NSW planning department can’t see the forest for the trees

The small changes in the NSW energy project approvals process are minor, and the system is still way short of what’s required.

NSW has a “new” energy policy framework. However, the proposed changes are marginal and don’t seem to go within cooee of what will be required. In particular, the proposed new framework appears to take no account of the renewable energy zones (REZs) and no account of duplication of studies.

And the changes also directly contradict the state government assertion that it had adopted recommendation 46 from the Marsden Jacobs checkup report around duplication of studies: The new wind guidelines don’t have any concept beyond the EIS of an individual project.

My biggest criticism is that the planning department is simply siloing individual developments and not doing well enough at the bigger picture.

There is a national and state imperative to get lots of wind and solar built over the next five years. There is an environmental imperative to reduce carbon emissions, something that the department of Planning doesn’t allow for, because it’s not in the Environment Act.

How could this be improved within the context of social license? My highly amateur suggestions are:

1. Write an emissions reduction clause into the “NSW Environment and Protection Act”, the effect of which would be to shift some burden onto objectors to wind farms. However, this still does nothing for social license, in terms of resolving developer/land user conflicts.
2. Write into the legislation a clause saying that there is no requirement to consider visual impacts on dwelling entitlements (undeveloped land). Under the current law this must be considered by the department. To me it’s absurd in the majority of cases. To be fair the guidelines suggest ways to minimise this requirement but I don’t see the need for it to be considered as a matter of course.
3. More generally my thought is that the Department of Planning can do a better job, one less focussed on individual projects and more focused on the REZ. Examples include:
   1. Up-to-date color coded maps of all EIS wind and solar farm proposals within an REZ where the colors represent the stage the EIS is at. Those same maps could show the road works proposed, summarise the work force requirements. In general instead of being a negative focussed gatekeeper the Dept could be a positive planner and manager of the REZ development. My strong feeling is that this the best thing that could be done to build social license. My expectation is that the Department employees would like an opportunity to make a positive contribution and use the vast amount of information contained in the various EIS’s to build REZ and State wide social license. The Dept has a lot of EIS data. Lets use it.
   2. Specifying some REZ or sub REZ baseline studies where the development proponent is only required to show how  or if their proposal is an exception to those studies and how they plan to remedy that exception. After all the Govt has committed to the concept of study sharing.
   3. Far more controversially, some further watering down of the visual impacts along the lines that if only a few residences are “strongly” impacted this should not prevent a development or significant re-siting of turbines.

NSW needs to start building about 1000 turbines in the next three years

6GW is the bare minimum of NSW wind that needs to get built prior to 2030. There are easily enough projects in the EIS process to do that. Easily.

Getting the projects out of the EIS and through the planning commission  (because they will all have 50 objectors), through the GPS and getting certainty about transmission availability and costing is the big deal.

If the average wind farm size is 500MW, something like 12 projects need to be started over the next three years. Recently, though, it’s been taking two to three years, or even longer, to get development approval from the time of lodgement.

That’s if the department will accept your lodgement. Sometimes they just tell you to come back later. “Out to lunch.”

A few months ago I published a list of wind farms with EIS that had progressed a certain distance. Basically, it was the list below; I have left out some of the “more info” sites. Basically every project runs into “more info” and then because of objections will have to run through independent planning commission adjudications.

This list, alone, has enough MW to make a strong dent in NSW’s 12GW wind and solar target by 2030. Luckily there 1000s more MW at earlier stages in the EIS process because the NSW target of 12GW wind and solar is not enough. There is no shortage of projects capable of being quickly developed.

However, progressing projects through the EIS process is truly tortuous. A number of projects are stuck at the “additional info” required stage.

Reading the “additional info” requests, there is a strong feeling of bureaucratic obstruction. In every case there is a “visual” request, often for an individual house; more studies; coordinates of every turbine; etc. For what purpose?

The Dept has recently published:

“Wind Technical Supplement for Lansdcape and Visual Impact Assessement” November 2023

I didn’t want to have to read this but I did, to get a sense of the rules. The guide does a good job of explaining a narrow set of rules, but a poor job at assisting REZ planning and development.

The supplement states:

“This technical supplement recognises that visual amenity should be afforded some protections and provides a range of tools to achieve this outcome. However, it also recognises the fundamental principle that landowners do not have a proprietary right or ownership of a view and a visible wind turbine or ancillary infrastructure does not necessarily constitute a visual impact.”

The guide effectively bans wind turbines being situated within 1.5km of a dwelling unless the owner has negotiated with the turbine owner or other mitigation managed.

NSW recent history of wind farm approval is undeniably poor

On Thursday night last I attended, and in fact presented, at the Sydney Committee of the Australian Institute for Energy [AIE] AGM. The AIE is comprised of people with an interest in the energy industry. Many members are engineers or lawyers, or similar, but membership is open to all.

The AIE holds meetings regularly on a topic of interest for the benefit of members, and these provide an opportunity to enjoy networking drinks and nibbles typically in some posh city office. Meetings are hosted by professional legal and engineering firms.

My co-presenter last Thursday was David Dixon from Rystad Energy. Rystad has about 800 people globally analysing the energy industry and competes with firms like Wood Mackenzie and BNEF.

In Australia, Rystad is arguably the primary supplier of data on the lists of wind and solar farms that might or are being developed. They are recognised authorities on the topic within the industry. In particular, they monitor lodgements of new renewable energy projects development applications.

The following chart shows the length of time between lodgement of a development application and that application being approved.

Back in 2017, approvals took between 100 and 200 days. Now in NSW, and still for mostly moderately sized projects, they are taking at least 400 and 500 days, and longer, for the projects I am monitoring.

It could be that projects have become a lot worse, or it could be that the NSW Planning Dept has just made life far more difficult for developers. According to Rystad, the following issues were cited by developers.

– Planning departments are asking for too much information, much of which is not needed or even known with reasonable certainty at the time of lodging a development application (DA).

– Planning departments are often rescheduling or cancelling site visits needed to allow developers to progress their DA.

– Requirements to engage other government agencies prior to lodging a DA is adding further time and complexity. These agencies are often not adequately resourced to perform the work required for renewable energy proposals.

– Planning departments are often rejecting the lodgement of DAs to satisfy internal timing metrics associated with evaluating DAs from lodgment to decision. Multiple participants commented that this was a particular problem in NSW.

– NSW is pushing developers to install their projects at more challenging locations, leading to more issues with biodiversity, topography geotechnical and cultural heritage, adding to time and cost.

How can the planning department in NSW be rejecting lodgement to satisfy internal timing requirements?  In what world is that an acceptable way to run a state department charged with the vital job of overseeing a significant transition in the NSW economy?

What strikes me again from reading through this “work to rules” approach is how the department just doesn’t seem to get it. The idea surely isn’t to manage the appearance, it’s to actually do a good job.

Marsden Jacobs checkup discussed need for good planning

“At the same time, government needs to recognise that planning policy and implementation is a critical factor in competing for renewable generation. It is a competition internationally, and between states. NSW must be competitive as we have the most urgent need for replacement capacity….

… It is imperative that NSW adequately resource the energy section of its planning portfolio to ensure an efficient, thorough, and transparent approvals process. This is not REZ specific, but across the board. A properly resourced planning approval team would help investment in NSW alongside LTESAs, firm access and new transmission. Time equals money for investors. The industry itself must at the same time deliver quality submissions, comply with guidelines, and secure the support of landholders and communities. Across the state, innovation in community benefits sharing should be recognised and encouraged

The NSW planning system is as important as the Roadmap in encouraging investment in NSW. Ensuring it is adequately resourced to support the Roadmap is vital. Planning principles need to recognise that the REZ program itself concentrates electricity infrastructure development..” Source: NSW Electricity Supply and Reliability checkup.

Marsden Jacobs recommendation 46, which has been adopted by the Government states:

“That the funding agreement between DPE and Energy Co for faster planning approvals in REZs be expanded, and a coordinated approach taken to cumulative impacts and biodiversity assessments.”

It is one thing for the Government to adopt a recommendation and another for it to be shown to be working in practice.

NSW Environment and Protection Act doesn’t mention climate change

I think for many of us the number one environmental issue in Australia is climate change. The Act does not contain the phrase “climate change”. As such, the provisions of the Act are unlikely to be in accord with what’s required for environmental protection.

So my view is the Act should be amended to make climate change part of the Environment Protection Act

Thunderbolt wind farm stuck in DA approval three years and counting

I use the Thunderbolt’s Rock wind project as an example only because of the detail provided by Neoen.

Also, to be fair, Thunderbolt’s Rock was developed under the prior guideline. However, an amateur like me having read Neoen’s process and the new wind guideline will struggle to see any meaningful improvement in the new guideline.

Neoen is a successful developer in Australia with over 3GW  of wind and solar built or under construction, and some of Australia’s first and biggest battery projects.

It is generally regarded as getting projects built on time and to a good standard, a first tier developer in Australia.

Thunderbolt’s Rock is a relatively modest 200MW wind farm. Trivial fact is that Thunderbolt was the local, and not very successful bushranger. The development is located between Bendemeer and Uralla, an area in the region where I grew up. Some trout fishing in the Macdonald River, although a long way from the Hatchery near Ebor. Here is a photo image of view with wind turbines.

The project is considered “State Significant Infrastructure”. I previously published the development steps and to repeat they are:

• Scoping report by Neoen to DPIE (never mind the time to get to decision to provide a scoping report)
• DPIE provides SEARS (Secretary, environmental assessment requirements) to NEOEN;
• Preparation of EIS. In this case this took 2 years of studies including:
  • Seasonal ecology studies;
  • Visual impact;
  • Noise impact;
  • Aboriginal heritage;
  • Traffic assessment.
  • Telcos
  • Hazards
  • Aviation safety.
• Public exhibition of EIS (at least 28 days);
• Response to submissions;
• Assessment by NSW Dept of Planning and the Dept of Environment;
• Determination. This can be by the NSW Minister of Planning or the Independent Planning Commission.

Neoen lodged its scoping report in November 2020. By November 2023 the project has got up to “Response to submissions”.

Three years to get this far. Whatever the reasons, if it’s going to take this long every time, NSW taxpayers and consumers will pay a heavy price in the form of unreliable electricity provided by coal stations that should have been closed five years ago.