dyer: Then feel free to connect them to us and we’ll work through it.

Senator Roberts: Okay. It’s shocking to me that, in both of those projects, it appears there has been an appalling level of community consultation. This is entirely from the Queensland government. In Eungella, for example, people who were going to have their houses compulsorily resumed and flooded for the new pumped hydro dam found out via media release. Then they found out that they couldn’t get loans for their business, renovations or sell their house, because their land is now jeopardised. Transmission lines for the Borumba project near Gympie are currently proposed over prime agricultural land, which would be again compulsorily resumed despite the community pointing out that there are state-owned land corridors available nearby. Does this lack of consultation sound like it meets the needs for best practice that your office would recommend?

Mr Dyer: We find that most proponents need help in some way, shape or form. I did have a look last night at the Queensland hydro website, and it didn’t jump out to me how you might make a complaint, for example. So, it’s possible that we may need to help them get their complaint process in place. We’ve had to do that with all the TNSPs, and help them get that in place, and the policies put in place, make it transparent on the project website, and away they go.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. What does the best practice consultation look like?

Mr Dyer: It’s a long topic, but it’s about knowing who your stakeholders are and being fairly well advanced in your thinking about what you’re trying to do. If I reflect on a call I had last night, it’s don’t go about it in secret. We often get developers that want to have one-on-one discussions with the landholder to sign them up for hosting the wind farm or the solar farm and say, ‘This is very confidential. We can’t let you talk to your neighbours.’  Before the developers leave the front gate, the whole street knows what the deal is.

Senator Roberts: And they know that these guys are wanting to cover it up?

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Which doesn’t build trust.

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: To build trust, developers need to listen first and then talk once they understand people’s needs?

Mr Dyer: Yes. It’s, for want of a better word, not a crude word, it’s a professional sales role that they’re in. But it’s got to be done with ethics and transparency and thinking like a landholder will think—how you go about matters.

Senator Roberts: I’ve been up to both projects, but already there are many constituents who are saying that this will never be built. It’s just going to do enormous damage. It’s just the Queensland government diverting attention in the media and in the community from serious problems like the Mackay Base Hospital. That straightaway has destroyed any trust in that community.

Mr Dyer: It sounds like they might need some help, so I’ll approach the chair and we’ll start the process.

Senator Roberts: We’ll get your website and your name and we’ll send it to—

Mr Dyer: I’ve got a card here for you. You can take that after the session.

Senator Roberts: I’m intrigued about bonds on solar and wind generators. In the coal industry, for every acre that a surface mine uncovers the coal company has to provide a bond to the government, and then it doesn’t get that bond back until the land is fully reclaimed. Sometimes the reclaimed land is far more productive and far cleaner than the original scrub. What is the bond on solar and wind generators?

Mr Dyer: It’s up to the commercial arrangement between the landholder and the proponent. It’s no different from you owning the milk bar as a commercial landlord down the main street of town. If the tenant defaults and leaves the building, you’re stuck with the bain-marie.

Senator Roberts: So, without a bond, at the end of life, solar and wind generators can just walk away from it? Where are the funds to ensure remediation?

Mr Dyer: Some landholders are quite savvy, and I have seen everything from bank guarantees to bonds being in place, but it’s not across the board. That’s not to say it’s not happening and not being done, but it needs to be a standard practice.

Senator Roberts: There is a standard in the coalmining industry, but there’s no standard in the solar and wind industry?

Mr Dyer: It’s something I’ve advocated for a long time. It’s in section 8 of my report in appendix A, that is, the need to have licensed developers accredited to have the skills to carry out the process, as we are doing in offshore wind, and also that the area being prospected has been sanctioned ahead of time.

Senator Roberts: I want to put on the record that I appreciate Mr Dyer’s frank and complete comments and his openness. It’s much appreciated. Thank you.

Chair: I think we would all agree.

Mr Dyer: Thank you.

/by

Will the Australian Energy Regulator sacrifice price or reliability to reduce emissions?

,
Currently, the government agencies that run our electricity grid are meant to balance 5 objectives: price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. The Government wants to add emissions reduction to those objectives.

I don’t think the objectives of price, reliability, security of supply and emissions reduction can all be achieved at the same time so my question to the Australian Regulator was, which objective will you sacrifice for emissions reduction to satisfy the net-zero pipe dream?

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you all for being here today. The national electricity objectives include price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. The government is now intending to add emissions reduction to those objectives. You, the Australian Energy Regulator, have made a submission to the government’s consultation process on the draft National Energy Laws Amendment (Emissions Reduction Objectives) Bill 2022. In that submission you said, ‘The AER supports including an emissions reduction objective.’ This is support for a proposed government policy. Surely the very first value of the Australian Public Service is meant to be impartiality. Why are you commenting one way or another on support for a government policy?

Ms Savage: I guess my objective from that would be that we are there to try and meet Australia’s emission reduction targets in the least-cost way. That’s part of our job, and our decision-making needs to ensure that happens. Our purpose as the Australian Energy Regulator is to ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future, so when we assess what tools we need, as the Australian Energy Regulator, to actually do our job effectively and to make sure that we can deliver upon that purpose, our considered view is that change to the legislation, to the objective for which we have to use our decision-making, is required and is important to us being able to deliver upon our purpose. So it speaks fundamentally to our role rather than to the government’s policy.

Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct apply to you?

Ms Savage: I absolutely do, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service value of impartiality applies to you?

Ms Savage: Yes, I do.

Senator Roberts: Why are you stating support for a proposed government policy, rather than impartially commenting on your ability to carry it out?

Ms Savage: I’m not commenting on the policy; I’m commenting on the importance of the change to the work of the Australian Energy Regulator. In that regard, my obligation is to make sure that we have the tools we need to discharge our function such that we can ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.

Senator Roberts: I put it to you that you are breaching the Australian Public Service value of impartiality by advocating support for a government policy. I would like you to take on notice to fully explain how advocating support for government policy in a submission is impartial.

Ms Savage: Senator, as I’ve said, we didn’t advocate support for the policy. We’re advocating support for the changes to the laws that are required to enable us to do our function.

Senator Roberts: ‘The Australian Energy Regulator’—your words—’supports including an emissions reduction objective.’

Ms Savage: That is the change to the legislation required to do our function.

Senator Roberts: You’ve taken a side in this debate even before it’s started. You’re required to be impartial. Why were you not impartial?

Ms Savage: I have—

Senator Roberts: I don’t accept your answer.

Ms Savage: I hear that you don’t accept my answer, but my answer remains that we have asked for changes, and we constantly and repeatedly ask for changes to legislation—and it’s in our strategic plan to do this—when it’s required for us to fulfil our strategic purpose, and that is to ensure that energy consumers are better off now and in the future. Limb 4 of our strategic plan actually says we will inform debate about Australia’s transition, and that’s to ensure that we can do our job to make sure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.

Senator Roberts: I suggest you read the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct.

Ms Savage: I have, Senator.

Senator Roberts: The current objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security are sound objectives. What level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction?

Ms Savage: When it comes time for us to consider the new objectives, with all of the limbs in them, including the emissions reduction objective, we’ll need to think about the value of carbon emissions reductions in the context of the target to achieve net zero by 2050, to ensure that the investments that happen in things like transmission or gas networks are consistent with achieving that goal at least cost to consumers, which is where that element of making sure consumers are better off now and in the future arises.

Senator Roberts: So my question—I’ll say it again—is: what level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction? You’ve now got a new objective.

Ms Savage: I don’t see it as compromise; I see it as optimising.

Senator Roberts: Can I take note of that?

Ms Savage: Absolutely.

Senator Roberts: It will be interesting in the future. What are you going to do if the objective of emissions reduction conflicts with those existing objectives?

Ms Savage: We will need to optimise against the current list of objectives, and the inclusion of emissions reduction which become another limb. Already, today, we have to make judgements and choices between the existing elements of those objectives. We constantly have to be thinking about trade-offs on behalf of customers in terms of price, quality, safety and reliability, and we will also be considering emissions reduction in that context.

Senator Roberts: I put it to you that there is no way that the objectives of price, reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time, so which one will you prioritise?

Chair: Senator Roberts, I wonder if your questions are getting a bit accusatory. You have asked questions, and Ms Savage is responding to your questions with her perspective.

Senator Roberts: I have constituents that are deeply concerned about electricity prices that have trebled in a couple of decades.

Chair: You are open to ask your questions, but I would ask you to mind your manner.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair. I say it again: I put it to you that there is no way the objective of price reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time—the facts show that—so which one will you prioritise? You’ve actually supported the government and its policy, so which one will you prioritise?

Ms Savage: An example might help. Currently, we have to think about price, safety, security, reliability.  When we make a judgement, we have to think about price and reliability, and those two things aren’t always the same thing. More reliability can mean higher prices, and higher prices can mean lower reliability. On safety and security, we just gave, in response to Senator Van’s question, an example of abolishing gas connections; there is a safety issue there. We’re always and constantly in our work needing to optimise across those different objectives within the national electricity and gas objectives, and, with the inclusion of emissions, it will be the same type of task. We have to look at it in its whole, and we have to optimise across all of those objectives. We do it today and will be able to it tomorrow.

Senator Roberts: My view is that the people who tell us wind and solar are the cheapest form of electricity are lying. If they are the cheapest form of electricity, why do we need to change the electricity objectives to include emissions reductions, so they are favoured?

Ms Savage: You are thinking about generation technologies. We do a lot of work with the Australian Energy Regulator in electricity and gas networks, and that’s nothing to do with renewable energy necessarily. If I take a gas network, for example, and if you came to me as a gas company and said, ‘I need to invest in an electric compressor instead of a gas compressor because I’m trying to meet my emissions reduction objective,’ then that is something that we could not consider necessarily under the existing obligations. Under a future set of arrangements that’s something we could consider, so it’s not necessarily about wind and solar; it’s about lots of little choices that go along in the system to make sure it all adds up to the least-cost way of meeting our climate goals.

Senator Roberts: If the ministers past and present are not lying and solar and wind are cheap and reliable, it would fit into existing objectives of price and reliability. Why do we need to change the objectives if the climate ministers are not lying?

Ms Savage: As I just said—and I’ll repeat my answer—it’s not always about wind and solar.  Sometimes it will be about networks, and, in fact, most of the changes to the objective for the work of the Australian Energy Regulator will be about transmission, distribution, electricity and gas networks.

Senator Roberts: So it won’t be about price versus emissions, yet everywhere in the world every country that has a substantial proportion of solar and wind has had a dramatic increase in prices—that’s fact.

Ms Savage: Are you asking me a question?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m asking you a question. How can you justify the statement that there won’t be a trade-off between emissions and price?

Ms Savage: I have covered that in answering the question before, which is that we’ll be optimising across the new emissions reduction objective with the other elements of the national electricity and gas objectives.

Senator Roberts: What is the Australian Energy Regulator’s position on nuclear energy?

Ms Savage: We don’t have a position on nuclear energy.

Senator Roberts: So now you’re impartial?

Ms Savage: We’re always impartial.

Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: You say as part of your retail energy market regulation, your other roles include, secondly, reporting on performance of the market and energy businesses, including affordability and disconnection of customers for non-payment of energy bills. What is the latest disconnection rate in each state? Could you take that on notice?

Ms Savage: I can tell you at the macro level and take the state based data on notice. For ’21-22, which is the last full financial year of data we have, the number of disconnections was about 30,000, which is significantly less than what we saw before COVID. At the time before COVID it was 70,000 customers per year.

Senator Roberts: Could you take on notice to give us the five years—actually the three years?

Ms Savage: I have the five years here at the macro level if you’d like it.

Senator Roberts: I would like to know the states as well because I want to see how the different states are behaving.

Ms Savage: Actually, I have got the states here. Would you like me to read them out?

Senator Roberts: If you could put it in writing, that would be good.

Senator McAllister: As you can imagine, it ends up being like 20 numbers.

Chair: I wonder if we could just copy it in the break and circulate it—just for ease. Is that okay with you, Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: That’s fine.

Ms Savage: At a cumulative total, in 2017-18 it was 72,000 and in 2018-19 it was 70,000. The Australian Energy Regulator then asked retailers to stop disconnecting customers during COVID and we saw a big drop down: 43,000 in 2019-20; 17,000 and 2020-21; and then it’s back at 29,000 in 2021-22.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/3 Comments/by

Former Snowy 2.0 Boss slams Bowen’s Wind and Solar plan: “Bull***t”

Former Snowy 2.0 boss Paul Broad has just SLAMMED Bowen’s ‘transition to renewables’, calling it ‘bull***t’.

“The notion that you can have 80% renewable in our system by 2030 is, to use the vernacular, bull***t. The truth is, this transition, if it ever occurs, will take 80 years, not eight.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Paul.

Transcript

Ben: 17 minutes after 7:00. Well, we’ve said this line a number of times, don’t jump off the boat until you’ve reached the shore, and we say it about Australia’s dramatic switch to renewable energy. We’re switching off coal at rapid rates. The backup plan isn’t ready to go just yet. Take the massive hydro energy project, Snowy 2.0. It’s long been promised to store enough energy for 3 million homes. The project is disastrously delayed and over budget. The former prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said in 2017 it would be up and running by 2021. Now they’re saying 2029. It’s gone from a $2 billion price tag to 10 billion, including all of the linked transmission lines.

I wanted to have a chat to someone who knows about this backwards. His name is Paul Broad. He’s one of Australia’s leading experts on infrastructure. Now, Paul Broad was the CEO of Snowy 2.0 for a decade, but his tenure ended shortly after Chris Bowen became the federal energy minister. Paul Broad delivered Mr. Bowen some home truths about how the project was going. He was sent packing shortly after, or maybe he decided to leave. Paul Broad, the former boss of Snowy 2.0 is on the line. Paul, thanks for joining us.

Paul Broad: Thanks. My pleasure, Ben.

Ben: Did you leave or were you shoved?

Paul Broad: Oh, a bit of combination. The word was filtering down. In fact, I think when Bowen was elected, I was dead in the water, so it was only a matter of time. But I formally resigned.

Ben: Why were you dead in the water? What was it that was such a sticking point between where you stand and where Chris Bowen stood?

Paul Broad: Oh, a series of things, particularly the gas plant at Kurri Kurri, Angus Taylor and I were very strong that you needed gas to keep the lights on. And we had more gas in New South Wales than we know what to do with. We need gas. So when the sun’s not shining, wind’s not blowing, gas, hydro are incredibly important. And Chris Bowen was against Kurri Kurri. Then he said we’re going to run Kurri Kurri 30% on hydrogen. There is no hydrogen in the Hunter, and there won’t be for another 10, 20 years at the earliest.

Ben: You were just trying to help, right?

Paul Broad: Well, yeah, trying to help. I think in the 18 months leading up to it, in the senate estimate, the parliament asking us lots of these sort of questions. So you got a sense of where Chris was coming from, and that’s his political view. I respect that, I just didn’t agree with it and there’s no point being somewhere if you don’t agree with it.

Ben: You could have just drunk the Kool-Aid and said, “Oh yeah. No, this is going to be the answer to all of our problems. It’ll be able to carry the load.” But you were being realistic and he didn’t want to hear it?

Paul Broad: Yeah. Plus the fact, the notion that you can have 80% renewable in our system by 2030 is, to use the vernacular, is bullshit. It’s bullshit. Ben, the truth is, this transition, if it ever occurs, it will take 80 years, not eight. So there’s massive changes need to occur. And I’m deeply concerned about the rush, the notion that somehow this is all magic, I’m going to wave a magic wand, we’ll close a big baseload power plant that’s kept our lights on for yours of my life, we’re just going to close it and there’s all these alternatives out there. Well, it’s not. I can be absolutely 100% certain it’s not available, and the transmission lines are miles late. 2.0, which is a part of the thing is late. I think their own reports tell them you’ll need at least eight 2.0s to achieve their goal, and that’s 80 years not eight.

Ben: Let’s just have a look at 2.0. So the biggest issue is these giant tunnelling machines. They weigh 2000 tonnes. They keep falling through the soft ground. Do we know how far along this project is? Is it halfway? Beyond halfway?

Paul Broad: Yeah. Look, I’ve got to defend 2.0, it was a huge part of my creation, and I’m quite proud of the attempt to build a big pumped hydro, but it’s complex. These tunnel-boring machines have got to do through heaps of rock. There’s 28 kilometres of tunnels, 11 metres diameter. And one of them has got to actually bore uphill. So they’ve got to come in and get access to a cabin, and then you’ve got to drill out a cabin, which is 400 metres long, a kilometre under the mountain. So the complexity of this thing is enormous. So I’m not surprised that we’ve got delays. I suppose what worries me more is the lack of transmission.

So you have this big power plant, it’s of no use to you if you haven’t got a transmission line out the front to run it into where the people are. So the lack of transmission is going to be a big, big problem for us. The lack of transmission to bring all these renewables. The power plants we have are just up the road here in the Hunter, all these new renewables are out west or somewhere else. There’s no power lines to get it here. So the notion you can have all this occurring without transmission and all the other investment which will cost the customer, the consumers a lot, the suggestion you can do all that and price is going to come down. It’s just wrong. It’s absolutely wrong. It’s misleading, it’s false and to keep suggesting that, I think eventually, eventually the average punter wakes up, and there’ll be a reaction.

Ben: We’re listening to Paul Broad, the former of boss of Snowy 2.0. Just on the timeline, I actually had a meeting with someone who’s associated with the project about a month or so ago. And I said, “What’s going on with this thing? Because we were told it’d be done by 2021, and now you’re talking about 2027.” And then they said to me, “Oh, it might be late 2027.” And I said, “Well, that sounds to me like 2028.” Now they’re saying December 2029. When I hear December 2029, I think 2030. Realistically, when’s it going to be done?

Paul Broad: Well, the transmission line is ’27, so I suspect they’ll get first power, I suspect… Now something else will happen. I think the challenges for building it are still in front of them. The biggest challenge they have for this whole project is still to come. So there’s lots of risk with it yet, but I suspect, given the fudges the engineers do, I’m suspecting end of ’27, middle of ’27, that sort of timeframe. But Ben, there’s no point having it if the transmission line… So we’ve got to work out, someone’s got to tell us when are the farmers going to agree to run power lines over their properties? When are they going to agree to pay the farmers a reasonable annual sum to access and run their lines over their property? When all that’s agreed and they work out the direction these things are going to come… We haven’t upgraded them in 50 years, let alone in five.

Ben: We’ve spoken to some of those farmers and they’re worried because they say they’ve got to knock down all of these trees to put the lines in. We’re worried about bush fires. And the other issue is just that old line, “It’s my land, it’s my property.”

Paul Broad: Absolutely. Then well what happened, the truth of it, they had all these shiny asses from Sydney rock up to the farms and say, “I’m going to put a power line over your property.” Well, the farmers said, “Get lost. You’re not coming on my property.” It is their livelihood. It is what they live for. So they got off to a really bad start. All the people around Tumut and Gundagai, all those people are now up in arms because these things have got to be done right. You’ve got to sit down and you’ve got to be able to be flexible about the direction you go to minimise the impact on farmers. They had some power lines going right over the farmer’s house.

So there’s still a lot of work to be done on the transmission. There’s still a lot of work to be done on 2.0. And the reports out saying you’re going to need lots of 2.0. So it’s really just the start of the journey. It’s not the end and I think the notion that we can close these plants, no, Eraring can’t, cannot close. Even now, we’re closing Liddell. We’re on a knife’s edge. You watch when it gets really hot or really cold, just how tight it gets in New South Wales. If the lights don’t go out, I’ll be awfully surprised.

Ben: A couple of quick ones, one of the private contractors went into administration in December. We’ve heard there are still unpaid bills to both workers and to ongoing construction.

Paul Broad: Yeah, the contractor’s got a lot to answer for. And I don’t want to go on air and bag a contractor, but they’ve got a lot to answer for. And I think they were trying games by not paying the local small contractors, and as soon I was there, I was prepared to go and pay the contractors ourselves, and then extract it from the big contractor later. The major contractor has safety problems. They tragically lost a life down there a week or so ago. The contractor has a lot of questions to answer. They’re under a fixed-price contract, so these prices shouldn’t be going up, but they are. They’re on a performance-based contract, they’re not performing. There is some big question marks and Clough going broke halfway as well, 12 months ago, it’s been a big problem. The Clough guys were integral part of delivering it. So the contractor has a huge challenge in front of them and they’ve got huge questions to answer.

Ben: Just on question marks, were you hiding some of the delays from Chris Bowen? Because I’ve seen the Financial Review. A spokeswoman for Mr. Bowen told the Financial Review that, “It was no secret that the government was disappointed in the hiding of delays to major energy projects by the former government including Snowy Hydro 2.0.”

Paul Broad: That is just bullshit. The first meeting with Bowen, my first meeting with Bowen, he asked me and I said, “Yeah, 12 to 18 months.” When I was with last meeting with Angus, which was back in April when the contractor rocked into Angus’s office and said that, “We think you’re going to be delaying going [inaudible 00:09:41] cost increase,” Angus kicked him out of the office and said, “It’s got to be delivered on time and on budget.” That’s the truth. I mean why does his office on this political spin? What is he trying to do? Fair dinkum. Why not just tell the truth? It’s really easy. In life, I find if you tell the truth, you can remember it and you don’t get yourself in too much trouble.

Ben: I said at the start of my introduction, that line that a talk back caller said to me once about the switch to renewables, “Don’t jump off the boat until you’ve reached the shore.” Can you reflect on that for a moment before we say goodbye?

Paul Broad: Yeah, that’s absolutely true. We can’t make this transition until we’re absolutely convinced that the alternative’s going to work, and is going to be at a price point that it won’t kill the economy. At the moment, we’ve got neither of those.

Ben: You say the idea of getting to 80% renewables by 2030 is complete BS. You say closer to 80 years?

Paul Broad: Yeah. Well, you got to build these things. Transmission lines, their own reports say you’ll need eight 2.0s or their equivalents. One 2.0 takes 10 years, so get eight. I could do my maths, it’s got to be 80, 70, so it’ll be another generation before anything like what they’re talking about occurs.

Ben: We know it’s never too late to learn a lesson. What would you say to Chris Bowen if he’s listening this morning?

Paul Broad: Oh, take a big deep breath. You’re a minister now, you’ve got responsibilities. You got to put it all on the line and you got to be honest to everybody about it.

Ben: We really appreciate you coming on the line. You haven’t mucked about, you’re pulling no punches this morning, and we appreciate that, Paul.

Paul Broad: Thanks, Ben.

Ben: Paul Broad, the former boss of Snowy 2.0 and I can only imagine the reaction in Chris Bowen’s office right now. They won’t be liking what they’re hearing, but it sounds to me like he’s just given a unfiltered view of Snowy 2.0, and also the transition to renewables. And you heard what he said about the government’s targets, BS. And he didn’t put it the way I just put it then. He’s also weighed into the other issue, which is just so obvious, about needing to keep our major coal plant open. That is something that Chris Minns entertained during the election campaign, and thankfully since winning the election, he suggested that that is a must, that he’s got to work out how we can keep the supply going and keep the prices low. And the discussions are underway with the operators.

/6 Comments/by

Why are we letting China use our coal?

,

China uses Australian coal to make cheap power and products which we then buy back off them, even subsidising them in the case of wind turbines and solar panels. This madness has to stop.

/11 Comments/by

Bills go up $1,150 a month under Labor

No you’re not going crazy, life is getting far too expensive.

It’s not going to get any better. Albanese is pouring fuel on the fire, putting more of your taxes into green projects that will make your electricity bill more expensive.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people across Queensland who make up our amazing Queensland community, I’m speaking to Senator Canavan’s matter of public importance motion. This MPI quite fairly criticises the Albanese Labor government for their record of promises already broken, including a promise not to raise taxation and a promise not to change superannuation.

The Prime Minister is now raising tax on unrealised earnings of large superannuation funds. Way to go! Labor are running a two-for-one sale on broken promises, just in time for the New South Wales state election, where 5½ million voters are going to ask themselves: ‘Do I trust Labor with government? Will they keep their promises?’ 

To be fair, the Albanese government has not resorted to dividing promises into core and non-core promises—yet. But wait; it’s early days. Their promise to bring down the cost of living is already broken. Today, Brisbane’s Courier Mail newspaper reported that an average household in Queensland now has to spend an additional $1,150 a month to pay their bills and keep a roof over their head. That is a hell of a lot of money for everyday Australians to find every month.

The Labor government is wrongly trying to blame international pressures for gas price rises. Gas was already increasing rapidly before the Ukraine conflict. The gas price rise has nothing to do with war between countries and everything to do with the war on coal. As the government closes down energy-intensive coal power and introduces more weather dependent solar and wind power, the grid needs more and more gas to firm the supply and maintain reliable power. 

Household gas is costing more as large electricity generators bid in the market for the gas they need to keep the electricity grid functioning. Increasing gas prices are demand inflation. Housing price rises are demand inflation. Four hundred thousand new Australians arrived in the last 12 months—$400,000—all needing houses in which to live. Of course the price was going to rise. No wonder the Albanese government changed their election promise from ‘cheaper power’ to ‘power going up less quickly’.  

Every coolroom in every farm and dairy, and every Coles store and every other supermarket is now more expensive to run. Every bakery, restaurant, butcher, store and shopping centre is passing on huge increases in power prices. Mortgage repayments are rising because the previous government’s money printing caused increasing interest rates. Labor went right along with those measures and is equally to blame for the inflation that that’s now caused.

Last week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers recklessly, wrongly, uncaringly, claimed the worst of inflation is over. Really? On what basis? New South Wales voters should not believe that for a moment. Inflation is a direct result of this government’s core energy and spending policies.

And this government is not going away until 2025.  

/2 Comments/by

Labor rams through communist style control over the gas industry

, ,
In an abuse of Parliamentary process and at great expense to the taxpayer, Anthony Albanese has called everyone back to Canberra for one day to pass his thought bubble that will not bring electricity prices down.

While capping gas prices might sound good in the short term, in the long term it will mean less supply and more expensive power prices when the cap runs out in 12 months.

Instead, we need to remove all of the wind and solar subsidies. Let coal do its job as a reliable baseload power and remove the roadblocks for nuclear energy.

Wind and solar caused this energy crisis, capping gas prices won’t fix it.

Transcript

President, as a servant to the many varied and hard-working people in our QLD community, I’m happy to travel back to Canberra for this session while recognising that due to yet another Labor-Greens-Teal rushed bill many senators cannot.

I’ve submitted a document discovery today to find out exactly how much taxpayers’ money was wasted on this disgusting spectacle.

It would have been wise for the Government to work out what we were returning for prior to recalling the Senate, instead of this chaos to get a bill ready at 9.30pm the night before.

With no Committee oversight, no public scrutiny, no industry scrutiny, a shocking bill rammed through courtesy of the ALP, Greens and Teals Senator Pocock in a single day, in return for quid pro quos next year.

There’s a point where the process this Government uses to get Greens’ and Teal Senator Pocock’s support moves past what is proper into very questionable territory.

Under this bill, the gas industry is being murdered for the financial benefit of rival industries – wind and solar, who are financial supporters of the Greens and Teal Senator Pocock.

It should be clear by now the Albanese Labor Party are not the ones running the country. In the senate, the Greens-Teal Pocock alliance run government.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022, has I’sure been met with popping champagne corks from comrades on the labour left.

Soviet-level powers right there, in the Government’s grasp.

The Government regulation will decree what gas can be sold, to whom it can be sold, for how much it can be sold, who can be refused permission to buy or sell and who can be forced to buy and sell.

The Greens and Teals can’t wait to write those regulations.

A frightening power grab from a desperate government without a clue how to solve the energy crisis it helped create and now worsen.

What industry will be next?

Don’t be fooled with this talk about temporary price caps. This legislation includes a code of conduct with permanent price controls built in.

How much will that ongoing cap be?

This is done through Legislative Instrument, so whatever the cap is, the Commissar, Minister can change it at the stroke of a pen with no appeal mechanism.

Make no mistake if this bill is passed those regulations will escalate in lockstep with the Government’s desperation to control runaway energy inflation caused from escalating power shortages.

Under the Liberal/National government, tens of billions of dollars in direct subsidies have been poured into unreliable wind and solar.

These are incapable of supplying baseload power at an affordable price.

Because the market has not closed hydrocarbon power down as fast as climate bed-wetters want, coal-fired power stations are now being threatened with closure using State Government powers.

This is what is known in finance as political risk.

As the supply of electricity becomes less reliable, afternoon price spikes are becoming common place and everyone’s power bills go up.

There’s a lesson here. Intervening in energy markets to push a political ideology has unintended consequences.

With this legislation Australia is preparing to take our place alongside the Weimar republic, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Venezuela on the list of Governments who ignored history and as a result destroyed their economies.

Venezuela should be a lesson for Australia. Socialist President Maduro spent his first term in 2012 spending every cent the Government earned from oil exports.

Windfall revenue was spent on programs that sounded good on social media, yet proved unsustainable.

Australia is spending every cent we earn from coal, gas and mineral exports just like Venezuela.

When the oil boom ended, Maduro started printing money to keep wasteful government spending going.

Australia over the last three years printed $500bn using electronic journal entries.

Maduro’s print and spend caused prices to double each week, and Maduro responded with price controls.

Australia’s inflation rate is at a 30-year high, nothing like Venezuela’s, and yet we have price controls being introduced with this bill.

Price controls cover up the problem. They never solve it. They make it worse.

To take such an authoritarian measure is an indication that something has this Government and the Premiers spooked – likely the REAL inflation rate that will result from net zero measures?

Time will tell.

The way in which a western country like Venezuela lost control of their economy should be a warning to Australia.

For three years ’print & spend’ measures have been waived through on Liberal, National, Greens and Labor uni-party voices.

Labor did not inherit Scott Morrison’s mess, Labor in the states were part of Scott Morrison’s mess.

Whether our inflation rate from this point forward moves up or down is squarely in the Government’s hands.

A small number of people in the government think they are smarter than the free market.

The same free market has for generations successfully combined hundreds of thousands of workers with hundreds of billions of dollars of capital equipment, in order to successfully manage trillions of dollars in mineral resources for the lowest cost to the consumer.

Now though, our Federal and State Labor Governments, together with the fake Christian, fake Conservative NSW Government of Matt Kean and Dom Perrottet, think this piece of legislation will fix what they broke.

So much hubris combined with so little knowledge of history & economics will be the downfall of our beautiful country.

Veneztralia here we come.

In six months the Albanese government has steered Australia from ‘welfare liberalism’ to socialism.

Next port of call will be ‘statism’ before Labor reach their ultimate destination – communism.

I notice some commentators have been calling for the Government to penalty tax the very high profits being experienced in the minerals industry in recent years.

Instead of making money for taxpayers the Prime Minister decided instead to just destroy those profits, so the shareholders don’t get them, the tax man doesn’t get them, nobody gets them AND the taxpayers are paying $1.5bn a year in subsidies from our debt-financed budget.

$1.5bn over two years is only one percent of the household and small business electricity market, this measure is more public relations than realistic assistance.

One Nation will not be wedged on this payment. Borrowing money from Australians to give back to Australians is a pointless exercise. It literally transfers money from children to their parents.

Responsible parents do not fall for this.

It is a sugar hit that takes attention away from why electricity prices are so high.

Rising electricity prices come from several different aspects of the government’s net zero transition, which, for clarity is a transition away from cheap and reliable, coal baseload power to fairy tale, nature-dependent solar and wind power.

Treasury are projecting electricity prices will rise 36% next year. If passed this bill will reduce that rise 6.5%, and if the States cap the coal price this will save another 6.5%.

In any event electricity is still going up next year. Households can expect a rise of $420 using the Government’s own sums. A rise of 23%. Almost a quarter higher.

When these measures fail, and they will, the rise will be $650.

Today I submitted a motion for a document discovery on the modelling claiming the increase will be 23% not 36%. Including the element of any electricity price rise caused as a result of the Ukraine war.

I look forward to seeing this ‘modelling’

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022 deals with gas only. The Albanese Government has dumped the coal price ceiling on to the states to avoid having to pay compensation.

John Howard’s government pulled that same bypass around the Constitution when he took property rights away from farmers to meet UN Kyoto targets without paying a cent in compensation to farmers.

The Albanese Government has joined John Howard’s government in destroying trust in Government, with the result Government must apply more and more coercive measures to govern.

Australia’s gas price has been a problem since the end of 2020. The government’s Australian Energy Regulator confirms the rise in gas prices started a full year before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Treasury and the Government spin doctors blaming Russia for electricity price rises is dishonest. Deceit.

Gas and coal price rises have resulted from the need to back up unreliable wind and solar with gas, combined with colder temperatures and a wind drought across Western Europe.

At the same time the idiots in power in Western Europe closed their coal and nuclear plants.

Gas became the only thing keeping their lights on.

Dishonestly blaming Russia instead of the correct cause – net zero energy deficits, will lead Australia down the same dishonest, inhuman path as Europe.

This bill quite simply fixes the wrong problem.

The war on coal has meant Australia cannot meet the world demand for coal and as a result prices are high, and market demand has switched to gas, those prices are now going up.

Australia has a coal and gas supply problem, not a price problem.

Australia must take the jackboot off the coal and gas industries and allow more production.

Rather than imposing old soviet-style controls on the gas industry under this bill, the Federal Government could have gone with a much simpler and less onerous option.

Western Australia has had a domestic gas reservation since 2006. This requires Gas extractors to reserve 15% of production for Australian domestic use.

This scheme has produced a gas price around $5 a gigajoule, which is production cost plus a fair profit.

Prime Minister Albanese could have used this system on a national level. He chose not to.

Instead, the Prime Minister has gone with old soviet-style legislation that will cost Australians twice as much for gas than a reservation system would have cost.

Why would they do that unless the reason for the legislation is not the price cap and is instead this bill’s industry control powers?

In two or three years’ time the public will be marching on Parliament House to protest electricity bills that are so out of control power that companies will be disconnecting people left right and centre.

Once the serious protests start this Government will reach for the permanent price controls in this bill to force coal and gas extractors to sell to electricity generators at next to nothing, just to save themselves.

There is a showdown coming in this place.

This morning Adam Bandt confirmed that the Greens and Teals are committed to eliminating the gas industry.

Hydrocarbons have lifted Australians and the world out of poverty. The Greens will cast our beautiful nation back to the dark ages.

Gas is essential to firming solar and wind, which means gas and coal are the only things keeping our lights on, our fridges running and industry functioning.

And electric vehicles running.

Without gas and coal the economy will be entirely reliant on nature dependent solar and wind power and battery backups that carry a price tag above $100bn and require renewal every 10 years.

Green energy is no energy. Eliminating gas and coal is insanity.

The Albanese Government’s proposal for a coal price cap will not reduce electricity bills and most likely, will increase them.

Coal plants buy their coal on long term supply contracts. The cost they are paying is not the spot price, it is much less.

The cap of $125 a tonne is above the contract supply price currently being paid at coal power stations, of $80 to $100 a tonne.

It is most likely that suppliers will increase their supply price of coal to $125, knowing that’s the safe limit.

A coal price rise is the most likely outcome from these measures.

A 6.5% fall is technically impossible. For the sake of argument let’s assume the price of coal in 2023 would have been $175 and is now $125 as a result of the cap.

Let’s have a quick look at the effect of that $50 a tonne reduction.

The energy density of coal is 6.7kw/h per kilo, which means one tonne of coal produces 6.7MW/h of electricity.

That’s enough to run 1600 homes in Queensland for a day.

So a $50 saving divided by 1600 homes….at the most simple level of analysis, this measure will save householders .3c a day on their electricity bills.

Not 6.5%, which is $110 a year, $11 a year.

Because coal fuel costs are a tiny portion of the coal-fired electricity price.

The Government’s measures are being sold with a deceitful public relations spin, hiding onerous, soviet-style powers that are the real reason for this legislation.

There’s another serious risk to our energy security this bill ignores – rising interest rates.

Six interest rate rises in 6 months under this Albanese Government.

Rising interest rates increase business overheads right across the energy industry.

Our electricity generation capacity must be replaced to meet ‘net zero by 2050’ –  generators, transmission lines and a whopping $100bn bill for big batteries.

Rising interest rates are pushing up the capital cost of this replacement, as well as operating costs across the energy sector.

If this Government cannot get interest rates under control the outcome will be catastrophic for taxpayers and energy consumers.

There is a better way.

Even to the global warming believers One Nation’s plan can deliver cheap, stable baseload power without upsetting your sky god of warming.

All we have to do is

  • Stop closing coal power stations;
  • Build Collinsville power station and replace Liddell with modern Hele coal;
  • Transition Australia’s coal generators to modern HELE coal.

Transitioning to clean coal and ending government handouts for renewable fairy tale solar and wind power will dramatically reduce electricity bills.

It’s time to walk away from this net zero dumpster fire.

I call on the Senate to reject this bill and say no to soviet level powers that will inevitably backfire and cause an economic and social catastrophe.

One Nation has been right to oppose net zero madness for 25 years.

We will continue to be a voice of reason, bringing better solutions to this Parliament.

Solutions that will provide everyday Australians and the businesses they rely on with opportunity and prosperity for all.

We have one flag, we are one community, we are One Nation.

/12 Comments/by

Albanese pouring fuel on the cost of living fire

, ,

The cost of everything is going up, but the Albanese Labor government is pouring more fuel on the fire by tipping billions into policies that will make electricity prices even higher. With more wind and solar in the grid than ever before power bills have never been higher. Time to give up on this pipe dream.

Transcript

President the Albanese Government’s behaviour goes well beyond a broken election promise to give cost-of-living relief. The Government is actively making inflation worse.

The inflation rate is 8% and will remain at 8% into the future, on the back of increases to energy prices. Electricity, gas, diesel and petrol are all inputs into every corner of our economy.

Forcing energy prices up to appease the sky god of warming will force up input costs right across our economy and lead to more inflation.

Weather-dependent solar and wind power will never provide baseload power. Doubling down on more solar and wind, before the added cost of changing out every wind turbine and solar panel with new ones before we even get to 2050 will lead to more inflation.

Taxpayers pay for these things twice: once in taxpayer subsidies to wind and solar and through higher inflation. Energy inflation.

Not only do we have a lack of wage rises, we have a lack of wages. Businesses are closing all over Australia as inflation wreaks havoc in the productive economy and energy costs drive manufacturing overseas.

This Government has no answers. We have just seen a child care bill that gives handouts to millionaires but fails to create a single job.

Failing to use government policy to create jobs while allowing 220,000 new migrants into Australia every year will create a pool of unemployed, resulting in reduced market power for labour. That can only mean lower wages, even before losing 8% a year off their pay packet through inflation.

One Nation believe the way to break the inflation cycle is a comprehensive root and branch review of the taxation system, to return bracket creep to wage earners while forcing big business, especially foreign corporations to pay their fair share.

Queensland Labor’s Health Department still mandates COVID injections for health professionals. Injection mandates must be abolished now. Let anyone who wants to work, work.

We are one community, one nation and Labor are a threat to breadwinner jobs.

/1 Comment/by

Wind turbines are environmental vandals

, ,

I remember when greenies hugged trees. Now greenies chop down trees and hug manufactured wind turbines made of concrete, steel, fibreglass and gearbox oil. 40 million tonnes of wind turbine blades destined for landfill by 2050. Wind power isn’t renewable.

Transcript

There’s nothing more galling than the sight of a 100 metre wind turbine slumped over. A smouldering aluminium & concrete corpse testament to wind power’s stupidity.

Even if a wind turbine fibreglass blade makes it through a 12 year operating life, the blade is still a global waste catastrophe.

Every year, Europe already adds 2 million blades filling landfills.

At the same time that we declared plastic straws an environmental sin, our beautiful planet has 40 million tonnes of wind turbine blades destined for landfill by 2050.

Every blade of every wind turbine installed to 2030 will be in a landfill by 2050.

So-called renewables need to be renewed every 10-15 years.

We’re not building our net-zero, nature-dependent generation once. We’re doing it twice over. Or three times. With all the waste this will bring.

This is environmental vandalism, killing the environment in the name of saving it.

I remember when greenies hugged trees. Now greenies hug manufactured goods composed of concrete, steel, fibreglass and gearbox oil. Greenies are resource hogs.

Recycling wind turbine blades is not impossible. It just takes a huge amount of energy for which coal is the optimum fuel. That’s why, without affordable coal energy, wind turbine blades and solar panels are dumped not recycled.

German wind farms kill 100,000 birds a year and unlike those killed in cities, these birds tend to be endangered species due to the location of turbines.

New model turbines are approaching 240 metres in height with blades close to 120 metres.

That will need a big hole to bury.

This is not ‘free’ energy and it certainly is not ‘renewable’.

Governments should not ‘force’ a technological transition. If wind technology was any good it would not be reliant on subsidies of $500,000 per turbine per year.

Real transitions – those that serve to benefit our community – happen naturally through market forces because they have natural economic or social advantages that meet people’s real needs.

We are one community, we are one nation and the United Nations & World Economic Forum’s net-zero is environmental vandalism.

/7 Comments/by

Media Release: CLIMATE CHANGE BILL A ROAD TO RUIN

, ,

Senator Roberts calls on the Senate to reject the Climate Change Bills 2022 due to the complete lack of cost-benefit analysis.

He says, “Carbon dioxide emissions reduction is the biggest change to Australian lives Parliament has ever considered.”

“Despite the target’s huge impact, absolutely nothing in the Climate Change Bill says how it will be achieved, what the cost to Australia will be or what measurable impact reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production will have on global temperature.”

“Politicians don’t accept this kind of blank cheque and ignorant attitude to the flow-on effects of legislation in any other policy, and shouldn’t on energy.”

Emissions reduction policies are expected to significantly impact energy, transport and agriculture.

“Grids that have tried to rely on wind and solar to provide their needs have either been left in the dark or have skyrocketing energy prices. Instead of learning from international wind and solar disasters like Texas and Germany, Australian climate alarmists want us to follow their road to ruin.” 

“Adding emissions reduction to the National Energy Objectives will compromise the existing objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of energy.”

“A government funded study has already sounded the alarm on the forced and premature uptake of electric vehicles, finding that uptake could increase electricity demand by 30-100% on Australia’s already struggling power grid.”

“Under an emissions target, taxpayer money will be spent telling farmers to lockup their land for carbon dioxide credits, essentially a scam plagued with integrity issues and currently under government review. Australia’s farmers can grow enough to feed and clothe the world, yet won’t be able to under this target.”

Senator Roberts’ submission to the Climate Change Bills inquiry outlines the lack of due diligence and ideological, rather than evidence based, attitudes that have driven climate policy.

“Not a single politician can say what specific measurable impact these emissions reduction policies will have on any aspect of climate or weather.” “Until the true, full costs of an emissions target are given to Australia, this Bill must not pass.”

/21 Comments/by

Anthony Albanese abandons cheaper power bills because he knows net-zero will make them expensive

,

In the election campaign Anthony Albanese promised Australians he would cut power bills by $275 a year. Not only did he say he hoped to do that, he said he knew it would happen. Now he’s walking away from his election promise.

Feelings will not keep the lights on, supermarket freezers cold or hospitals open. Feelings will not warm Australians in winter or cool us in summer. Evidence based policy will. Energy deficits in several areas of Australia have already caused blackouts. The 43 per cent target will cause many more blackouts.

The average spot price of $264 per megawatt hour last quarter is more than triple the average spot price of $85 per megawatt hour this time last year. Prime Minister Albanese knew this when he made his promise, and clearly economics is not the Prime Minister’s strong suit. If the cost of an item is up 300 per cent, the chances of being able to make it cheaper without the government paying for it are zero.

All I’m hearing so far is, ‘Build more wind and solar.’ Building more will simply add more capacity when we don’t need it, during the day, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind will need to be paired with some form of battery technology to move that generated electricity from the day, when we don’t need it, to the evening, when we do.

Coal sitting in hoppers ready to generate power on demand is the battery we have used successfully for 120 years. Alternatives to coal are thin on the ground. Battery storage costs are staggering and unsustainable: $1.5 million per megawatt hour. We need around 60,000 megawatt hours of energy in storage to ensure any 24-hour period is not subject to blackouts, yet batteries need 20 per cent above rated capacity to achieve full charge due to heat loss, which is why they catch fire a lot.

This means we need 72,000 megawatt-hours of storage, at a cost of $108 billion every 12 years, the life of a big Tesla battery. That is $9 billion every year. The Snowy 2 big hydro battery currently under construction will provide 1,000 megawatt-hours daily for 365 a year at a cost of $5 billion.

This means that pumped hydro will cost $300 billion to carry enough power for just one day. Of course, adding electric vehicle charging to the mix means a whole lot more blackouts and a whole lot more electricity price increases.

Net zero is an unaffordable fairy tale that will destroy our standard of living and destroy our lifestyle.

/3 Comments/by