NSW Power Generation
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: I ask a question without notice of the Minister for Energy. Is the Minister aware that the proposed construction of new coal or gas-fired generators at Bayswater and Mount Piper would result in an additional four gigawatt of generating capacity 10 to 20 times the projected energy shortfall for 2016-17? Is the Minister aware that combined with the proposed expansions at Munmorah and Eraring power stations, this would contribute an additional 14 to 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year to the State’s greenhouse emissions? Is the Minister aware that if the new plants were coal powered, the resultant emissions would be more than the greenhouse emissions from the entire transport sector in New South Wales? Given that Australia will be present in the Copenhagen summit and emissions trading scheme legislation being agreed upon, will the New South Wales Government place a moratorium on any new coal-fired power station being built in New South Wales and encourage Macquarie Generation and Delta Electricity to invest in renewable energy technology?
The Hon. John Robertson: The Government’s energy reform strategy contains three key components, including offering the new generation sites to the private sector for development. To provide the best incentive to the private sector to acquire and develop these sites, each will be offered with an existing development approval or with the development approval process already underway. For three of the sites—Bayswater B, Mount Piper Extension and Munmorah—the fuel option available can be either gas or coal.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You said something different during the budget estimates hearings.
The Hon. John Robertson: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition keeps listening he will find that it is consistent with what I said in the budget estimates hearings. He should not jump to conclusions. As a result, the development approvals that are being sought for these sites will allow for either fuel type. The private sector, not the New South Wales Government, will decide where new investment in generation will occur and what fuel will be used for that generation.
That decision will be made with the full knowledge that a carbon pollution reduction scheme will be introduced—and I am assuming that the members opposite might have a new leader federally after one o’clock this afternoon, because they lack discipline and consistency with anything, including a carbon pollution reduction scheme. They have two spokespeople on climate change and the environment—Ian Macfarlane and Andrew Robb.
One says “Let’s support a carbon pollution reduction scheme” and the other one says “Let’s not support a carbon pollution reduction scheme.” At some point we will see a carbon pollution reduction scheme—whether Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Andrews or Tony Abbott is the Liberal leader—and it will be a matter for the private firms to select the fuel source they think works best in that environment. Four other sites—Bamarang, two at Marulan and Tomago—are approved gas-only developments.
The New South Wales Government has a fuel-neutral policy for any other new generation proposals for the State. Decisions on fuel types are commercial decisions for the development proponents. Obviously, in the context of a carbon pollution reduction scheme gas appears a more competitive fuel because of its lower greenhouse intensity. Nevertheless, significant research and investment is being undertaken by this and other governments, as well as the private sector, on reducing greenhouse emissions associated with fossil fuel generation.
As a result, coal solutions should not be unilaterally ruled out. At the end of the day, the carbon pollution reduction scheme is a mechanism that will determine future fuel sources for generation, and this is a policy approach that the Government supports.
