6. Broader impacts of the transition

Overview

6.1While there are immense opportunities and significant work is underway, submitters and witnesses identified a range of issues and challenges that must be addressed to ensure Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower.

6.2This chapter summarises key challenges to Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower broadly relating to the following issues:

• Decarbonising Australia’s electricity grid
• Regulatory and approval processes for green energy projects
• Environment and land use
• Social licence and community engagement
• Workforce skills and capability
• Supply chain constraints.

Decarbonising Australia’s electricity grid

6.3The decarbonisation of Australia’s electricity grid is a key part of Australia’s transition to net-zero emissions and is the foundation for Australia’s future green energy export industries. The challenges associated with decarbonising Australia’s domestic electricity grid were expressed to the Committee throughout the inquiry. These challenges related to:

• Reaching renewable energy commitments
• Expanding access to renewable energy supply
• Scale of renewable energy supply
• Impact on energy security, reliability and affordability.

Renewable energy commitments

6.4Electricity from renewable sources has grown significantly in Australia, reaching 32per cent of generation in the National Energy Market (NEM) in 2021–22.[1] The Australian Government has committed to achieving 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, as a key element of transforming Australia’s energy system to meet legislated targets to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 (on 2005 levels) and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.[2]

6.5Ms Rachael de Hosson, Branch Head at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), told the Committee that realising Australia’s ambition to become a green energy superpower will involve ‘… transforming our domestic energy system to use renewable generation, decarbonising the economy and building new clean energy industries for domestic and export markets…’[3]

6.6Achieving this ambition and meeting Australia’s emissions reductions targets are supported by a range of measures and policies such as the Rewiring the Nation program, the Safeguard Mechanism reforms and the Powering the Regions Fund.[4]

6.7DCCEEW advised that it is working with state and territory governments under the National Energy Transformation Partnership to ‘… support the sustainable transformation of Australia’s energy system to net-zero and maximise the economic opportunities offered by the transformation.’[5] As part of this work, DCCEEW is focusing on planning for generation and storage adequacy, and accelerated delivery of priority transmission as well as the development of the Capacity Investment Scheme, a revenue underwriting mechanism to reduce uncertainty and accelerate investment in generation.[6]

6.8Relevant measures and policies delivered by Australian Government departments and agencies as part of the transition to net-zero were discussed in Chapter 3.

6.9The Australian Government’s renewable energy commitments were identified as important to providing policy certainty and a more encouraging investment environment for renewable energy.[7] For example, Mr Simon Corbell, Chief Executive Officer at Clean Energy Investor Group, told the Committee:

… improved conditions around the transition pathway for the sector do provide greater predictability for everyone in the market, both investors and consumers, because everyone can see what the trajectory is. So there's no doubt that the government's commitment to achieve that 82 per cent on renewables over the next decade is a really clear signal that the transition is occurring, and that gives greater certainty to investors and to other participants in the market.[8]

6.10Some stakeholders suggested that reaching the 82 per cent target by 2030 is a significant challenge and others advocated for additional policy drivers if the target is to be achieved.[9]

6.11For example, Mr Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy and Climate Change at the Grattan Institute, told the Committee that in his view, the government’s 2030 renewable target for 82 per cent is out of reach because it should have commenced 10 years ago:

If you look at the numbers at the moment, the costs of things like transmission are going through the roof and that is true of all infrastructure. It is not criticising anybody in particular but that is the nature of the beast. Therefore, in thinking that we can build the transmission grid, it is not the availability of funding that is the issue; it is the basically the coordination and planning of these things.[10]

6.12Similarly, Ms Anna Freeman, Policy Director, Decarbonisation at the Clean Energy Council (CEC), told the Committee that the CEC is concerned that new large-scale generation is not coming online at a sufficient rate to reach 82 per cent by 2030:

The renewable energy plants that our members are working to build and operate are capital-intensive long-life assets which are expected to operate for 25 to 30 years. Therefore, it follows that we need long-term policy settings and market signals that will take us beyond the end of this decade.[11]

6.13Several stakeholders identified that extending the RET to align with the increased targets could be an appropriate mechanism to improve certainty and encourage greater investment in renewable energy.[12] Evidence suggested that while the RET remains an important driver for large-scale project development, it is due to end in 2030 and with the target having been exceeded, the incentives provided under scheme are now largely being supported by voluntary purchases from the private sector.[13]

6.14For example, Ms Freeman of the CEC indicated the need for clearer long-term policy settings to encourage the required deployment of renewable energy. Ms Freeman told the Committee:

… new large-scale generation is not currently coming online at a sufficient rate to reach the government’s forecast of 82 per cent by 2030. The renewable energy plants that our members are working to build and operate are capital-intensive long-life assets which are expected to operate for 25 to 30 years.[14]

… we don’t have any visibility of what will be driving renewable energy deployment after 2030. We have an assumption that it will just get built because its cheaper to operate, but it’s still a highly capital-intensive process to build a wind or solar farm, or hydro or batteries or whatever they might be. We need incentives or at least a certain way of valuing the asset beyond the 2030 mark…

There’s just a great deal of uncertainty about what green value would be worth post 2030, and that makes it difficult to work out what that revenue source is worth to the project and how much that helps. When there’s that level of uncertainty, inherently the banks will value it in a very conservative way…that’s one of the reasons why we think its [sic] important that the government look at extending the RET – because it provides us with a way to be able to maintain that value for projects over time.[15]

6.15Factors identified as assisting with the expansion of renewable energy generation capacity included continued decrease in cost of solar, wind and battery storage,[16] continued technology and efficiency improvements,[17] and significant potential for new generation sources such as offshore wind.[18]

6.16The Committee also received evidence emphasising the need for firming technology such as battery storage and transmission infrastructure to support the expansion of the electricity grid with a high penetration of renewable energy.[19]

6.17For example, Dr Bin Lu, Senior Research Fellow at the Australian National University Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative (ZCEAPI), explained that according to ZCEAPI’s research, more storage and transmission will be needed to support the transition, given the variable nature of renewable energy, ‘So we need storage for energy time shifting and transmission for energy geographic shifting. This will also benefit the future green energy exports industry.[20]

6.18Similarly, on the need for storage, Mr Wayne Smith, External Affairs Manager at the Smart Energy Council (SEC), told the Committee:

To get to 82 per cent renewables by 2030 we need something like 20 gigawatts of renewable energy storage to make sure we're matching it. About half of that renewable energy storage is going to come from the household level and probably through electric vehicles, those batteries on wheels. The other half of it, by 2030, is going to come from large-scale renewable energy storage.[21]

Access to renewable energy

6.19A widely expressed theme in the evidence was the fundamental importance of greater deployment of renewable energy to Australia’s green energy superpower opportunity.[22] For example, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) and Export Finance Australia (EFA) explained that:

Achieving the necessary scale of renewable energy generation capacity will underpin the successful development of potential emerging green export industries, such as renewable electricity exports, clean hydrogen, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing and services exports.[23]

6.20Stakeholders also noted that greater deployment of renewable energy to support export-oriented green energy industries will be in addition to increases needed to meet existing domestic electricity demand (to replace fossil fuel generation) and to meet increased demand from electrification.[24] Sun Cable observed that even for industries and technologies unsuited to electrification in the foreseeable future, renewable energy is generally the critical input to the most competitive solutions, such as green hydrogen.[25]

6.21In addition to the need for renewable energy to be widely available, some submitters emphasised the need for it to be available at low-cost.[26] For example, the ZCEAPI stated: ‘Very low-cost renewable energy supply is the fundamental requirement for Australia’s renewable energy-based export success.’[27]

6.22Several stakeholders underscored the importance of ensuring that export opportunities do not come at the expense of having low-cost renewable energy available for domestic use.[28] For example, ZCEAPI explained:

…export industries need to be based on renewable energy capacity that is additional to that which has been installed to support Australia’s domestic decarbonisation. In many cases the decarbonisation potential of the renewable energy is higher in domestic uses (particularly when offsetting coal fired electricity generation). Furthermore, it is important that energy-based exports do not raise the cost of the net-zero transition for Australian households.[29]

6.23Rewiring Australia made a similar point, stating that if domestic clean energy needs are ‘… overlooked in favour of industrial export of clean energy, the superpower scenario could increase cost of living for households paying for rising prices of fossil fuel powered grids, and significantly delay real emissions reduction in Australia.’[30]

6.24Associate Professor Emma Aisbett, Associate Director, Research at ZCEAPI, emphasised that ‘… it’s important to not divert existing renewable energy assets that can help decarbonise Australia's grid… towards making hydrogen for export.’[31] Dr Aisbett concluded: ‘We need to be aware that there will be some competition as we ramp up our renewable infrastructure between domestic and export-oriented needs, particularly for hydrogen.’[32]

Scale of renewable energy generation capacity

6.25Many submitters indicated that achieving the deployment of renewable energy at the scale and rate that is required for Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower poses a significant challenge.[33]

6.26Various estimates were provided to emphasise the scale of additional renewable energy generation capacity needed to support Australia’s green energy superpower ambitions.[34] Many submitters pointed to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) 2022 Integrated Systems Plan which forecast that the size of the NEM would need to almost double by 2050 to meet growing domestic energy demand as a result of increased electrification to replace fossil fuel energy. Further, if Australia pursues large-scale export of green hydrogen, up to eight times current electricity generation capacity would be required.[35]

6.27DFAT, Austrade and EFA advised ‘… Australia’s total energy exports were 15 times the size of its domestic electricity market’ in 2020–21.[36] Mr David Woods, Chief Economist and First Assistant Secretary at DFAT, elaborated on this comparison:

… transition to being a green energy superpower will require a very significant scale up of our domestic renewable energy generation capacity to underpin the growth of those green energy exports. If I could give you one metric to illustrate that pretty graphically, in 2021 our entire electricity system within Australia – that’s not just the NEM, but includes the networks to the west and to the north – generated 956 petajoules of energy. By comparison, our coal and LNG [liquefied natural gas] exports in that same year represented 15,400 petajoules. There’s a scale, a magnitude of difference between our domestic electricity system in terms of energy versus that which is represented in our energy exports.[37]

6.28The CEC suggested that if Australia pursues further processing and manufacturing opportunities utilising renewable electricity and/or or green hydrogen, the scale required would be even greater.[38] Professor Ken Baldwin, Fellow at the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE), provided an estimate including direct energy exports and a green metals industry:

We calculated our future scenario based on two very simple business-as-usual assumptions. The first assumption is that we will continue to export the same amount of energy in joules to the world as we do now, not in fossil fuels but in hydrogen or undersea cable HVDC [high-voltage direct current] electricity... The second assumption is we continue to mine the same amount of iron ore and aluminium ore as we do at the moment, but we process it onshore into green steel and green aluminium. If you do the numbers on that it will require 27 times the size of the national electricity grid that we have now…[39]

6.29Others estimated a green energy superpower scenario would require 40- or 50-times the current capacity of the NEM being required from renewable energy sources by 2050.[40]

6.30The Heavy Industry Low-Carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre (HILTCRC) advised that for heavy industries to meet commitments to decarbonise their products many gigawatts of new green energy will be required, either as renewable electricity or green hydrogen.[41] To demonstrate scale, HILT CRC estimated decarbonising current alumina production would require additional renewable energy comparable to the average demand of the Victorian electricity grid, while steel production would require double that amount. Further, HILT CRC suggested new export industries in the green steel supply chain could require double the size of the NEM.[42]

6.31Mr Corbell suggested that some scenario planning may not be achievable:

At the moment we have a range of scenario planning undertaken by the market bodies in relation to how the National Electricity Market is anticipated to develop. This informs decision-making around access to and development of new transmission infrastructure and a range of other considerations. At the moment, the scenario planning for elements of the NEM is not particularly realistic when it comes to the scenarios we're talking about around green hydrogen manufacture. The hydrogen superpower scenario put forward by AEMO in its most recent integrated system plan assumes a level of green energy build-out of around 22 gigawatts per annum. That is a very high level of clean energy generation development. At the moment, as a point of comparison, we are only achieving around two to three gigawatts per annum. To achieve that very high level is one scenario that, from an investor perspective, our members would say is not credible. Therefore, there is a need for the development of a credible scenario that assumes a higher level of clean energy generation development—but one that is going to be achievable.[43]

6.32Professor Baldwin noted that a sizable amount of the additional generation capacity required for future industries such as green hydrogen and green metals may not be connected to the electricity grid as these industries may be established in remote areas with on-site renewable electricity generation.[44]

Impact on energy security, reliability and affordability

6.33Some stakeholders shared their reservations about the implications of the transition to green energy for Australia’s energy security, reliability and electricity prices.[45] For example, Mr Thomas Bostock, Chairman at the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), told the Committee that by transitioning away from traditional forms of energy towards renewable energy:

… the Western world is seeking to replace the cheapest and most reliable and effective form of energy that is presently provided by coal, gas and nuclear—which has been spurned, and that whole argument is something that has always puzzled us—for totally unreliable, intermittent things that, one way or another, need to be firmed up. That is something that's going to cause trouble because the most reliable way of doing that is with coal and gas. It's a strange thing: all advances in human progress have been through improvements in energy—better energy, more intense energy and cheaper energy—but here we're moving back to much more expensive and unreliable energy.[46]

6.34Mr Dennis Armstrong, Member, Save Our Surroundings, expressed similar concerns:

Energy policy is much more than keeping the lights on. It's more about Australia's future prosperity and the future way of life in Australia. Without a truly robust electricity system that is safe, affordable, reliable and secure, Australia cannot attract much-needed manufacturing and value-adding industries, become more self-reliant, become more secure from external threats, provide the services our modern society needs, provide more quality jobs for our growing population and provide very much cheaper electricity to all Australian consumers.[47]

6.35In their submission the AEF suggested that ‘… transitioning away from fossil fuels (and nuclear power in other countries) brings about higher prices with consequent direct cost increases to consumers.’[48]

6.36Another submitter described the introduction of solar and wind technologies in places such as South Australia, Germany, Denmark and parts of the United States (US) ‘…has only succeeded in dramatic increase of electricity prices and more importantly, destabilisation electricity grids, and therefore economies and National security.’[49]

Regulatory and planning frameworks

6.37The Committee heard about challenges associated with the regulatory and planning frameworks for green energy projects. These challenges broadly related to:

• Complexity and duration of approval processes
• Consistency of regulatory and approval processes
• Developing regulations for new and emerging industries.

Complexity and duration of approval processes

6.38The Committee received evidence suggesting that the complexity and duration of regulatory approval processes can act as a barrier to investment, and that improving regulatory frameworks could assist Australia’s green energy superpower transition.[50]

6.39For example, Westpac Group outlined the types of approvals that renewable energy projects may require. It also observed that Australia has a complicated system of approvals across local, state and federal government, which can impose delays and complexity across renewable energy projects:

Where these delays or time imposts are greater than those experienced in other jurisdictions, it creates a disincentive for investors when they compare Australia with alternate investment destinations.[51]

6.40Several submitters referred to the need to reduce the complexity and timeframes for renewable energy projects to connect to the electricity grid.[52] For example, Mr Corbell of the CEIG told the Committee that:

The other issue that I was referencing were issues around connection to the grid. That's getting the necessary approvals from transmission or distribution network operators as well as planning and environmental approvals from state and federal governments around the development of projects to connect to the grid. At the moment, the time frames around some of those approvals are extremely lengthy. It is one of the key factors that acts as a risk deterrent for investors in terms of how willing they are to invest in projects. So reducing those time frames and improving predictability around the approvals framework is going to be really important.

In the context of your inquiry around green hydrogen manufacture, we're going to need to get these things absolutely right if we're going to get the level of generation needed to deliver the volumes of green hydrogen envisaged in a renewable energy superpower export scenario.[53]

6.41Similarly, Entura suggested that: ‘It is clear that the process needs to be more streamlined to provide investors, developers and owners with greater certainty of the pathway, timeframes and investment required to secure a connection agreement.’[54]

6.42The Advanced Materials and Battery Council noted the slow process for obtaining permits for green energy developments and called for approval processes to be accelerated.[55]

6.43Relatedly, Westpac Group drew the Committee’s attention to work underway in the European Union to accelerate approval processes by designating areas of land and sea suitable for green energy projects with permits granted in no more than 12 months.[56] Westpac Group said:

Australia has vast quantities of unused land that may be suitable for renewable energy projects. Adopting statutory deadlines of 12 months for as many approvals and permits as possible would… incentivise further investment. However, we also acknowledge that specific consideration would need to be given to ensuring development did not come at the expense of foundational development approval checks and balances, such as free, prior and informed consent of First Nations Australians… A simpler approval process that simplifies interdependent/multi government body approvals does not need to compromise the standards we should insist on in any development.[57]

6.44In regard to sites for critical minerals refining, Tesla also suggested identifying and approving ‘… short and certain permitting for sites…’ in advance as a significant advantage.[58]

6.45Westpac Group explained renewable energy zones (REZ) and suggested they could be expanded. REZ’s ‘provide a designated area within a state that is suited to renewable energy developments. A logical next step would be to expand the number and size of REZ areas and to allow projects within a REZ access to a nationally consistent and even more highly expedited approvals framework, in effect establishing a true ‘transit lane’ approach for renewable energy projects.’[59]

6.46Entura said renewable energy zones have ‘…worked well at the state level (such as in NSW), giving developers some certainty around areas supported for renewable energy development’ and suggested these zones could be an opportunity for the Australian Government’s consideration.[60] However, some stakeholders criticised the renewable energy zones in for lack of community consultation and social licence[61] and concerns about costs to electricity consumers.[62]

Improving consistency of regulatory and approval processes

6.47Many aspects in the development of green energy projects (such as land zoning and planning permits) sit with state, territory and local governments.[63] With this considered, some stakeholders argued the Australian Government should play a more central role in regulatory and approval processes relevant to the green energy transition to improve consistency.

6.48The Law Council of Australia raised the issue of the regulatory roles and responsibilities of state and territories and that planning should recognise these in the development of renewable energy:

Energy generation from renewable sources is land intensive and Commonwealth measures cannot operate independently from State and Territory approval regimes. For example, supply chains for critical mineral market opportunities rely from the outset on State and Territory approvals to access land to explore for such minerals and develop mining projects in accordance with State and Territory mining, planning and environmental laws.[64]

6.49Dr Madeline Taylor, Deputy Director at Macquarie University’s Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation (CENRIT), called for a ‘… federal approach to the planning, siting and coordinating of renewable energy and renewable hydrogen.’[65]

6.50Professor Michael Goodsite, Director at the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Resources (ISER) at the University of Adelaide, recommended that the system of regulation in Australia needs to be looked at to make it easier to attract investment, adding that investors don’t see ‘various states; they see Australia’:

The fact is that, in a country like Australia, there are different regulations from state to state and, in principle, when you cross a border with hydrogen transport, you might need to fulfil other requirements.

…

With regulations around safety, around transport and around production, there should be one harmonised set of Australian rules, just as there is for biosecurity and other things, such as energy, that are important to our national security.[66]

6.51Some submitters and witnesses called for clearer policies and regulatory frameworks, greater policy certainty to build confidence for investors.[67]

6.52Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President at Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Australia (CIP Australia), recommended consistent and streamlined permitting frameworks as a measure to attract investment.[68] Mr Stuchbery explained:

… understanding state by state what the expected planning or permitting time frame is and what steps can be taken to reduce those time frames and align those time frames and those processes as much as possible across states is going to be important, particularly to attract international investors who don't necessarily think on a state basis but think about a country basis. Having consistent and streamlined permitting frameworks is going to be critical. I think setting some targets or at least some visibility around what those typical time frames are and what the end state we want those time frames to be is going to be important.[69]

Developing regulations for new and emerging industries

6.53A small number of stakeholders identified challenges associated with developing regulations for new and emerging green energy driven industries, particularly in relation to hydrogen.

6.54The Western Australian Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation recommended the Australian Government consider ‘… ensuring appropriate standards and regulations are in place to support new and emerging industries, such as the renewable hydrogen industry.’[70]

6.55For example, Mr Matthew Hingerty, Deputy Chair, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Head of Business Development at Star Scientific, noted that while regulation for Australia’s hydrogen industry is developing, there is currently an absence of regulation for Star Scientific’s work with hydrogen:

For what we do with it, which is not burning it, there is no regulation. We are having to work with regulators and Standards Australia to develop our own regulations. That has slowed down our process, but if you get it right the first time then it is a lot easier than going back to fix it.[71]

6.56Ms Catherine Zerger, Acting Branch Head, Hydrogen Branch at DCCEEW noted DISR’s work on the national hydrogen regulatory frameworks review, which is nearing finalisation and examined opportunities to develop regulatory frameworks needed to support the hydrogen industry, and a national hydrogen infrastructure assessment.[72]

Risks to the environment and land use change

6.57The Committee received evidence that discussed the implications that the transition to a green energy superpower and the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure will have for land use, including challenges relating to Australia’s environment and biodiversity, agriculture and impact on First Nations communities.

Currently, renewable projects aren't subject to environmental impact assessments quite like some other industries, such as mining, industry et cetera. That's probably a big one to start with; they are not subject to those same regulations, I guess, as such, whereas others are. Land clearing is probably a big topic that sits with everyone. Again, I know that probably falls under the state. For this country of remnant vegetation, all valued as high class, there is high value regrowth in those areas… They areas that either farmers or other industries wouldn't be allowed to look at pretty much full stop.[74]

6.59Mrs Therese Creed, private capacity, told the Committee that solar farms are subject to non-mandatory guidelines and are exempt from regulations that other land uses are subject to: ‘We find that… there are very definite sets of rules for renewable energy as opposed to any other industry that changes the land use.’[75]

Biodiversity and conservation

6.60A considerable number of submitters raised concerns in relation to the impact of renewable energy projects and infrastructure on biodiversity and conservation.[76] For example, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance (ALCA) stated that: ‘As large-scale renewable energy expands across Australia – including the production of hydrogen using renewable energy – the tensions over habitat loss from renewable energy are also escalating.’[77]

6.61Similarly, the South Australian Nature Alliance (SANA) submitted that ‘… renewable energy generation and its associated needs (for example mining for critical minerals) and infrastructure (such as new transmission lines) has the potential to negatively impact on nature…’[78]

6.62BirdLife Australia advised that: ‘It is essential… that the policy response to climate change is developed and managed in a way that does not have a significant impact on Australia’s threatened biodiversity.’[79]

6.63CIP Australia noted that: ‘More attention is required to appropriately navigate the tension between clean energy development and environmental and biodiversity outcomes.’[80]

6.64ALCA suggested in its submission that biodiversity conservation is increasingly disadvantaged in land tenure reforms aimed at accelerating green energy industries:

…we are already seeing competing pressures over land use for conservation and renewable energy, and at scale. For example, hydrogen produced using renewable energy…is increasingly driving State-level land tenure reforms. In its diversification lease reforms for Crown land, Western Australia has already demonstrated that conservation is a lower priority in its hierarchy of concerns in accommodating renewable hydrogen’s need for land.[81]

6.65SANA also noted that efforts to ‘fast track approvals’ for renewable energy projects should not result from the ‘overriding of current protections for nature…’[82]

6.66CENRIT highlighted in its submission the importance of effective regulations, noting that energy development and planning regulation are ‘fundamentally linked’:

Onshore and offshore renewable energy development and production requires legal consideration and mitigation of environmental, biophysical, and social land use risks and impacts. Australia must effectively regulate renewable energy to mitigate any potential conflicts and create synergetic uses of space.[83]

6.67Some submitters and witnesses emphasised the need for enhanced land use planning and regulation to minimise adverse impacts on Australia’s environment and biodiversity in the green energy transition.[84] For example, BirdLife Australia advised that: ‘Valid and strongly-held concerns over renewable energy developments impacting local environments are a product of major shortcomings in environmental and planning laws in Australia at all levels of government.’ Further, that: ‘A more effective legal regime could potentially also improve certainty and decision-making times for all stakeholder[s], including potential investors.’[85]

6.68Dr Jody Gunn, Chief Executive Officer at ALCA, told the Committee that in some jurisdictions the regulatory framework ‘… simply considers the environment to be an inconvenience in securing approvals and does not consider nature to be an investable sector, despite the increasing evidence to the contrary.’ Dr Gunn went on to add:

With increasing awareness of our state of environment and global and national commitments, it is important that those policies, the legislative frameworks and the land use tenure do put it on an even playing field.[86]

6.69Birdlife Australia told the Committee that ‘It is crucial to ensure that our environmental and planning regimes are able to manage and regulate the substantive increase in the number and scale of renewable energy projects in this transition in a way that does not impact adversely on Australia’s endangered species and their habitats.’[87] Mr Paul Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer at BirdLife Australia, further explained that:

From a bird conservation perspective, the key concern is poor planning or uninformed planning. A poorly sited wind farm can present a significant risk to birds and particularly species of conservation concern… Poorly informed planning and decision-making not only impacts on biodiversity; it will put the sector's social licence to operate at risk, in our view.[88]

6.70Similarly, Dr Gunn suggested the environment be considered as part of planning for projects:

An integrated and environmentally sensitive approach to renewable energy is achievable through early and good planning. In practice this means that environmental assets must be identified early and incorporated into renewable energy project design, including any associated infrastructure requirements. For example, this means protecting important remnant habitat and the species that call them home and restoring degraded habitat alongside any developments. It also means when state, territory and federal governments identify priority areas for renewable energy projects that they take into account the quality and importance of the habitat and native vegetation and safeguard our natural capital rather than deal with land clearance applications at the end of any development application process.

Importantly, it also means a commitment by governments and the renewable energy and hydrogen industries to provide a net benefit for nature. We should not alleviate the climate crisis by contributing to the nature crisis, two interrelated challenges. We have an obligation to consider these two interrelated crises together and to turn the challenges into opportunities.[89]

6.71SANA submitted that it is ‘… critical that plans to transition to a green energy superpower include explicit plans to avoid negative impacts on nature and instead achieve a transition that is nature positive.’ Further, ‘… that nature conservation must be pro-actively planned for as part of our transition to green energy.’[90]

6.72The Next Economy recommended that the Australian Government recognise that effective land-use planning is a critical enabler of renewable energy development:

If land use planning is not done well, it can lead to significant opposition from landholders, stakeholders and community members, which causes costly project delays. Land use planning must factor in the amount of land directly required by wind and solar developments and the requirements of associated manufacturing, logistics, energy transmission and storage facilities. Importantly it needs adhere to the standard of ‘prior and informed consent’ when seeking access and use of First Nations land.[91]

6.73DCCEEW pointed out in its submission that the Australian Government has announced important environmental reforms in response to the findings of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (the Samuel Review):

Early priorities include improving environmental data, regional planning and new national environmental standards. The Government has also committed to establishing an independent National Environment Protection Agency… which will improve trust and transparency in Australia’s national environmental laws.[92]

Improved data and mapping to reduce harm to biodiversity

6.74BirdLife Australia highlighted the need for risk-based planning and decision support tools to minimise the impact on biodiversity through informed strategic planning. It suggested that ‘This simple tool would help grow renewable energy, while managing biodiversity risk.’[93]

6.75Dr Gunn also outlined need for better data: ‘We need to improve data capture and collection around natural capital and understanding around the protection of biodiversity and around understanding the biodiversity assets we have to ensure we can protect the critical assets remaining.’[94]

6.76RE-Alliance recommended comprehensive land use mapping to avoid land use conflict:

… to transparently map the best areas for development of renewables projects, having regard to the ideal siting for solar farms and wind farmers near electricity grid infrastructure, but also having regard to prime agricultural land and areas of high environmental value. This will ensure that renewable energy projects can access the best sites for their operations, while avoiding inappropriate zones where conflicts with other important land uses may arise.[95]

6.77SANA drew attention to the ‘Site Renewables Right’ initiative undertaken in the US and concluded that:

A similar exercise should be undertaken for Australia, with maps identifying current and future desirable protected areas, habitat for threatened species, areas of remaining wilderness and areas needed for nature restoration/recovery are overlaid with mapping of preferred locations for renewable energy projects. Layers for cultural heritage should also be included.[96]

Risks to Australia’s agriculture and food security

6.78Some submitters expressed concerns about the implications of the transition to green energy for Australia’s agriculture and food security.[97] For example, Mr Bill Stinson, private capacity, told the Committee that:

… Australia’s prime agricultural land is being taken out of production by the rollout of PV solar projects. This must stop. Australia can become a green food superpower by ensuring that our primary agricultural land remains as cropping land to enable food exports to our trading partners.[98]

6.79Similarly, Mrs Therese Creed, private capacity, suggested that Australia’s agriculture and food-producing land must be protected:

Surely agriculture is one of our massive exports. These sorts of things [solar panels and wind turbines] have the potential to sterilise, not just for a short time but forever, the land that they are situated on, and they have done so. I think food-producing land has to be one of our top assets in this country…

6.80Ms Rachel Logan, private capacity, submitted that Australia’s land must be used responsibly to ensure future food security:

…projects must reach much higher standards of sustainability (for more than a few years of life, Eg. In turbine blades or solar cells) and must not impact on useful land, when Australia has so little of it for our future food security. The agricultural people and their investments must be protected first, and our role in harnessing renewable energy must be embraced in desert places instead. There is a crucial decision to be made by the government at this juncture as to how our future as a responsible country will eventuate.[99]

6.81Similarly, Kalapa Wycarbah Local Action Committee called for the Australian Government to assess ‘… the renewable energy industry and the future plans around energy security.’[100] Kalapa Wycarbah Local Action Committee elaborated:

We firmly believe that the current plan is not in the best interest of the country due to the impacts on the environment of both Flora, fauna & the reef, the threat to health and safety of our population, the economic cost both having to pay for electricity and cost to construct these projects which are being subsidized. Our food security and impact on our food/ag production should take priority over renewable projects as wind & solar projects cannot truly compliment or work in with existing ag production systems. We urge all levels of government to reassess and develop a complete energy plan that will be in the best interest of the country.[101]

6.82Farmers for Climate Action explained the concept of ‘agrivoltaics’ as ‘combining energy generation with food and fibre production on the same land’[102] and noted that combining ‘… farming and solar in agrivoltaics presents a powerful path forward, increasing social licence for renewable energy developments and allowing ongoing agricultural use of productive land.’[103]

6.83In their submission, CENRIT highlighted the potential for agrivoltaics to be reduce land use conflict and improve benefit sharing:

Agrivoltaics are seen as a technological facilitator of the energy transition while minimising negative social and technical externalities by first, enabling the co-location of food and energy production to dimmish potential land use conflicts; second, agricultural landholder income diversification and increase revenue stability; and third, the opportunity for profitsharing models and co-benefits for agricultural communities.[104]

Waste, contamination and decommissioning of green energy infrastructure

6.84Some evidence received drew the Committee’s attention to the environmental issue of waste and contamination caused by products and infrastructure that enable Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower, such as batteries, solar panels and wind turbines.[105]

6.85Mr Dennis Armstrong, Member, Save Our Surroundings told the Committee that local councils do not have ‘the capability’ to dispose of the rubbish from the materials that solar panels and wind turbine blades are wrapped in.[106]

6.86Mrs Therese Creed, private capacity, shared concerns about contamination from wind turbine blades:

The leading edge of turbine blades shed fine [BPA] dust, and blade edges only have a five-year guarantee. Each blade sheds a minimum of 0.2 to 2.5 grams of bisphenol A dust per year. This dust is spread far and wide by wind… It's going to end up in food that people are going to eat. The stuff that comes out of the panels also leaches out. At Bell solar farm in New South Wales, there was no hail damage or anything, but it has leached into the soil. If that gets into our stock water dams or our cattle, they will get condemned at the meatworks. This is also about the viability of agriculture. It's not as if Australia doesn't have land that isn't productive land. We have 2.5 per cent of Queensland on which we can grow food. The rest of it they can put renewable energy on.[107]

6.87Mrs Creed also shared her concerns with the Committee about contamination from a solar farm approved on land that neighbours her property. Mrs Creed said she sent letters to various government departments seeking information about who would be ‘… legally and financially accountable for the contamination of water and soil in and around renewable energy sites…’ and was advised that she would need to speak to her local council.[108] Mrs Creed elaborated: ‘So the buck has been passed back to local council, which does not have the millions of dollars that would be required for the rehabilitation that would be needed.’[109]

6.88The Law Council of Australia called for measures that would address recycling and waste management issues that will inevitably arise as the use of solar PV and wind turbines increase:

Policies for investment in storage batteries, including community-owned batteries, should address how these batteries will be disposed of and the costs for the environment. Similarly, solar panels do not have an unlimited lifespan, which means there must be strategic and long term planning to deal with this infrastructure once it has reached the end of its operating life.[110]

6.89Australia is looking for opportunities to develop its recycling capability so as to reduce waste from products and infrastructure supporting its transition to green energy. For example, Dr Karin Soldenhoff, Manager, Process Development Research, Minerals Business Unit at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), told the Committee about technology to reduce waste from lithium mining:

One of the good-news stories is that we've actually developed a technology, in conjunction with one of our clients within Australia, that actually takes the waste material and therefore allows the potential for much-increased lithium extraction from the current resources that we have here in Australia. The conventional process needs a certain grade of spodumene, and the rest, which is basically rejected as waste rock, generally is not exported. But this process that ANSTO developed together with Lithium Australia can take that material, so it's basically feed agnostic and has the potential to increase the lithium extraction from the resources that we currently have already.[111]

6.90Mrs Simone Spencer, Deputy Director General, Strategy and International Engagement at the Western Australian Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, discussed work underway to repurpose batteries for other industrial use in other parts of the value chain.[112]

6.91Some stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the decommissioning and disposal of green energy infrastructure and equipment, such as solar panels and wind turbines, that have reached end of life.[113] For example, one submitter said:

The fundamental premise for the use of ‘green’ energy is to generate energy that is not harmful to the environment, however, because natural sources of energy need machines to convert natural energy (wind, solar, etc.) to electrical energy the manufacture, installation, maintenance and disposal of these machines at end of life is environmentally destructive.[114]

6.92Mr Stinson discussed challenges with solar panel disposal, and told the Committee: ‘When you crush the glass, it has polymers and you have to remove those polymers by chemical means, which creates a chemical waste stream.’[115]

6.93Ms Coldham told the Committee about the life span of offshore wind projects and decommissioning plans:

…offshore wind is a relatively new industry in that only about two projects around the world have been decommissioned to date. We've seen great advancements in the technology over time. Currently, the industry standard is around a 30-year lifespan for an offshore wind project. Typically, the infrastructure is maintained throughout that period to ensure that it can last. Again, as the industry is quite new, that is an estimated time. It might be later with the newest and greatest turbines. In terms of the end of life, it's certainly something that I think Australia has paid close attention to. It is industry standard both globally and here in the creation of the regulatory framework that decommissioning plans are required from the outset of projects. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act… does have requirements around decommissioning and financial securities at the outset for licence holders to ensure that taxpayers are not left with the burden of any clean-up. We acknowledge that is a good progression for Australia to ensure that there is that level of comfort when projects are being planned to have that full cradle to grave approach.[116]

6.94Further, Mr Stuchbery of CIP Australia emphasised to the Committee that government, industry and investors must work together to inform the community about the decommissioning of green energy infrastructure. He pointed out that wind turbine blades can now be recycled, and that:

The impact of decommissioning these things is not as great as putting them up because they can be cut up on site. All sorts of information is valuable for the community to receive to reduce their concerns. As I say, this is an investment that is needed to get that information out to the communities. My main message here is that industry, government and investors need to work together to really get this right. I think, as you alluded to in your question, there's the potential for it to go wrong.[117]

Impact on First Nations communities and their land

6.95Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower will require access to large areas of First Nations land and sea.[118] Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing and Dr Lily O'Neill outlined in their joint submission that:

A fundamental prerequisite for renewable energy generation and storage at the scales required by Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower is access to large areas of land and sea. In Australia much of the lands and waters necessary for hosting wind turbines, solar panels, electrolysers and associated infrastructure such as roads, laydown areas, storage and access to coastal shipping and pipelines, will be subject to varying strengths of First Nations rights and interests, through native title and statutory land rights regimes.[119]

6.96Submitters noted the socio-economic opportunities for First Nations communities in the green energy transition and emphasised the importance of the inclusion of First Nations rights and interests within the policy and regulatory frameworks.[120] For example, Mr Michael Dillon submitted:

The existence of native title, statutory land rights and other Indigenous rights (such as heritage protection rights) must be seen as an opportunity for inclusion, and not as an obstacle to development. This will increasingly involve negotiation at the conception and implementation stages of green energy projects between proponents and Indigenous interests.[121]

6.97The First Nations Clean Energy Network (FNCEN) advised that:

Enabling and empowering First Nations to play a key and central role in Australia’s renewable energy transition goes beyond just social licence issues - it presents a unique opportunity for Australia to design a system that is fair and just and which can also positively impact and result in other social and economic benefits for First Nations.[122]

6.98BZE emphasised the need for First Nations people to be included in planning, execution and management to understand environmental, social and economic impacts.[123]

6.99Mr Riley, Dr Wensing and Dr O'Neill declared that Australia’s green energy transition ‘… must not further contribute to marginalisation and harm, but rather strengthen opportunities to address socio-economic inequalities between Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians, through policy aimed at the fair distribution of risk and gain.[124]

6.100Some submitters emphasised the value of active participation, including the potential for partnership and ownership models to ensure equitable benefit sharing.[125] For example, the Law Council of Australia stated that:

Not only should new policies consider how those rights and interests are to be protected, but consideration should also be given to the ways in which traditional owners can participate in new renewable energy projects, should they wish to do so, or how the benefits of a project can otherwise be shared equitably with the relevant traditional owners.[126]

6.101WWF-Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the ACF emphasised the importance that First Nations People benefit from the projects on their land:

This benefit may take the form of agreements for access to energy, financial compensation, or a stake in ownership.

Beyond consent, First Nations people should be engaged in partnerships that involve effective and meaningful participation. The Western Green Energy Hub can be looked towards as an example of a project moving beyond obtaining consent, and entering into a partnership with the Traditional Owners.[127]

6.102The ANU ZCEAPI reflected on the First Nations experience with the mining boom:

To date, many Indigenous communities have not received commensurate benefits from Australia’s mining boom, despite bearing many of the economic, social, cultural and environmental costs. Yet there is a very real opportunity for a more inclusive model to be adopted in the case of utility-scale renewable energy generation and attendant downstream industries.[128]

6.103Stakeholders emphasised the importance of a model for early and genuine engagement as part of the policy framework for green energy project development, based on the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples including the right to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent.[129] BZE proposed that Australia obtain ‘… free, prior and informed consent from First Nations Peoples and setting an example for international best-practice for land use partnerships, delivering equitable and long-term benefits to all.’[130]

6.104Re-Alliance declared that: ‘The rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to self-determination, and the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent must be front and centre of public policy development around the energy transition.’[131]

6.105Mr Riley, Dr Wensing and Dr O’Neill explained the significance of free, prior and informed when negotiating with traditional owners, as distinct from the principles of social licence:

Free, prior and informed consent provides the best framework for negotiating with traditional owners/native title holders in relation to large-scale development on the Indigenous estate because it provides a relatively clear process on governments and developers, which distinguishes it from principles such as social licence to operate (which are less precisely defined and rely on the goodwill of governments and industrial partners).[132]

6.106The FNCEN drew attention to the development of best practice principles for renewable energy projects published by the organisation in November 2022.[133]

These Principles place First Nations people and their communities at the centre of the development, design, implementation and opportunities for economic benefit from renewable energy projects.

The First Nations Clean Energy Network has developed the Principles anticipating they will aid governments with the design of policy and regulatory frameworks and also assist industry in its efforts to engage and partner with First Nations in the development of renewable energy projects.[134]

6.107Some stakeholders described the importance of First Nations engagement to their operations. For example, Mr Stuchbery of CIP Australia told the Committee that partnerships with First Nations people as ‘fundamental’ to their work and explained that CIP Australia’s models are designed to ‘…encourage engagement with nominated native title holders and enter into Indigenous land use agreements.’[135] MrStuchbery also said that regulatory frameworks ‘need to bend and stretch and shape themselves accordingly’ to support work with First Nations communities.[136]

6.108Dr Lily O’Neill discussed barriers to understanding First Nations land use agreements as these agreements are generally ‘…almost entirely commercial in confidence, so research I'm undertaking at the moment is speaking with the lawyers who are negotiating these agreements to find out what the general trends are.’[137] Dr O’Neill told the Committee that trends indicate that people in different parts of the country (such as Western Australia) received greater financial benefits than people in other areas (such as in NSW and Queensland).[138]

6.109The Committee received evidence highlighting the importance of resourcing and ensuring that First Nations people and communities have the capacity to engage with the green energy transition.[139] For example, Mr Michael Dillon explained that:

Key Indigenous institutions in facilitating and negotiating third party access to Indigenous land are the Prescribed Bodies Corporate established to hold native title rights. These entities are mandated by legislation, must be incorporated, but are chronically underfunded for the tasks that they are required to address.[140]

6.110Similarly, in their submission, Mr Riley, Dr Wensing and Dr O’Neill discussed the role of prescribed bodies corporate to hold and manage native title rights, but also pointed to their lack of funding:

In northern Australia… many native title claims have been finalised and most successful claimant groups have established “prescribed bodies corporate” (PBCs) to manage their native title. These PBCs are the legally required governance arrangements for land that is subject to native title rights and interests and PBCs are required to hold and manage native title in perpetuity - obligations which carry legally mandated compliance requirements. Yet it is widely acknowledged that Australian Government funding for these compliance requirements is inadequate.[141]

6.111Mr Riley, Dr Wensing and Dr O’Neill further explained that:

In the context of Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower, it must also be considered that the level and pace of change underway has the potential to prohibit effective engagement, co-design and decision-making with First Nations, and that the level of resourcing for PBC’s, First Nations communities and their representative organisations must be an urgent area of priority consideration for governments when pursuing expedited timelines for reforms enabling energy transition. Greater levels of resourcing will be immediately advantageous; for the many capable and independent Aboriginal PBCs who rightfully hold the predominant stake in economic development in the regions, as well as for those native title representative bodies… who will play a critical role in securing benefit from distributed renewable energy resources and downstream zero-carbon derivatives.

Without such measures First Nations will be exposed to unreasonable risk, cost and disadvantage from projects progressed by domestic and international proponents for their own commercial benefit, and which initiate processes the costs of which (in time, money, organisational capacity) risk being externalized to native title holders.[142]

6.112The FNCEN drew attention to the positive experience of First Nations engagement in the renewable energy sector in Canada, noting that the ‘…outcomes were achieved through actions by Governments acting with foresight, including mandating project ownership targets for the First Nations on whose lands the projects were proposed.’[143]

6.113Mr Dillion recommended that the scope of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund be expanded to proactively address ‘…the extraordinary infrastructure needs of remote communities, which all have implications for the green energy futures of those communities and in many respects the nation at large.’[144]

6.114A First Nations Clean Energy Strategy is currently being developed by DCCEEW alongside the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the FNCEN, First Nations communities, and state and territory governments as part of the National Energy Transformation Partnership.[145] DCCEEW explained:

The Strategy, and other initiatives like the First Nations Community Microgrids Program administered by ARENA [Australian Renewable Energy Agency], aims to enable First Nations communities to influence and access the benefits of Australia’s renewable energy transformation.[146]

Social licence and community engagement

6.115The concept of social licence reflects landholder and community support for new developments and projects.[147] Many submitters and witnesses highlighted the importance of building social licence and engaging with communities as central to Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower.[148]

6.116The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner is currently undertaking a ‘Review to enhance community support and ensure that electricity transmission and renewable energy developments deliver for communities, landholders and traditional owners’ and is due to report to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy by the end of 2023.[149]

6.117Dr van Ruth told the Committee about Austrade’s role, in partnership with state and territory governments, supporting foreign investors to develop and understanding of Australia’s regulatory environment and ‘…their requirements and responsibilities in Australia and the importance of their social licence to operate.’[150]

6.118Ms Erin Coldham, Chief Development Officer, Star of the South summarised ‘…social licence takes a long time to build but not a long time to lose.’[151] Ms Coldham explained the approach taken by Star of the South to build social licence as part of their work:

… we have a constant focus on ensuring that we are always accessible. We have hired a local team based in Yarram in Gippsland. We know that one of the main selling points of a project of this nature is local employment. So having local people in a local office that people can get along and talk to means that we can always be accessible, ar any concerns and build that into our project development as we go through.[152]

6.119BirdLife Australia noted that in regard to decision making for renewable energy projects: ‘An informed and consultative approach would ensure that the social licence of projects is maintained, avoiding the undermining of community trust – and reactive advocacy against – the growth of renewable energy infrastructure.’[153]

6.120Mr Stuchbery of CIP Australia, an investor in the Star of the South project, told the Committee about barriers to understanding where, from the social licence perspective, it is going to be acceptable to build new renewable projects:

There's a direct overlay in many places in Australia between the value of the resource—so, high wind speeds—and Australia's highest biodiversity value. When you overlay the availability of transmission, we're increasingly developing projects in spaces where it is difficult to navigate the realities of social licence, environmental impacts and all those other matters. So one thing that we put in our own submission was the need and the value of strategic assessment of areas prospective for renewable energy investment, sort of in the same vein that [the Australian Energy Market Operator’s] integrated system plan does the transmission can we look at what communities, what areas, we need to unlock and what some of those barriers are that government can work with industry to de-risk, whether that's environmental strategic assessments, whether that's looking at what kind of structural adjustment is needed for areas that have traditionally not had this infrastructure but that will be the new hosts of this infrastructure. So there are a lot of things to think about in that space, and I think that should be considered some of the key enablers to Australia transitioning to a clean energy superpower—just getting that enabling framework right to bring the process of getting approval for projects down from, for example, three years to 18 months.[154]

6.121The Climate Council emphasised the importance of all aspects of the transition happening in a socially and environmentally responsible way:

They should seek to reduce existing inequalities and injustices, and leave all Australian communities stronger. Leadership of First Nations and meaningful consultation with local communities, farmers, land owners, and other groups will be fundamental to maximising the benefits and minimising any potential harms.[155]

6.122Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer at the AATSE, emphasised the role of all levels of government, including local government, to play a role in building social licence.[156] Ms Walker elaborated:

Helping local governments understand what the benefits and opportunities might be for their people, for their communities, in terms of jobs, in terms of accessible, affordable electricity and in terms of opportunities for careers in the future, as well as having a sustainable environment and sustainable community, is… important. When it comes to building infrastructure as well, we know that some of the biggest barriers at the local level are community fear and misunderstanding. So that education piece, combined with that leadership piece, is vitally important.[157]

6.123Mrs Joy Howley recommended social licence should form part of the process of obtaining a planning permit:

Communities require a mechanism to negotiate from the very beginning of the project. Enabling developers to proceed with a Social Licence could ensure by agreement that planning and nuisance issues are worked out well before any contracts are signed and should be a prerequisite for issuing the planning permit.[158]

Workforce skills and capability

6.124A common theme raised in the evidence was the need to ensure that Australia’s workforce is ready to support the deployment of green energy and the development of new industries.[159] DFAT, Austrade and EFA highlighted: ‘Transitioning to a green energy superpower will require very high levels of human capital’ and ‘Obtaining adequate expertise for Australia will be an ongoing challenge for Australia, as other countries seek the same skills and experience…’[160]

6.125The SEC cautioned that ‘… without significant intervention and investment the total workforce deficit will cripple our efforts to transform our energy network.’[161]

6.126The Committee heard that shortfalls of key skilled labour are already emerging, particularly electricians and engineers.[162] The Australian Academy of Science (AAS) and AATSE observed Australia’s shortages for critical employees and identified the need to ‘… support the domestic education and training pipelines necessary to supply the transition.’[163] Similarly, Entura noted the impact of skilled labour shortages on project timelines and costs, which in turn risk project viability.[164]

6.127Submitters emphasised the need for government to ensure the development of a workforce with required skills and capabilities needed to deliver the green energy transition.[165] For example, the Next Economy suggested that to avoid exacerbating labour and skills shortages there is a need to: ‘… develop appropriate training programs and incentives for workers to move into emerging industries.’[166] Similarly, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) recommended the development of ‘…a targeted workplace and skills strategy’.[167]

6.128Several submitters noted the importance of reskilling and upskilling the workforce to transition to green energy industries, particularly as other industries decline.[168] The AAS and AATSE suggested that: ‘The government can play an important role in supporting this transition by developing programs to support workers as they move between industries, and by providing skills training where required.’[169]

6.129BZE and the Australia China Business Council suggested addressing skills gaps through targeted skilled migration.[170] However, Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer at the AATSE, noted Australia cannot rely on migration to fill gaps, because other countries are seeking the same skilled labour to support their transitions.[171]

6.130The Australian Refrigeration Mechanics Association highlighted the need for continued investment in education and training to maintain competencies as standards and technology changes in the green energy transition.[172]

6.131Transgrid outlined its initiatives aiming to build workforce skills and capability:

Transgrid is working with regional authorities, training providers, universities and our own Registered Training Organisation to upskill the regional workforce by providing new training opportunities in regional NSW. For example, in August 2022, Transgrid committed to a $2 million Engineering Scholarship Fund with Charles Sturt University. Further support is needed, and we welcome Government initiatives to assist [to] upskill and train local workers.[173]

6.132The Western Australian Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation discussed its focus on reskilling and upskilling, building on its skilled and experienced resource sector workforce:

A key focus… is ensuring our local workforce is ready to meet the skills and capabilities required by the industries of the future. The Western Australian Government is focussed on upskilling its workforce to ensure it is well-placed to support fast-track industries. Western Australia has invested more than $280 million to upskill and reskill in preparation for future demand.

6.133DFAT, Austrade and EFA told the Committee that the Australian Government is evaluating ways to address skills shortages through the education and training system and the migration system to ensure current and emerging skills gaps are met.[174] DCCEEW stated that is it working with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations on a hydrogen skills and mapping exercise.[175]

6.134Beyond meeting the needs for Australia’s transition, the SEC suggested that a highly skilled Australian workforce in green energy industries could lead to high demand for Australian expertise and involvement in overseas projects.[176] Similarly, RE-Alliance indicated that education and training in green energy related industries could be their own export opportunity, building on Australia’s significant tertiary education export sector.[177]

Supply chain constraints

6.135The Committee received evidence that outlined the importance of Australia having secure supply chains, and that supply chain constraints present a significant risk to Australia’s decarbonisation and green energy export opportunities.[178] The global trend toward supply chain diversification was discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

6.136DCCEEW observed ‘Access to secure and reliable supply chains for materials, products and inputs is fundamental to building large-scale renewables and developing new export industries.’[179] Likewise, DFAT, Austrade and EFA explained:

… for Australia to remain competitive as a supplier of clean energy and secure a significant market share in emerging and existing markets in clean energy, we will need to… ensure secure and reliable access to inputs required for our clean energy supply chains such as electrolysers, particularly if Australia is to become competitive in value-added processes up the supply chain.[180]

6.137Submitters indicated availability issues are arising in the market, as the result of both supply issues and increased global demand as other countries also seek materials and equipment for their energy transition.[181] For example, the SEC advised that ‘…there is a shortfall of currently available input resources that is increasing the global price for renewable energy goods in the solar, storage and wind sector.[182]

6.138The SEC also suggested that if Australia is to obtain the inputs it needs for the green energy transition, it will need to find new sources of supply or increase domestic production capabilities.[183]

6.139Similarly, Westpac Group cited that around 90 per cent of Australia’s solar panels, an integral part of Australia’s energy transition, are imported from a single country.[184] Westpac Group elaborated that as a result ‘…Australia needs a more resilient and diverse supply chain for solar componentry and, ideally, some form of scale domestic manufacturing capability.’[185]

6.140Other submitters also drew a link between supply chain constraints and enhanced domestic capabilities.[186] Explaining that most equipment for large-scale renewable energy projects is only available from overseas suppliers, Entura concluded that there is an ‘…opportunity to support more competitive alternative supply options and invest in facilitating local manufacturing.’[187]

6.141The Next Economy declared that the government ‘…needs to facilitate and invest locally in the development of new supply chains and market demand to address supply chain constraints for the products that we will need in Australia that will be made possible through low-cost renewable energy.’[188]

6.142The Grattan Institute suggested that the government could utilise the trade and investment architecture to secure access to materials and equipment through ‘…accelerating tariff removals in free trade agreements, or establishing separate agreements with like-minded countries to secure supply chains.’[189]

6.143Equipment and materials identified as being subject to supply chain constraints or risk of constraints were solar panels, batteries, electrolysers and high-voltage direct current cables.[190]

Committee comment

6.144While the Committee does not consider all of these matters to directly relate to trade and investment, they have been included in recognition of their importance to Australia’s green energy superpower transition.

6.145The Committee agrees that the decarbonisation of Australia’s electricity grid and greater deployment of renewable energy is fundamental to Australia becoming a green energy superpower. While reaching renewable energy commitments is a challenge, the Committee notes that work is underway to transform of Australia’s electricity grid and accelerate the deployment of renewable generation, transmission, and storage through programs such as the Rewiring the Nation and the Powering the Regions Fund.

6.146The Committee received evidence that Australia will require many magnitudes more renewable energy than the current total NEM to decarbonise its electricity grid and develop export-oriented green energy industries. In the Committee’s view, it would be beneficial to have a robust analysis of how much renewable energy can be deployed over certain timeframes to underpin and inform the development of Australia’s green energy export opportunities. Such an assessment must be credible, taking into account physical and capital constraints.

6.147The Committee acknowledges concerns raised during the inquiry in relation to Australia’s transition towards green energy and its consequences for future energy security, reliability, and electricity prices. The Committee also agrees that the development of green energy export industries should not be at the expense of reliable and affordable energy for Australians. These issues must continue to be at the forefront of Australia’s energy transition.

6.148The Committee acknowledges that aspects of the current regulatory and approval frameworks for green energy projects can be complex and onerous for project developers and investors. If Australia is to become a green energy superpower, all levels of government must continue to focus on reducing regulatory complexity and the duration of approvals. However, it is important that regulatory rigour be maintained, and that streamlining regulatory frameworks is not achieved by weakening or removing protections.

6.149Certain regulations and approvals necessarily sit with state, territory, and local government, however where appropriate it is important for regulatory frameworks to be consistent across jurisdictions. When new regulations are being developed for emerging green energy industries and technologies, it will be important for regulatory frameworks to be harmonised from the outset.

6.150Given the scale and national significance of the green energy transition the Australian Government can play a leading and coordinating role. The Committee encourages the Australian Government to continue and deepen engagement with state and territory governments to ensure that regulatory and approval frameworks strike the right balance and are consistent across jurisdictions. In cooperation with states and territories, there may be a greater role for the Australian Government in the identification and development of renewable energy zones and other designated areas identified as suitable for green energy project development, including access to simpler and expedited regulatory and approval processes.

6.151The Committee acknowledges concerns raised during the inquiry regarding implications of the transition to a green energy superpower for Australia’s environment and biodiversity. While there necessarily will be trade-offs, the Committee agrees that green energy developments should not have a detrimental effect on Australia’s environment and biodiversity.

6.152The Committee welcomes the reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) to enhance Australia’s national environment laws, including the commitment to introduce the National Environment Standards as well as to establish both the independent Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia. A stronger, streamlined and more transparent regulatory framework will improve decision-making and outcomes for all stakeholders.

6.153The Committee also notes concerns raised regarding the impact of green energy projects on agricultural land and agrees that while there will be trade-offs, prime agricultural land is a vital resource that should be protected where possible.

6.154The Committee agrees that decision-making for siting of green energy projects must be informed by comprehensive and robust data. As well as optimal locations for green energy projects regarding wind and solar resources, grid infrastructure and transport, the identification of appropriate sites must recognise high-value biodiversity, agricultural, and First Nations locations from the outset. Having widely available high-quality data for project panning could support appropriate siting of projects, reduce land use tensions, improve regulatory processes and provide greater certainty to investors.

6.155The Committee notes concerns about waste, contamination, and decommissioning relating to renewable energy infrastructure. The disposal of materials and equipment such as solar panels, wind turbines and batteries will be an emerging issue for many countries in the global green energy transition. The Committee believes that Australia should play a leading role in developing and expanding opportunities to reuse and recycle renewable energy equipment and infrastructure.

6.156The Committee acknowledges that Australia’s green energy transition will impact First Nations land, water and communities. While there are challenges, there are enormous economic and social opportunities for First Nations people in Australia’s green energy superpower transition.

6.157The Committee agrees that First Nations people must enabled to have a say in, directly participate in and share in the benefits of green energy projects. Particularly, there is greater potential for First Nations people, communities, and businesses to have an ownership role in green energy projects. This could be encouraged by dedicated investment support, for example through existing special investment vehicles.

6.158The Committee notes that Prescribed Bodies Corporate may face resourcing challenges that prohibit adequate engagement in the development of green energy projects. This scenario risks forgone benefits for First Nations communities as well as potentially impacting on project timeframes and viability.

6.159The Committee welcomes the important step of the development of the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy, co-designed with First Nations people. The Committee looks forward to the strategy being finalised and implemented.

6.160The Committee agrees that renewable energy projects should be supported by communities in which they are located. The Committee believes that keeping communities informed and engaged with planning processes is a central part of building social licence.

6.161The Committee notes the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner recently commenced a review of community engagement practices related to the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure in July 2023. The Committee looks forward to reading the outcome of the review.

6.162The Committee agrees that a skilled, capable workforce is crucial to Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower. While some measures are in place, Australia must do more to align education and skills to Australia’s most probable green energy economy opportunities. Further, while skilled migration will play a role, the focus should be on developing a domestic workforce to mitigate exposure to global skills shortages. An enhanced response should include measures for re-skilling and targeting the development of new skills through Australia’s education and training system.

6.163The Committee notes that supply chain constraints may present a significant challenge to Australia’s domestic decarbonisation and pursuit of green energy export opportunities. Further, the Committee believes that enhancing Australia’s sovereign manufacturing capability could assist with managing supply chain risks. It would be prudent to prioritise support for sovereign manufacturing for equipment such as solar panels and battery materials that are vital for Australia’s decarbonisation, where Australia has potential strengths in manufacturing, and that may be subject to supply chain risks.

Recommendations

6.164The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake detailed analysis to identify the scale of renewable energy that can credibly be deployed, to underpin and inform the development of Australia’s export-oriented green energy industries.

6.165The Committee recommends that efforts by Commonwealth, state and territory, and local governments to develop streamlined and more transparent regulatory and approval frameworks be consistent and equitable across land uses, including in relation to community engagement and consultation.

6.166The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with stakeholders, develop robust and comprehensive national data and mapping to inform land use planning decisions and identify appropriate sites for green energy projects.

6.167The Committee recommends that the Australian Government allocate funding to support research and commercial opportunities to reuse and recycle products, equipment, and infrastructure in Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower.

6.168The Committee recommends that the Australian Government examine whether Prescribed Body Corporates are adequately supported to ensure the capacity of First Nations people and communities to engage in and benefit from Australia’s green energy transition.

6.169The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy, consider how First Nations people, communities, and businesses can be supported to increase direct participation and ownership in green energy projects.

6.170The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with states and territories, accelerate development of targeted green energy skills and capabilities to ensure that the workforce can support Australia’s green energy superpower transition.

6.171The Committee recommends that the National Reconstruction Fund prioritise support for projects that enhance sovereign manufacturing capability in sectors subject to current and potential future global supply chain constraints.

Mr Steve Georganas MP

Chair

6 October 2023

Footnotes

[1]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 2.

[2]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 2.

[3]Ms Rachael de Hosson, Branch Head, Net Zero Innovations and Partnerships Branch, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p.1.

[4]Ms Rachael de Hosson, Branch Head, Net Zero Innovations and Partnerships Branch, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p.1.

[5]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 8.

[6]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 8.

[7]Macquarie University Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation, Submission125, p. 3.

[8]Mr Simon Corbell, Chief Executive Officer, Clean Energy Investor Group, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31March 2023, p. 22.

[9]See, for example: Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, p. 2; Mr Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 2; Ms Anna Freeman, Policy Director, Clean Energy Council, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 52.

[10]Mr Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 2.

[11]Ms Anna Freeman, Policy Director, Decarbonisation, Clean Energy Council, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 52.

[12]Mr Eytan Lenko, Chief Executive Officer, Boundless Earth, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p.19; Ms Susan Jeanes, Chair, Heavy Industry Low-Carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5April 2023, p. 49; Ms Anna Freeman, Policy Director, Clean Energy Council, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, pp. 52, 57.

[13]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 9; Ms Anna Freeman, Policy Director, Clean Energy Council, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 52.

[14]Ms Anna Freeman, Policy Director, Clean Energy Council, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p.52.

[15]Ms Anna Freeman, Policy Director, Clean Energy Council, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p.55.

[16]See, for example: Sun Cable, Submission 71, p. 4; ANU Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 6; Rewiring Australia, Submission 118, p. 1.

[17]ANU Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 6.

[18]Star of the South, Submission 54, p. 1; Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5April 2023, pp. 60–61.

[19]See, for example: Climate Council, Submission 36, p. 6; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 2; Sun Cable, Submission 71, pp. 5–6; Entura, Submission 79, p.4; ANU Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 6.

[20]Dr Bin Lu, Senior Research Fellow, Zero-Carbon Initiative for Asia Pacific, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 49.

[21]Mr Wayne Smith, External Affairs Manager, Smart Energy Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, pp. 24–25.

[22]See, for example: Australian Aluminium Council, Submission 17, p. 4; Tesla, Submission 24, p. 9; Heavy Industry Low-Carbon Transition CRC, Submission 30, pp. 1–2; Climate Council, Submission 36, p. 6; Australian Hydrogen Council, Submission 39, p. 3; The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 4; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 2; Sun Cable, Submission 71, p. 3; Australian National University Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 6.

[23]Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) and Export Finance Australia (EFA), Submission 31, p. 4.

[24]DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31, p. 4; Climate Council Submission 36, p. 6; Clean Energy Council, Submission 38, pp. 1–2; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission62, p. 3.

[25]Sun Cable, Submission 71, p. 6.

[26]See, for example: Tesla, Submission 24, p. 10; Climate Council, Submission 36.1, p. 3; Sun Cable, Submission 71, p. 6.

[27]Australian National University Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 6.

[28]See, for example: Australian Hydrogen Council, Submission 39, p. 3; Australian National University Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 9; Rewiring Australia, Submission 118, pp. 3–; Associate Professor Emma Aisbett, Associate Director (Research), Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, Canberra 31 March 2023, p. 51.

[29]Australian National University Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 9.

[30]Rewiring Australia, Submission 118, p. 3.

[31]Associate Professor Emma Aisbett, Associate Director (Research), Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 51.

[32]Associate Professor Emma Aisbett, Associate Director (Research), Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 51.

[33]See, for example: Australian Aluminium Council, Submission 18, p. 4; DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission31, p. 4; Entura, Submission 79, p. 4.

[34]Estimates of the amount of renewable electricity generation capacity required to support Australia’s green energy superpower opportunities depend on a wide range of factors including timeframes, technology development and deployment, infrastructure build, the inclusion of off-grid capacity and which industries are included.

[35]DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31.3, p. 2; Clean Energy Council, Submission 38, p. 2; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 3; Australia China Business Council, Submission 102, p. 6; Industry Super Australia, Submission 117, p. 2; Professor Ken Baldwin, Fellow, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31March 2023, p. 13.

[36]DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31, p. 4.

[37]Mr David Woods, Chief Economist and First Assistance Secretary, International Economics and Green Economy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 November 2022, p. 1.

[38]Clean Energy Council, Submission 38, p. 2.

[39]Professor Ken Baldwin, Fellow, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p.13.

[40]University of Adelaide Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Resources, Submission 18, p. 2, citation omitted; Clean Energy Council, Submission 38, p. 2, citation omitted.

[41]Heavy Industry Low-Carbon Transition CRC, Submission 30, pp. 1-2

[42]Heavy Industry Low-Carbon Transition CRC, Submission 30, pp. 1-2.

[43]Mr Simon Corbell, Chief Executive Officer, Clean Energy Investor Group, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31March 2023, p. 15.

[44]Professor Ken Baldwin, Fellow, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 13.

[45]See, for example: DrGeoffrey D Houston, Submission 9, p. 1; Kalapa Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Submission 49, p. 6; Australian Environment Foundation, Submission 68, p. 3; Name withheld, Submission89, p. 2; Mr Cedric Creed, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, p. 22; Name withheld, Submission 5, p. 14.

[46]Mr Thomas Bostock, Chairman, Australian Environment Foundation, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5April 2023, p. 31.

[47]Mr Dennis Armstrong, Member, Save Our Surroundings, Committee Hansard, Macquarie Park, 6 April 2023, p. 1.

[48]Australian Environment Foundation, Submission 68, p. 3.

[49]Name withheld, Submission 7, p. 2.

[50]See, for example: Advanced Materials and Battery Council, Submission 15, p. 2; Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Submission 40, p. 1; Woodside Energy, Submission 47, pp. 2, 5; Star of the South, Submission 54, p. 2; Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 3; Fortescue Future Industries, Submission 93, p. 6, Mr Simon Corbell, Chief Executive Officer, Clean Energy Investor Group, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, pp. 17, 20.

[51]Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 3.

[52]See, for example: Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Submission 40, p. 1; Entura, Submission 79, p. 3; MrSimon Corbell, Chief Executive Officer, Clean Energy Investor Group, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31March 2023, p. 20.

[53]Mr Simon Corbell, Chief Executive Officer, Clean Energy Investor Group, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 20.

[54]Entura, Submission 79, p. 3.

[55]Advanced Materials and Battery Council, Submission 15, p. 2.

[56]Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 3.

[57]Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 4, citations omitted.

[58]Tesla, Submission 24, p. 10.

[59]Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 4.

[60]Entura, Submission 79, p. 4.

[61]Responsible Energy Development for New England (RED4NE), Submission 91, p. 1; Mrs Joy Howley, Submission 105, p. 1.

[62]Emma Jeffrey, Submission 104, p. 1.

[63]See: Mr David Woods, Chief Economist and First Assistant Secretary, International Economics and Green Economy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 November 2022, p. 12; Ms Helen Stylianou, First Assistant Secretary, Trade Resilience and Indo-Pacific Economic Cooperation Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23November 2022, p. 12.

[64]Law Council of Australia, Submission 92.1, p. 4.

[65]Dr Madeline Taylor, Deputy Director, Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation, Macquarie University, Committee Hansard, Macquarie Park, 6 April 2023, p. 42.

[66]Professor Michael Goodsite, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Energy Futures, and Director, Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Resources (ISER), University of Adelaide, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 16 May 2023, p. 24.

[67]See, for example: The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 5; Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, pp. 59–60.

[68]Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, pp. 59–60.

[69]Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, pp. 59–60. See also: Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 62.

[70]Western Australian Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, Submission 65, p. 7.

[71]Mr Matthew Hingerty, Deputy Chair, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Head of Business Development, Star Scientific, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 16 May 2023, p. 33.

[72]Ms Catherine Zerger, Acting Branch Head, Hydrogen Branch, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p. 7.

[73]Kalapa and Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Submission 49, p. 5.

[74]Mr Nick Holland, Member, Kalapa and Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, p. 8. See also: Kalapa and Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Submission 49, p. 5.

[75]Mrs Therese Creed, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, p. 16.

[76]See, for example: Queensland Conservation Council, Submission 41, p. 2; The Next Economy, Submission51, p. 4; South Australian Nature Alliance, Submission 55, p. 2; BirdLife Australia, Submission58, pp. 1–2; Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Submission 95, pp. 2–3.

[77]Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Submission 95, p. 2.

[78]South Australian Nature Alliance, Submission 55, p. 6

[79]BirdLife Australia, Submission 58, p. 1.

[80]Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Submission p. 1.

[81]Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Submission 95, p. 3, citation omitted.

[82]South Australian Nature Alliance, Submission 55, p. 6.

[83]Macquarie University Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation, Submission125, p. 8.

[84]See, for example: Climate Council, Submission 36, p. 11; Clean Energy Council, Submission 38, p. 2; RE-Alliance, Submission 43, pp. 5, 8; Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 4: Macquarie University Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation, Submission 125, pp. 8–9.

[85]Birdlife Australia, Submission 58, p. 2.

[86]Dr Jody Gunn, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 12.

[87]BirdLife Australia, Submission 58, p. 3.

[88]Mr Paul Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer, BirdLife Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p.64.

[89]Dr Jody Gunn, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 10.

[90]South Australian Nature Alliance, Submission 55, p. 2.

[91]The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 4.

[92]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, pp. 13–14.

[93]BirdLife Australia, Submission 58, p. 3.

[94]Dr Jody Gunn, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 13.

[95]RE-Alliance, Submission 43, p. 9.

[96]South Australian Nature Alliance, Submission 55, p. 6.

[97]See, for example: Name withheld, Submission 4, p. 1; Name withheld, Submission 7, p. 5; Save Our Surroundings, Submission 28, Attachment1, p. 68; Name withheld, Submission 89, p. 6; Ms Rachel Logan, Submission 107, p. 1.

[98]Mr Bill Stinson, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, p. 13.

[99]Ms Rachel Logan, Submission 107, p. 1.

[100]Kalapa Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Submission 49, p. 6.

[101]Kalapa Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Submission 49, p. 6.

[102]Farmers for Climate Action, Submission 16.1, p. 5.

[103]Farmers for Climate Action, Submission 16.1, p. 51.

[104]Macquarie University Centre for Energy and Resources Innovation and Transformation, Submission 125, p.9.

[105]See, for example, Name withheld, Submission 5, p. 3; Dr Geoffrey D Houston, Submission 9, p. 3; Save Our Surroundings, Submission 28 Attachment 1, pp. 19, 43; Kalapa Wycarbah Local Action Committee, Submission 49, p. 5; Name withheld, Submission 61, p. 7; Law Council of Australia, Submission 92.1, p. 9; Name withheld, Submission 124, p. 2.

[106]Mr Dennis Armstrong, Member, Save Our Surroundings, Committee Hansard, Macquarie Park, 6 April 2023, p. 3.

[107]Mrs Therese Creed, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, p. 22. See also: DrGeoffrey D Houston, Submission 9, p. 3; Save Our Surroundings, Submission 28, Attachment1, p.6.

[108]Mrs Therese Creed, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, pp. 16–17.

[109]Mrs Therese Creed, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, p. 17.

[110]Law Council of Australia, Submission 92.1, p. 9, citations omitted.

[111]Dr Karin Soldenhoff, Manager, Process Development Research, Minerals Business Unit, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p. 31.

[112]Mrs Simone Spencer, Deputy Director General, Strategy and International Engagement, Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, Western Australia, Committee Hansard, Perth, 17 March 2023, p. 4.

[113]See, for example: Name withheld, Submission 5, p. 8; Save Our Surroundings, Submission 28, Attachment1, p. 17; Mr Jason Wood, Submission 119, p. 29.

[114]Name withheld, Submission 5, p. 2.

[115]Mr Bill Stinson, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Gladstone, 17 May 2023, p. 14.

[116]Ms Erin Coldham, Chief Development Officer, Star of the South Wind Farm Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 16 May 2023, p.10.

[117]Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 61.

[118]See, for example: Mr Michael Dillon, Submission 22, p. 1; First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, p. 3; WWF-Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 67, Attachment 1, p. 99, citations omitted; Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing and Dr Lily O'Neill, Submission 97, p. 1.

[119]Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing and Dr Lily O'Neill, Submission 97, p. 1.

[120]See, for example: Mr Michael Dillon, Submission 22, p. 1; First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, pp. 3, 5; Australian National University Zero Carbon for the Asia Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 9.

[121]Mr Michael Dillon, Submission 22, p. 1.

[122]First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, p. 3.

[123]Beyond Zero Emissions, Submission 32, p. 6.

[124]Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing and Dr Lily O'Neill, Submission 97, p. 2, citation omitted.

[125]First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, p. 6; Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing and Dr Lily O’Neill, Submission 97, p. 2; Australian National University Zero Carbon for the Asia Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p.9.

[126]Law Council of Australia, Submission 92.1, p. 8.

[127]WWF-Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 67, Attachment 1, p. 99, citations omitted.

[128]Australian National University Zero Carbon for the Asia Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p.9. See also: Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing and Dr Lily O'Neill, Submission 97, p. 2.

[129]See, for example: Re-Alliance, Submission 45, pp. 2, 7; First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, pp. 5–6; The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 4; Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 4; Law Council of Australia, Submission 92.1, pp. 7–8; Australian National University Zero Carbon for the Asia Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 9.

[130]Beyond Zero Emissions, Submission 32.3, p. 12.

[131]RE-Alliance, Submission 45, p. 2.

[132]Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing and Dr Lily O'Neill, Submission 97, p. 3.

[133]First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, p. 4.

[134]First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, p. 4.

[135]Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Instructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 62.

[136]Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Instructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, p. 62.

[137]Dr Lily O’Neill, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, pp. 35–36.

[138]Dr Lily O’Neill, private capacity, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, pp. 35–36.

[139]Mr Michael Dillon, Submission 22, p. 1; First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, p. 3; Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing, and Dr Lily O’Neill, Submission 97, pp. 3–4; Australian National University Zero Carbon for the Asia Pacific Initiative, Submission 98, p. 9.

[140]Mr Michael Dillon, Submission 22, p. 1.

[141]Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing, and Dr Lily O’Neill, Submission 97, pp. 3–4.

[142]Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing, and Dr Lily O’Neill, Submission 97, pp. 3–4. See also: Mr Michael Dillon, Submission 22, p. 1.

[143]First Nations Clean Energy Network, Submission 45, p. 6.

[144]Mr Michael Dillon, Submission 22, p. 2. See also: Mr Brad Riley, Dr Ed Wensing, and Dr Lily O’Neill, Submission 97, p. 4.

[145]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 13; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62.1, p. 1; Mr James White, Branch Head, Renewables and Distributed Energy, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p. 10.

[146]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 13.

[147]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Improving community engagement and support for energy infrastructure, www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/improving-community-engagement-support-energy-infrastructure, viewed 28 July 2023.

[148]See, for example, Ms Anthea Long, Head, Minerals and Resources Division, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p. 19; Professor Ian Chubb, Secretary for Science Policy, Australian Academy of Science, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 14.

[149]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Improving community engagement and support for energy infrastructure, www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/improving-community-engagement-support-energy-infrastructure, viewed 28 July 2023.

[150]Dr Frances van Ruth, Head of EMEA Desk, Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 30 November 2022, p. 8.

[151]Ms Erin Coldham, Chief Development Officer, Star of the South, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 16 May 2023, p. 9.

[152]Ms Erin Coldham, Chief Development Officer, Star of the South, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 16 May 2023, p. 9.

[153]BirdLife Australia, Submission 58, p. 2.

[154]Mr Matthew Stuchbery, Vice President, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 5 April 2023, pp. 58–59.

[155]Climate Council, Submission 36, p. 8.

[156]Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 13.

[157]Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 13.

[158]Mrs Joy Howley, Submission 105, p. 1.

[159]See, for example: Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, p. 5; Tesla, Submission 24, p. 10; DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31, p. 5; Grattan Institute, Submission 37, p. 10; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, pp. 3–4; Transgrid, Submission 52, p. 2; Australian Refrigeration Mechanics Association, Submission 52, p. 1.

[160]DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31, p. 5.

[161]Smart Energy Council, Submission 51, p. 5.

[162]Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, p. 5; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, pp. 3–4; Transgrid, Submission 52, p. 2; Australia China Business Council, Submission 102, p. 8.

[163]Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Submission 74, p. 2.

[164]Entura, Submission 79, p. 3.

[165]See, for example: Tesla, Submission 24, p. 10; Queensland Conservation Council, Submission 41, p. 2; Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 50, pp. 2–3; The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 5; Entura, Submission 79, p. 3.

[166]The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 7.

[167]Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 50, pp. 2–3.

[168]For example: Beyond Zero Emissions, Submission 32, p. 5; Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission50, pp. 2–3; Transgrid, Submission 52, p. 2; Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Submission 74, p. 5; Australia China Business Council, Submission 102, p. 8.

[169]Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Submission 74, p. 5.

[170]Beyond Zero Emissions, Submission 32, p. 5; Australia China Business Council, Submission 102, p. 8.

[171]Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 8.

[172]Australian Refrigeration Mechanics Association, Submission 53, p. 1.

[173]Transgrid, Submission 52, p. 2.

[174]DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31, p. 5.

[175]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 11.

[176]Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, pp. 8–9.

[177]RE-Alliance, Submission 43, p. 3.

[178]See, for example: DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31, p. 5; Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, p.5; Grattan Institute, Submission 37, p. 10; Transgrid, Submission 52, pp. 2–3; Westpac Group, Submission57, p. 5; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p.3.

[179]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 3.

[180]DFAT, Austrade and EFA, Submission 31, p. 5.

[181]Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, p. 5; Grattan Institute, Submission 37, p.10; Transgrid, Submission52, p. 2–3.

[182]Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, p. 5.

[183]Smart Energy Council, Submission 23, p. 5.

[184]Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 4.

[185]Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 4.

[186]Australian Electric Vehicle Association, Submission 19, p. 7; The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 6; Sun Cable, Submission 71, p. 8; Entura, Submission 79, p. 4; Australia China Business Council, Submission 102, p. 7.

[187]Entura, Submission 79, p. 4.

[188]The Next Economy, Submission 51, p. 7.

[189]Grattan Institute, Submission 37, p. 10.

[190]Westpac Group, Submission 57, p. 4; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Submission 62, p. 5; Sun Cable, Submission 71, pp. 8, 10.