LNP’s knee-jerk rule change suggests Sunshine State “closed for business” on wind and solar

Major new wind farm assessment rules rushed into play in Queensland by the Liberal National Party last week will have “significant implications” for renewable energy developers in the state, industry experts have warned, including on the economic viability and risk profile of projects.

The planning changes, and in particular the manner in which they were put in place, have also raised grave concerns among green groups, adding to the impression that the newly elected LNP government is rapidly capitulating to the party’s anti-renewables faction.

The new planning laws, announced last Friday and in play two days later, appear – on the face of it – to be a good thing; requiring all new wind projects to consult with local communities and answer questions about community and environmental impacts and effects on farmland.

In this way, the amendments catch Queensland up to industry best practice and make mandatory what most renewable energy developers already consider vital to project success – strong social licence.

While most wind and solar projects in Queensland have been conducting at least some community consultation, green groups say there has been confusion under Labor’s fast-track program about what best practice looks like, with some developers considering themselves to have gone ‘above and beyond’ when making bare minimum efforts at engagement.

“There’s no doubt that in the way we engage with community we all need to step up and for those that can’t make it, they need to step out,” said Rob Wheals, CEO of the Andrew Forrest-owned Squadron Energy, in response to the new rules on Friday.

“We shouldn’t be afraid to hold ourselves accountable in how we engage with communities and develop and manage our assets.

“There should be clear protocols that manage access to land and protect agriculture and biosecurity.”

But like so many planning amendments, the devil for developers will be in the detail and, according to some experts, the detail is throwing up some worrying red flags.

“The change to impact assessment for all wind farms in Queensland will have significant implications for renewable energy developers going forward, including in relation to the economic viability and risk profile of projects,” says an analysis of the regulatory changes by King & Wood Malleson.

Of particular concern is the fact that any approvals issued to wind farms may be the subject of appeals to the state’s Planning and Environment Court, with the same fate likely to face all renewable energy projects under further expected reforms.

Wind farm developers should, the authors say, “factor in the risk of third-party submissions and appeals into project timeframes and budgets, noting any person can make a submission and bring an appeal (i.e. there is no requirement for that person to have standing).

“Typically, appeals can take at least a further 12 to 18 months to resolve,” it adds. “There is also more flexibility and discretion for the decision-maker about whether to approve an impact assessable development application.”

The concern here is that wind projects in the Sunshine State are headed into a similar development pipeline quagmire as they have experienced in New South Wales, where quirks of planning can be manipulated by anti-renewables opponents to delay and block projects that would otherwise pass regulatory muster.

One such rule has sent numerous NSW renewable energy projects to the Independent Planning Commission for additional, high-level assessment after receiving a certain number of submissions of objection during the public consultation period. In many cases, these objections come from people with no connection to the proposed project, sometimes living more than 100km away.

A similar phenomenon was recently brought to light in Germany, where an anti-renewables group of about 6,660 people was found to be behind a slew of over 440,000 letters objecting to plans for wind farm developments in 40 areas in the Neckar-Alb region of Baden-Württemberg.

For other observers of the Queensland renewable energy policy, it is the execution of the “surprise legislative amendments” – to quote King & Wood Malleson – that is the greater concern, coming from a government that has no discernible renewable energy plan and a stated opposition to the state’s current targets.

“We have been calling for increased community consultation for large-scale renewable energy projects, so we welcome the increased requirements for communities to be notified and make submissions on wind developments,” Clare Silcock, energy strategist for the Queensland Conservation Council (QCC), told Renew Economy on Tuesday.

“However, we’ve seen the new state government consistently undermine Queensland’s transition to renewable energy. They’ve flagged their intention to repeal the state’s renewable energy targets, they’re withdrawing support for a significant Gladstone hydrogen project, and they have no energy plan.

“It’s vital that we keep building renewable energy in Queensland to meet our climate goals, increase energy supply and bring down power bills. We’re concerned that the Queensland LNP is essentially signaling to the renewable energy industry that Queensland is closed for business.”

The LNP has made clear is does not support the previous government’s renewable targets of reaching 50 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2030. Queensland remains the state with the lowest share of wind and solar and the highest dependence on coal fired generation.

The QCC has also expressed concern about the way the LNP has gone about these changes, rushing them into play despite consultation being incomplete, and couching them as a levelling of the playing field between renewables and fossil fuels when this is patently not the case.

“These changes to the way that wind energy is assessed in Queensland mean that small wind farms will have to jump through more hurdles than some coal mines to get approved,” Silcock says.

“Coal mines that come in under a size threshold don’t have to do a full Environmental Impact Statement, but full assessment will be applied to all wind farms. It’s crazy that a wind farm could have to do a more strenuous assessment than a coal mine.

“The Queensland government needs to deliver an energy plan to repower our grid to show that they’re not ideologically opposed to renewable projects and they’re committed to meeting 75% emissions reduction like they promised.”

The Clean Energy Council, too, has cautioned against “knee-jerk decisions” that could risk future investment in the Sunshine State, which remains one of Australia’s most coal dependent, despite huge progress on renewables over the past several years.

Queensland planning minister and deputy premier, Jarrod Bleijie, has said the rules will not be applied retrospectively, to projects already approved, but not everyone is convinced.

Certainly, the fate of the Brookfield-backed Moonlight Range wind farm and big battery remains unclear, after its January approval was retrospectively reopened to consultation until mid-March.

CEC national spokesperson, Chris O’Keefe, said the retrospective application of new rules to the Moonlight project – and the pause on three others, including Windlab’s 1.4 GW Bungapan wind farm, which is contracted to help power Rio Tinto’s huge smelting and refining operations in Gladstone – sends a dangerous signal to future clean energy investors and to industry seeking to decarbonise.

“Queensland leads the nation in attracting investment in resources and clean energy projects in Australia and we must ensure this continues,” O’Keefe said in a statement on Monday.

“For Australia to remain an attractive proposition for future clean energy projects, investors need certainty. The changes announced this week have eroded that certainty for investors in Queensland and the prospect of keeping these well-paying local jobs in Australia.

“As the peak body representing 1000 members across the renewable energy supply chain, we strongly urge the Crisafulli government to give the industry due notice and the opportunity to contribute to policy reform, prior to the introduction of any future changes to the project approval process.”