The Queensland LNP has “significantly underestimated” the huge costs of delaying closure of the state’s ageing coal plants while still shooting for net zero emissions, submissions to the government’s Energy Roadmap Amendment Bill 2025 have warned.
A range of submissions from unions, energy industry lobbies and green groups have raised red flags about the cost to the environment and to consumers of premier David Crisafulli’s plan to axe the state’s renewable energy targets and keep coal running without planned closure dates.
“The Queensland Government has claimed that a slower transition to new electricity generation outlined in the Energy Roadmap will have capital savings of $26 billion out to 2035… [and] save households $1,035 per year,” a submission from The Australia Institute says.
“[But] there are serious doubts about whether the government has properly accounted for the maintenance costs of running aging generators.”
According to TAI analysis, the cost of extra carbon abatement that Queenslanders will bare if the state extends coal-fired power while maintaining a net zero target is estimated at an eye-watering $A98.7 billion out to 2050.
“This dwarfs the $26 billion that the Energy Roadmap proposes in capital savings from running Queensland’s old generators for longer,” the TAI says.
“Even if Queensland abandons its net zero commitment, this will simply transfer this cost to the wider Australian community.”
A submission from Nexa Advisory says its own analysis shows that, far from slashing energy bills, the extension of unreliable coal will increase wholesale electricity costs in the state by 21 per cent – or $115.7 billion – compared to a planned, orderly transition.
Major concerns are also raised about the $1.6 billion the Queensland government has proposed to budget for the maintenance of the state’s ageing and increasingly unpredictable fossil fuel-based electricity generation fleet.
The Queensland Council of Unions says that this is “nowhere near enough” to ensure that old coal plants are reliable and safe – particularly in light of incidents like the 2021 Callide C explosion or the major event at its C3 unit in April this year.
“Queenslanders need a firm commitment for the ongoing funding of scheduled maintenance, including major overhauls, particularly given the plan to extend some stations up to their technical end of life,” the QCU says in its submission.
“This is critical for the safety of relevant workers and their communities, and to ensure the safety, reliability and stability of the network.”
TAI, too, flags the $1.6 billion, five-year generator maintenance budget as “problematic,” given the state has spent $2 billion over the last five years maintaining generators.
“Rather than maintenance costs falling, as these generators reach the end of their technical lives, these costs will increase,” it says.
“Unless it is additional, or ‘new money’, then it represents at best business-as-usual spending, or potentially a significant underestimate of the cost of maintaining aging generation assets.”
The Electrical Trades Union estimates that it will likely cost $3.3 billion to refurbish state-owned coal power stations to keep them running – more than double the money allocated by the Crisafulli government, so far.
The Mining and Energy Union says it is “deeply concerned” by the lack of certainty on coal plant closure timelines offered by the Roadmap, which it warns will make it “near impossible for workers and communities to plan for their futures.”
“The overarching trajectory for coal-fired power in Australia is towards closure,” the MEU Queensland District submission says.
“In this context, we find that the Roadmap is subjective, opaque, vague, and non-committal with regard to the new closure dates for state-owned coal power stations.
“Queensland energy workers and communities deserve a carefully managed, consultative, and orderly transition, not a bare minimum plan that leaves decisions to the last minute.”
“Queensland is on an expensive and high-risk energy transition pathway,” Nexa CEO Stephanie Bashir says in her submission.
“Stating the intention to run [coal] assets to the end of their technical lives is economically unfeasible – and will likely require significant government support to maintain commercial viability into the 2030s.
“The Bill compounds this risk by introducing policy uncertainty, weakening planning transparency and concentrating decision-making without sufficient oversight factors. This is likely to slow replacement renewable generation and prompt capital flight to other states which uphold more stable, transparent frameworks.”
If you would like to join more than 27,400 others and get the latest clean energy news delivered straight to your inbox, for free, please click here to subscribe to our free daily newsletter.
