Posts

Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills

,

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?  

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.  

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?  

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.  

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?  

Mr Oliver: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria? 

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/3 Comments/by

$2.15 Billion in Subsidies: The Hidden Costs of “Cheap” Renewables

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.

Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.

The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive? 

Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes? 

Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year? 

Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister— 

Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage. 

Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year. 

Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator? 

Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval? 

Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount. 

Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding? 

Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years? 

Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area? 

Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper? 

Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I— 

Senator ROBERTS: In 2012? 

Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of  

dollars, and power bills have gone up. 

Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to— 

Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of  

estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do. 

Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs. 

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said— 

Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously. 

Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements. 

Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever. 

CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time. 

Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices 

/0 Comments/by

Net Zero is Robbing Your Wallet

,

The claim that solar and wind energy are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supoprted by the evidence. In reality, adding more solar and wind to the grid increases electricity costs. The reason is straightforward: while the wind and sun are free, the infrastructure—wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries, 15,000 kilometers of extra transmission lines, and access roads—is very expensive to produce, transport, install, and maintain. 

Unlike modern coal or nuclear power plants that last 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and backup batteries only last 15 years. The $1.9 trillion investment will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind infrastructure will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more. This madness must end!

One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change along with all related agencies and programs, including net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, contributing to One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion plus in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will put billions of dollars back into the pockets of Australians and businesses, making everything more affordable. That’s how we solve the cost-of-living crisis. 

It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will make it happen.

Transcript

For the last 30 years Australia has been hostage to the supposedly green movement’s great climate fraud, designed to create an all-purpose excuse to do whatever the government wants—an excuse that’s reusable, recyclable and fungible, not only for the government’s benefit but for the benefit of their donors, stakeholders, bureaucrats and associated carpetbaggers, such as Bill Gates and BlackRock’s Larry Fink. We know who these people are from watching the meetings Prime Minister Albanese has and refuses to explain. Nothing says, ‘I’m doing dodgy deals behind the Australian people’s back,’ like refusing to publish detailed records of what was said and agreed in these meetings. This evening I’ll examine the green climate fraud and make a major One Nation policy announcement. 

Let’s start with the war on farming. The climate scam seeks to replace fresh, healthy, field-grown Australian produce from family farms with fake foods in near-urban intensive production facilities—synthetic meat-like products cultured in bioreactors in a process that mimics the way cancer cells grow, with just enough artificial nutrients added to pass as food. Fake meat from plants remains on life support, with 18 ingredients, now including cocoa, and they still can’t make people eat it. Billionaires can’t make money out of conventional farming; they can make money, they think, out of industrial food. Who owns vegetarian meat supplier Beyond Meat? Surprise, surprise: predatory global wealth funds BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street lead their share registry. 

Both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California Davis have found the environmental footprint of these Frankenfoods is worse than that of naturally grown pasture raised beef. Bill Gates has declared cattle an existential threat because of their methane farts. Rubbish. Cattle have been on this earth for two million years. Leading methane producer India domesticated cattle 9,000 years ago, and nothing has changed. Another leading methane producer, the United States, had bison for 150,000 years. Three hundred years ago, there were 50 million bison, or buffalo. Now they’re gone, the USA’s 28 million cows are suddenly causing ‘fartageddon’. 

There’s no science to justify this nonsense. As the University of California Davis explains: 

After about 12 years, the methane— 

from cattle— 

is converted into carbon dioxide through hydroxyl oxidation. That carbon is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being consumed by an animal. It is recycled carbon. 

Cows don’t harm the environment. The methane cycle they perpetuate has been with us for two million years, at times in greater quantities than now. 

Plants are more powerful than scientists admit. A recent finding from the US government’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory found: 

Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought. 

Climate scammers refuse to talk about the role of forests and crops, especially hemp, in sequestering carbon. Australia is already carbon neutral. Our forests and crops sequester much more carbon than Australia produces. So let’s stop chopping down trees for industrial wind and solar assess roads and transmission lines, and we can stay that way. 

The next lie is that global boiling will kill us. Fact check: it’s false. Between 1998 and 2023, global temperature variation osculated between minus 0.4 degrees and 0.6 degrees as carbon dioxide, CO2, levels in the air rose from 0.036 per cent to 0.042 per cent. Then the Tonga eruption occurred, and temperatures rose by 0.7 degrees centigrade more. I’ll share a link on this topic when I post this speech on my website. It includes some excellent gifs of the fraudulent data tampering and fake temperature stations that have concocted warming where none exists. Japanese data, which is not tampered with, shows no warming in the last 50 years. 

Next, carbon dioxide levels do not drive temperature. CO2 levels are a result of temperature changes. There has been a lot of obfuscation on this aspect of climate fraud. I urge anyone who actually believes nature’s trace gas can change the world’s temperatures to look more closely and more carefully. The seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 correlates very well with the temperature, not with the human production of carbon dioxide. CO2 does not drive temperature. Temperature variation drives CO2 levels. It’s the reverse of what the UN is claiming. Global temperature itself is a product of atmospheric pressure, albedo, cloud cover and many other factors. 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the UN IPCCC—computer models downplay the factors, especially cyclical variation in solar radiation, which the UN assumes to be minor as compared to changes in CO2. Unvalidated UN IPCCC climate models replace the most powerful modes of heat transfer—conduction, convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation—with just radiation. In other words, UN IPCCC climate models are rigged to blame CO2 because the real factors are minimised in the construction of these models. No wonder these fake models have already been proven comprehensively wrong. 

The next lie is that the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Great Barrier Reef coral cover was the highest on record in 2024. The reef is healthy, yet the scare stories continue. Every time the green scammers claim the Great Barrier Reef is losing coral to scare you, the phones start ringing in north Queensland with tourists cancelling their bookings. Tour operators and the communities they support suffer, staff lose their shifts and their livelihoods, and businesses close, all for a political lie, a fraud. The reef covers 344,000 square kilometres. That’s five times the area of Tasmania. There will always be an area on the reef where an unusually low tide on a hot day causes localised bleaching with still winds. That damage repairs naturally and quickly, as it has for 14,000 years. There will always be a flood dumping fresh water onto the reef and killing the saltwater coral polyps. It’s happening right now in Far North Queensland. So stay tuned for scare stories just about coral bleaching blamed on climate change when the cause will actually be these floods in time for the election. 

The next lie is that the sea levels are rising. Since the end of the mini ice age 200 hundred years ago, ocean levels have risen a tiny amount. In 1914, the mean sea level at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour was 1.11 metres. In 2014, 100 years later, it was 1.12 metres—one centimetre, 10 millimetres. That is natural variation. 

The next lie is that the polar ice is melting. In Antarctica there will always be an area of unusual warming associated with underground volcanos and hot springs, of which the Earth has thousands. Pressure builds up and they let off heat. They melt the ice above, and then they go dormant again. In 2009, John Kerry predicted, ‘In five years scientists predict we will have the first ice-free arctic summer.’ It didn’t happen, along with the other failed scares. The arctic ice cap floats and moves with natural varying wind and ocean current directions. In fact, after 40 years of unprecedented man-made global boiling, there’s more Antarctic sea ice now than there was 40 years ago. 

It’s time to acquit carbon dioxide. The great climate scam is about submitting to the world’s predatory billionaires delivering up our agriculture, transport, energy, manufacturing and industrial base, food, and property rights in the name of saving the planet. In reality, it’s just greed—less for you and more for them—and it’s control. 

One Nation saw through this scam in 1996, and we’ve opposed the agenda ever since. We have opposed the $200 billion wasted so far on net zero measures. Bloomberg now puts the cost of completing Australia’s transition to net zero, including the electrification of cars, homes and appliances, at $1.9 trillion. That’s a terrifying figure. The few hundred billion dollars spent so far have added so much to our electricity costs that bills are doubling or tripling. The pain is only just starting. 

The lie that solar and wind are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supported with evidence. To the contrary—the more solar and wind are added to the grid, the dearer our electricity becomes. The reason is simple. While the wind and sun are free, wind turbines, solar panels, back-up batteries, 15,000 kilometres of extra transmission lines and access roads are very expensive to make, transport, install and maintain. While a modern coal or nuclear power plant lasts 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and back-up batteries only last 15. The $1.9 trillion will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more. 

Enough of this madness, this fraud. If elected, One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change, all their related agencies and programs, including all net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, forming part of One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will return billions of dollars a year into the pockets of homeowners and businesses, making everything you buy cheaper and more affordable. That’s how to solve the cost-of-living crisis. It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will end the net zero scam. 

/5 Comments/by

Battery Storage Projects Face Delays and Cost Increases

Wind and solar don’t work at night or when the wind isn’t blowing. Australia is told the solution is batteries! Real world experience shows that batteries are too expensive, too slow to build and don’t last long enough to support a grid.

During this session with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), I revisited the status of the eight large-scale battery storage projects funded in 2022, noting that $176 million had been allocated but none had completed construction by February. I was told that while all projects are progressing, some face challenges like grid connection issues. I highlighted the significant cost increase from $2.7 billion to $3.1 billion and questioned the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these batteries compared to coal-fired power stations.

I also raised concerns about the stability and reliability of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, and the additional costs associated with making them grid-compatible. Additionally, I asked ARENA about their responsibilities and the financial transparency of their operations. I emphasised the high cost of electricity in Australia compared to countries like China and criticised the impact of net-zero policies on manufacturing.

We need to ditch net-zero. Use the cheap resources we have in Australia’s ground for Australians first!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I return to the eight batteries in the large-scale battery storage funding round from 2022. In February you told me that you had put $176 million into it. None had completed construction as at that time and only two of the eight were under construction. Have any completed construction? What is the status of the others in the round of eight?

Mr Miller: They have progressed. I don’t have the precise figures to hand—unless my colleague finds a brief on that in the notes—in which case I can provide that information on notice. But they’re all progressing. Some have challenges around grid connection and various studies that have to be completed. They’re not all there yet, but I think the vast majority have reached their targets for the ARENA funding and would be either close to construction or close to financial decision.

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency this would have been one of the biggest projects and most important aspects of what you do; is that correct?

Mr Miller: It’s important and is amongst many other important things that we work on.

Senator ROBERTS: In December 2022, the portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. That increased to $3.1 billion, which is roughly a 16 per cent increase. What is the latest cost of the portfolio? What is the updated figure?

Mr Miller: What are you talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: The portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. What’s the latest cost?

Mr Miller: That information that you had that was publicised would be the most up-to-date information that we have.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the $3.1 billion?

Mr Miller: Some of the batteries increased in capacity. Since we announced the program, the proponents who were developing those batteries actually increased the size of the batteries, given that the economics were improving and that they could get the job done and actually build more. That capital cost increase would be in relation to an increase in the capacity of the batteries that are being developed.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve gone above two gigawatts and 4.4 gigawatt hours?

Mr Miller: As I said, if you want precise information I will get you that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That would be good. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a bunch of batteries that only last two hours and lose 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the power to charge them?

Mr Miller: That’s not accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the accurate figures?

Mr Miller: The minimum size in that portfolio is a two-hour battery. Some of them are three and I think one of them has gone to four hours. Again, I’ll check that just to make sure. The batteries are playing a very important role. The project as described by ARENA and the innovation that’s in this portfolio is around what’s called grid-forming capabilities. It’s the ability for these batteries to essentially replace the very important system services that coal- and gas-fired power stations provide.

Senator ROBERTS: Stability of the grid?

Mr Miller: Stability of the grid, voltage frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: What we call ‘firming’?

Mr Miller: I think firming would traditionally be thought of as providing the energy that’s required to fill gaps. These batteries are providing power quality services. Firming would be about the quantum of energy and power services, or these system security services, are about performing the very important electronic functions that the grid needs to remain stable and at the right frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that solar and wind are asynchronous, inherently unstable and therefore you need to provide an additional service so that the grid maintains stability?

Mr Miller: Again, that’s not also strictly true. There is technology around solar and wind, inverters, that converts the DC electricity into AC and that can provide grid-forming capabilities as well. The latest wind turbines coming out of Goldwind, for example, in China have system security services built into those inverter technologies. It’s not only the batteries that are advancing; it’s actually the solar inverters and the wind technology inverters as well that’s advancing to provide the services.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that at an additional cost?

Mr Miller: It may or may not be. It may be integrated into the technology that’s put forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the next one. On a very conservative cost of $4.5 million per megawatt installed and a capacity factor of 90 per cent, a $3.1 billion coal-fired power station would produce 15 gigawatt hours of data capacity versus just 4.4 gigawatt hours for the batteries. Unlike the batteries, the coal station actually generates power. It doesn’t lose power on charging. Doesn’t that seem like a much cheaper investment for Australians, just coal-fired power stations?

Mr Miller: You’re fundamentally misunderstanding the different role of those coal-fired power stations that you mentioned in the old world and the role of these kinds of batteries in supplementing wind-solar transmission system demand flexibility. The new world we are well underway, progressing into and entering requires a variety of technology. These batteries provide a very specific set of technologies and services that in combination with wind, solar, transmission and all the other things I mentioned, provides you with a system that is stable and can do the job.

Senator ROBERTS: At inherently higher component costs. There’s a lot of confusion amongst constituents and amongst MPs and senators. Among the various agencies charged with some responsibility or accountability over energy transition, could you as simply and as specifically as possible tell us what ARENA does? What are your basic accountabilities and, specifically, what is the uniqueness of that? There’s accountability that no other agency has.

Mr Miller: That’s a good question. We are an agency that is specifically around to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, to increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia and to facilitate the achievement of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Our functions include the provision of financial support in the form of grant support and the sharing of knowledge, which is very important to ensure the money we spent is leveraged and available to more than just the proponent we fund so that Australia’s energy transition can happen in an accelerated and stable fashion.

Senator ROBERTS: Specifically with regard to the people at the table, apart from Senator Ayres—and he’d be happy that I’m leaving him out—what is the total salary package of each of the people at the desk here? I’ll exempt anyone who’s not at Senior Executive Service level, but if you are at executive level I’ll ask for the band you’re in and the total remuneration package, including on-costs?

Mr Faris: I’m a band 1 officer, seconded across from the department. I think I’m at band 1.6. I don’t have my salary figures off the top of my head, but they’re actually in our annual report. I’m listed as one of the key management personnel in our annual report, which was tabled last week. You can find that information specifically.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them on notice, please?

Senator Ayres: I think what the officer has said to you is that they’re in the annual report. If there’s anything in addition to the annual report, we are happy to provide that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors, at ARENA? Could you give me a breakdown of the numbers, please?

Mr Miller: Again, I might follow Senator Ayres’s lead and refer you to the annual report, which has this information for the last financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Numbers, breakdown into permanent employees, casual employees, contractors?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, maybe I could help you out. If you were to grab a copy of that and have a look through, you could potentially put any further questions on notice. There is a breakdown in their annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do that. Future Made in Australia—Senator Ayres raised that. The No. 1 cost category in manufacturing today around the world is no longer labour, it’s electricity—with very few exceptions. China uses coal-fired power, sometimes including alcohol, but produces almost 10 times in terms of alcohol production. They have a production rate of $4.5 billion, heading for $5 billion, a year. They produce electricity and sell it, I am told, for 8c a kilowatt hour. Australia is at 25c a kilowatt hour, thanks largely to the transitioned components. Why is Labor so hostile towards manufacturing? Clearly, net zero destroys manufacturing. You also said that there’s no risk. That’s just a slogan. There’s huge risk when you’ve gone from being the cheapest electricity provider in the world to amongst the most expensive. I don’t know why you keep letting down Australian workers.

Senator Ayres: There’s a series of propositions in that we could—

Senator ROBERTS: They’re facts.

Senator Ayres: You assert that they’re facts.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour versus 25c a kilowatt hour.

Senator Ayres: As I said, you assert that they are facts. It may come as news to you, but the economy in the People’s Republic of China is structured a little bit differently to the Australian economy.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour—

Senator Ayres: There are some differences between our political and economic systems and the way that the government interacts with the electricity generation system and indeed the way the industry works is different. Our job here in Australia, if we’re acting in the national interest, is to secure Australia’s position. It is very clear that we have a series of forces acting upon our electricity system and our energy system more broadly. Firstly, most of our ageing coal-fired generators announced their closure under the previous government. There are many of them.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s cheaper to replace them new coal-fired power stations.

Senator Ayres: Many of them are coming to the end of their operational life. Some of them have been extended by state governments. The cheapest form of future energy for Australia is renewables and storage.

Senator ROBERTS: Only if you omit coal, hydrogen—

Senator Ayres: I did not interrupt you. I interrupted Senator Cadell earlier when he was being obnoxious, but I didn’t interrupt you.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean you want me to get obnoxious?

Senator Ayres: I don’t want to interrupt you. I don’t like interrupting people.

CHAIR: I’m going to interrupt you both and say that we are coming very close to the lunchbreak. I’ll ask you to wrap up. To be clear, Senator Roberts, you’ve had 11.5 minutes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That was my last question.

CHAIR: Do you feel like you’ve had a sufficient answer?

Senator ROBERTS: Very.

CHAIR: Excellent. I’m glad to hear it.

/by

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Labor Pressed on Cost of Renewables Plan

,

Assistant Trade Minister Tim Ayres has been caught in a heated stoush with Sky News host Laura Jayes over the ongoing national energy debate.

Despite having been in power for the past three years, the Albanese government refuses to discuss its renewable energy plans.

Instead the government is insistent on just tackling Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal, running a “scare campaign” against the proven clean source of power.

Minister Ayres repeatedly refused to discuss the cost of the Albanese government’s energy plans during an interview with Sky News on Monday. Asked by Laura Jayes if he could tell voters the total system costs of Labor’s energy plans, Minister Ayres did not give an answer. “I’m very glad you raised it. You don’t make electricity prices and energy prices lower for Australian industry and households by making them higher,” Minister Ayres said.

Laura pressed Minister Ayres on the fact his government had failed to bring down energy prices by $275 per year as promised at the last election – “Here we are three years later, and you still can’t have any upfront conversation with any minister in your government about why that has happened,” she said. Rather than respond to the criticism or discuss any of the government’s energy plans heading into the upcoming election, Minister Ayres changed the subject. “Peter Dutton’s nuclear reactor plan will make electricity $1,200 more expensive from day one,” he said.

The @SkyNewsAust host said it was “pretty telling” that when she attempted to discuss Labor’s energy plans, all Mr Ayres wanted to do was talk about the opposition. “This is what really annoys people though,” she said. “That (voters are) told that the other guys – who haven’t been in power for three years – it’s all their fault and you’re not willing to take any responsibility.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has still failed to address the fact his government failed to deliver on its promise to reduce power bills by $275.

While he has blamed international pressures, such as the Ukraine War, the election promise was repeated even after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

Mr Ayres told Laura Jayes to “focus on the facts” after she raised the $275 promise. “I am focussed on the facts. Where’s the $275?” she responded. But the Labor minister again pivoted back to the opposition. “Every day that we’re about to have a hot day. Peter Dutton and poor old Angus Taylor and Ted O’Brien … are out there predicting that the power is going to go off,” he said. “And it doesn’t go off.”

The NSW government was forced to ask residents to reduce their power usage during a mild heatwave in November 2024.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) struggled to avoid blackouts and requested factories shut down to reduce power demands.

AEMO was forced to issue a “lack of reserve” notice due to insufficient power supply, exacerbated by breakdowns in several coal-fired plants.

Minister Ayres claimed the blackouts were “inevitably” because of storm damage or coal plant failures but not because of renewables.

During the recent heatwave, renewables were unable to back up the coal-fired plant breakdowns because solar production came off at 3 pm when people return home to use energy at home.

/3 Comments/by

The Impact of Net-Zero on the Environment and Farmland

Renewables are incredibly destructive to our environment and good, productive farmland.

This is a great documentary from Advance Australia covering how people pushing net-zero like the Greens party are doing huge harm to our environment and ability to feed ourselves.

/3 Comments/by

Energy Reality: 81% Coal and Gas Reliance

,

I’ve got a very simple goal – make it as cheap as possible to turn the lights on. Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese say we should comply with the Paris Agreement instead.

You can only trust One Nation to put Australia and your power bills first.

/by

Renewable Energy: Land Use and Cost Concerns

,

Coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations each have about 40 hectares of footprint, with a very narrow target transmission lines straight to the cities. In contrast, solar and wind installations are scattered and located away from the main cities, taking up enormous amounts of space. Their energy density is very low, requiring a vast amount of land to produce the same power, and they aren’t on consistently. This increases transmission costs and the amount of land that regions must devote to solar, wind, and now batteries, causing significant angst.

Around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar and wind has also increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. For example, look at Germany.

A surface coalmine must pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and if it is rehabilitated properly to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. However, there is no such bond for solar and wind companies to set aside funds for decommissioning their complexes at the end of their life. This needs to change!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Your predecessor said, ‘Australia’s random renewable energy push needs to be overhauled and a nationwide stocktake is required to determine what should be built and where it should go.’ Are you committed to that overall overhaul?

Mr Sheldon: That is an observation or recommendation made by Mr Dyer, and I think that’s been built into the review that Mr Duggan has just been talking about. So all those action plans and so on are designed to
ensure—

Senator ROBERTS: When’s that coming out? I’m sorry, I missed it.

Mr Duggan: The action plan has been agreed by the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, so that’s now a public document. So we’re in the process now of implementing. The full response to the review was
published on 19 July.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So that’s been included in their recommendations?

Mr Duggan: Yes, that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer also said, ‘The sort of granular planning required for a once in a generation transformation to secure the nation’s energy supply still had not happened.’ Is that now in the report as well—
granular planning?

Mr Duggan: Yes, this was a recommendation to governments. As you would know, a lot of the detail, the specific planning around land use and specific locations of related transmission, sits with the state governments
and involves a very big input from the local governments. So a lot of the argumentation around that recommendation was to point to some of the best practice that already exists and to encourage that to be taken up
by the other states and territories.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of pain in the regions now, because they’re bearing the brunt of solar and wind disturbances.

Mr Duggan: What the report highlighted was that, certainly where best practice is not happening, there was an opportunity to improve the way projects are being delivered to the betterment of communities. That’s
absolutely correct.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems like it’s hell for leather, just do whatever you want. And there’s a lot of cash flying around, which is inducing councils to bypass some of their own ordinances, as we understand it.

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, the government inherited the last government’s framework and commissioned Mr Dyer to do this report because it’s in the interests of rural and regional communities and of an
effective rollout of generation and transmission capability that we improve the governance and consultation processes and all of the things that are included in Mr Dyer’s report. That’s what’s motivated the government to commission this report. On those nine recommendations, I think Mr Duggan said three of them are directed towards the Commonwealth, because there are multiple participants in this process, but they have, essentially, all been adopted. It’s our job now to operationalise that effectively in a way that addresses, I think, many of the issues that you raise.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Minister. Are you aware that a coal-fired power station and a nuclear power station have about 40 hectares of footprint, and that’s it, and a very narrow target transmission
corridor straight to the main users, which are the cities and the provincial cities? Solar and wind are scattered and away from the main cities and they take up enormous room. Their energy density is very low, which means that you need an enormous amount of land to produce the same power. And even then you can’t produce it regularly. So that increases transmission costs, and the amount of land the regions are devoting to solar, wind and transmission, and also now to batteries. It’s causing a lot of angst. Are you aware of that?

Senator Ayres: I’m certainly aware, on one hand, that, with the processes for approval and consultation with these projects, we were operating with the last government’s processes, and we are working to improve those. I’m also aware that you’re trying to make a broader point, I guess, about the merit or otherwise of the approach that is being taken by the government and the states and Commonwealth in terms of building an energy system for the future. I appreciate that you’re not one of the coalition MPs here, but I think it’s hard to make an argument about community consultation on one hand, and then do a press release that says: ‘We’re going to turn up with seven nuclear reactors in your neighbourhood, whether you like it or not. We’re not going to tell you how much they cost, or how many of them we’re going to build—but, Muswellbrook, here you go, whether you like it or not, a nuclear reactor’—

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. A coal-fired power station would be fine—

Senator Ayres: That will be very expensive. What we know, and I think the evidence that you’ve heard today shows—and I understand you don’t agree with it; I think you’ve demonstrated over time that you are impervious to the facts and evidence that are provided by the agencies—

Senator ROBERTS: I do the contrary, Minister. I love evidence.

Senator Ayres: That’s your right, I understand that. But the shift to the cheapest form of energy is what the government is interested in here. Claims are made—some of them very wild claims, and some of them
somewhere between misinformation and disinformation—about the scale of land that is required for these projects. I understand that people make those claims and some people retweet them and repost them—pretty
irresponsible in my view. But we have commissioned the Dyer report for a reason; that is, to improve the processes. The minister believes, and the government believes, that adopting those, together with the appointment of Mr Mahar and other steps that the government is undertaking, will improve the effectiveness of the consultation process as we get on with one of the most important nation building things that government can do, and that is to deliver the lowest cost, most reliable energy system as we upgrade our energy system so that we can have manufacturing jobs and low cost, reliable, renewable energy and storage for households and business into the future. It’s a decades-long pathway and we’re determined to do it in the most efficient way possible for the Australian people.

Senator ROBERTS: There are two things I would remind you of, Minister. One is that the energy density drives the cost, and physics does not change the very low energy density of solar and wind, whereas coal and
especially nuclear are very high energy density. The second thing is that, everywhere around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar wind, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. Have a look at Germany. Something that Mr Dyer was very passionate about was rehabilitation bonds, so that these wind and solar companies have put money away for decommissioning the complexes at the end of life. A surface coalmine has to pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and then, at the end of the life of the mine, if it’s rehabilitated properly, to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. There is no bond for solar and wind. What work have you done on putting reforms to government that would ensure there is money put away to clean up the environment, not just leave a toxic wasteland? Specifically, what have you done with the government?

Mr Sheldon: Can I just clarify that question? Is it: what work has the AEIC done to raise that issue with government?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Sheldon: I think Mr Dyer raised that. It was in his annual report in 2022 that he raised this issue about performance bonds in relation to wind farms in particular.

Senator ROBERTS: And what work has been done in following up?

Mr Sheldon: It’s certainly one of those issues that does get raised with us. It’s not in the top 10 or so issues that are raised with us in the complaints that we receive. We’re like a small ombudsman. We receive complaints. It’s an issue that does get raised. During the time that I’ve been in the role, from 2 April this year, it has been raised a few times, but it’s certainly not the top issue. In terms of what is happening, I think since 2022, when Mr Dyer raised the issue, what I’ve observed in the time that I’ve been in the role is that, in different jurisdictions, there’s certainly work done to increase transparency. One of our roles, I guess, in the AEIC is to promote more transparency around these projects.

Senator ROBERTS: What, specifically, have you done?

Mr Sheldon: It’s not our role to implement policy. We’ve identified issues and we certainly monitor them. New South Wales, for example, has recently worked on its renewable energy plan, which includes standard
clauses and so on around the landholders in relation to this sort of issue. We’re monitoring that, but we don’t have responsibility for implementing it, as a complaint handling body. If we identify good examples, we’ll identify them as part of our role.

Senator ROBERTS: So what are you doing, specifically, to make sure that the bonds come into place?

Mr Sheldon: We don’t have a role to implement putting that in place. It’s certainly something we can raise as an issue. We have a range of mechanisms to do that. One of them is the annual report, which, obviously, comes out every year, on a calendar year basis. And part of what’s always been appended to that annual report is a series of observations that have really been built on the observations of the commissioner over many years—which is where the observation was made in 2022. That’s a place where we can raise that with officials that do have policy responsibility for these sorts of matters. That’s generally how we do it. We also have a website where we would raise things. We have reporting obligations to the minister. So, if we identify an issue, we obviously include that in our observations or reports.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I ask if you have much more to go? We’re running terribly behind.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to make a comment to the minister. Minister, this is a comment, but there’s no reflection on the people at the table with you right now, because they’re interim—well, you’re not in interim,
but Mr Dyer was a thorough professional—

Senator Ayres: We’re all interim in one sense or another, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer was a thorough professional, who did his job extremely well. We happily endorsed him in Senate estimates. He was effectively an ombudsman, and a very good one.

/2 Comments/by

Snowy Hydro: A Wasteful Project

,

According to information from the crew working on Snowy Hydro, the reason the Florence tunnel boring machine became jammed while drilling a bend is because it was used for too long between scheduled maintenance. This practice reduces production costs and increases boring rates, however as the cutting wheels wear down, the tunnel is cut to a narrower width. In this case, the machine jammed on a bend where the full width was needed for clearance.

I asked about this at the last Estimates and received a partial admission that the jam was due to worn cutting wheels, but that it was a one-time occurrence. I have requested the maintenance logs for Florence to determine if this was indeed an isolated incident or part of a wider problem.

One Nation believes the Snowy Hydro project is a fool’s errand. While the sunk cost (money spent so far) is around $4 billion, completing the project will cost an additional $20 billion. This does not include the drilling region, which is full of asbestos – a can of worms yet to be addressed.

Another problem is that the electricity from Snowy 2.0 is being sent to Victoria and South Australia via Hume Link, which began construction this week. Hume Link involves putting two high-voltage power lines (two towers) across 360 km of bushland, which will require clearing, as well as farmland and forcibly reclaimed private property. This will cost another $5 billion.

All this expense just to provide firming of unreliable wind and solar power, when a zero emission coal plant could do the same thing for a few billion.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know if this was asked before, but is Florence moving?

Mr Barnes: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How long has she been moving?

Mr Barnes: She has been moving in a more predictable fashion since July and a total length of 1.6 metres and we are now achieving—kilometres. That was true a year ago. We’re now achieving the rates we need to achieve the target date of December ’28.

Senator ROBERTS: How far has it drilled since July?

Mr Barnes: I would have to come back to you on that specific.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can I ask about maintenance on the tunnel boring machines. I understand a cutting head inspection must be performed every mere six to eight metres, stopping every two metres for concrete
behind. Is that a fair statement of the normal operation of a TBM?

Mr Barnes: The way the TBM advances is that it excavates a two-metre length, and the concrete segments that form the tunnel lining are then placed into the—the circumference of the tunnel. And that takes about 40
minutes, typically. So in that 40-minute period someone will inspect the cutter head to make sure that they can then do the next two metres. Periodically, we stop it for longer and do maintenance and replace some parts.

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, weekends are normally used for the inspections on the cutter head.

Mr Barnes: Snowy 2.0 is a 24/7 operation, so it happens as it occurs. So if it was a Wednesday evening when we have to do some maintenance, that’s when we would do it.

Senator ROBERTS: How long has it been 24 hours?

Mr Barnes: Since the start of the construction.

Senator ROBERTS: Since the start. Okay. Thank you. Is it true that the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time sometime in the last few months and that the tunnel is, as a result, being built to 11.4 metre
width?

Mr Barnes: The tunnel—

Senator ROBERTS: I think the specification is 11.5.

Mr Barnes: I can’t remember the exact figures, but the tunnel boring machine does construct a circumference which is over 11 metres and then there is ground and a concrete segment that brings the interior of the tunnel to just under 10 metres.

Senator ROBERTS: What are the specifications on the drill before you put the lining? Is it 11.5 or 11.4?

Mr Barnes: It’s just over 11, I think is the number.

Senator ROBERTS: Just over 11?

Mr Barnes: We can come back on notice but it is over 11 and then the internal circumference is under 10 because—

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought they would be very important specs.

Mr Barnes: Well, they are very important specs but I don’t keep every number in my head.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but that would be fundamental to the project, wouldn’t it?

Mr Barnes: Yes, they are fundamental and we have an international design joint venture of Tractebel and Lombardi who have signed off on these as specifications that will last 150 years.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there anyone in the room who knows what the designed cutting diameter is? 11.5, 11.4?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: No one?

Mr Barnes: No, but we can provide you that information on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: So, as I understand it, the cutting width spec is 11.5 and that because the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time, the tunnel as a result is 11.4, which caused Florence to get wedged on a
bend. Is that correct?

Mr Barnes: That’s not because of the design characteristics. There was a period in May when we hit very hard rock as we were going around a bend, and that hard rock wore down the edge cutters quite dramatically. I think that happened—I will get these dates wrong, but it happened on a Thursday. We were public on the Friday with that information, and on the Monday we had a specialist crew on site who used high-spec water blasting to relieve that pressure. Florence has now moved forward and is on the straight so doesn’t have any corners to deal with.

Senator ROBERTS: So for clarity, you are saying that Florence never cut a width of less than 11.5. I just said that the spec was 11.5 and the reason it became stuck on a bend was not because the tunnel was being cut to a lesser width, 11.5, as a result of overextending the life of the cutting wheels to speed up excavation?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you please provide the maintenance log on notice of inspections and replacement of the cutting wheels on Florence for the last two years?

Mr Barnes: Probably. I’m not sure what that would help the minister with—

Senator Ayres: We will take that on notice, if we can, and see whether that is something that we can sensibly provide.

Senator ROBERTS: Swinging quickly to Kurri. What is the completion date of the Kurri gas pipeline? I understand the power station will have to burn diesel until the gas pipeline is connected. Is that correct?

Mr Barnes: The current schedule is for the gas infrastructure to be completed by 10 March.

Senator ROBERTS: 10 March next year. Where is the gas coming from and how secure is your supply over the timeframes of 10 years and 25 years?

Mr Barnes: So we rely on a gas portfolio drawing on the national gas grid. We have a range of contracts. Sometimes we access the wholesale market on the day. We announced earlier this year that we had entered into a gas storage arrangement in western Victoria. So I think the simple answer is that it’s a portfolio approach.

Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the storage facility in Victoria?

Mr Barnes: It is owned by a company called Lochard Energy.

Senator ROBERTS: Above ground energy?

Mr Barnes: It’s underground storage. The Iona Gas Storage Facility, I think is the name of the facility.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s rock. It is not lined?

Mr Barnes: No, it’s an old geological storage cavern.

Senator ROBERTS: The Newcastle Herald reported on the Albanese government commitment of $7 million on top of the current $950 million construction cost to allow the plant to run on a blend of hydrogen and gas. How far advanced is the hydrogen component at Kurri?

Mr Barnes: We have now had confirmation of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that with some notification, we can run at 30 per cent hydrogen.

Senator ROBERTS: How far advanced is the hydrogen component of the Kurri plant?

Mr Barnes: We have proven technically with our equipment provider and with some modification, which we have not yet committed to, that would enable us to run 30 per cent hydrogen.

Senator ROBERTS: Any idea of the completion date?

Mr Barnes: We are not currently executing that project.

Senator ROBERTS: So where is the—you are not executing the project on hydrogen?

Mr Barnes: No. We know it is technically capable.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of it for now.

Mr Barnes: For now, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Where would the gas come from? Mitsubishi?

Mr Barnes: Mitsubishi are the turbine manufacturer. The question of hydrogen supply we haven’t assessed.

Senator ROBERTS: Any idea at all? Because hydrogen is very expensive to produce, as I understand it.

Mr Barnes: Yes. We haven’t assessed that.

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t assessed the cost?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you so much, Chair.

/by