Related content
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Energy company AGL will not say whether it intends to re-lodge its application for a gas-fired power project at Dalton.
As reported by the Goulburn Post on Friday, the company announced the withdrawal of its application before the State Government to seek a two-year extension on the plant’s approval.
The $1.5 billion station was to be built 4km from the village following its 2012 approval. AGL suspended the project until market conditions improved but when it was clear the five-year consent would lapse, it applied for a two-year extension to consider its feasibility.
But the fact this was lodged under Part 3A transitional laws, a section of the Planning Act that was abolished, always riled residents. It came to the fore at community meetings this year.
AGL’s head of government and community relations Tony Chappel said the company had listened to these concerns by withdrawing the application. Asked why it was only now doing so, given comments aired at the earlier meetings, Mr Chappel said the issue had become clearer in the latest round of public submissions.
“As we prepare our response to submissions it was abundantly clear there were concerns about the integrity of the process and without that, you can’t have confidence in the outcome. We responded to it by withdrawing the application,” he said.
“Fundamentally we acknowledge there are problems with the legacy Part 3A process. Some politicians have gone to jail over its abuse. For us the integrity of the process is a prime consideration.”
Mr Chappel said the decision was AGL’s alone and the the Department of Environment and Planning had not advised them to do so.
The company insists it is not walking away from the development but taking a step back and reassessing. At the same time it is backing gas-fired technology, battery storage and pumped hydro to fill peak electricity demand.
“The need for this energy service (gas-fired) is more apparent every day,” Mr Chappel said.
“For the next 10 years fast-start gas will be the most dependable and battery storage is continuing to advance. We are studying all of these but I think NSW will need more gas infrastructure in the near future. It is not moving away from it.”
Mr Chappel said the company had not decided whether to lodge another application for the Dalton plant under existing planning laws, ensuring up to date environmental studies. This had been a sticking point with the community, which argued the reports were outdated.
He told The Post that AGL had worked with local and state government and industry partners to find the “optimal location.”
“It may be more than one site but it needs to be close to electricity and gas infrastructure and there are constraints with both at Dalton so we are looking at a number of different infrastructure configurations,” he said.
“...We are looking at the best site for the community. It could be elsewhere in the Shire or a different project on the property,” he said.
Alternatively, Mr Chappel said it could also be somewhere else. He hoped a decision would be made next year on a NSW location.
Mr Chappel said AGL was seeking approval for an intermediate peaking plant in South Australia and was looking for more sites. The Dalton project is an open cycle plant. He could not say whether Dalton was being considered for an intermediate development.
Whatever the decision, he pledged “open authentic dialogue.” He told The Post that AGL had made a “major error in going quiet” after it won approval in 2012.
“It undermined confidence and made any kind of meaningful dialogue difficult,” he said.
“We are looking at building renewable energy to complement the technology, so there will be a lot of consultation.”
Asked whether AGL would host a meeting to update the community on its intentions, Mr Chappel said he was happy to speak with people who made submissions. If there were further questions, the company would host a meeting.
Australians Against Dalton Power Project spokesman Phil Waine said the community was dubious because the company had “lied” to them before, specifically on job numbers associated with the project. Several submitters raised this in objections.
”They will have to do things differently if they want to get past us. I have no faith they will give us any notice of an ambush,” he said.