We urge our supporters to complete Western Power's survey. Click on the "Take our online survey" link once you get to Western Power's website.
Here is the direct link to the survey.
Western Power’s Proposed 330kV South West Transmission Reinforcement and the Eastern Terminal.
After the 29th November 2008 ‘focus group’ workshop held at the Jack Healey centre and attended by only 12 ‘locals’, Western Power issued, on 20th December, an ‘Invitation for Submissions for the Proposed 330kV South West Transmission Reinforcement’. The Western Power documents detailing this proposal contain 9 options for alternative reinforcements and can be viewed on Western Power’s website.( Project updates/Powering Perth Communities/Project History/Hacketts Gully)
Western Power received 16 submissions;
(i) 5 came from individuals opposed to various aspects of the proposal
(ii) 11 came from government, business and private organizations.
Of these only 3 supported the proposal. These included Griffin Energy,
the main beneficiary of the line upgrade, the Bunbury Economic Alliance
and the Independent Market Operator (IMO), whose energy projections
had been used by Western Power to support the proposal.
Alinta stated it had no alternative suggestions
Dept of Water stated that the existing line prevented access to its assets
for maintenance and therefore reserved the right to require relocation of
the proposed line route.
Of the remainder
Office of Energy criticised various aspects of Western Power’s analysis
and concluded that the alternative Landwehr to South East Terminal at
Oldbury may provide greater opportunities for low emission technologies
and co-generation.
Aviva Corporation voiced concern that the proposal reinforced existing
transmission infrastructure imbalance favouring south west generation and
that this discounted new generation developments in the Mid West region.
ERM could not agree with some of the statements and conclusions used
to support Western Power’s contention that the proposal is needed to
ensure a competitive generation market. It argued that the need is for
‘peak generation’ closer to the Perth market and that carbon pollution
reduction schemes will make gas-fired generation more competitive than
coal-fired generation. It argued that the reliability of the SWIS will be
improved through generation capacity north of Perth.
Synergy pointed out that the assumptions used by Western Power and its
consultants ACIL Tasman & SKM do not reflect the current energy
demand outlook. Moreover, it did not consider plant located north of
Perth and that this area would be the location of significant renewable
energy generation. Synergy concluded, ’there is no immediate need for
augmentation, the opportunity afforded by deferring this decision will
allow reflection on what is required and when. This deferral will also
avoid an unnecessary cost impost on network users in these difficult
times and relieve pressure on the state government’s debt requirement’
Hills Climate Change Group opposed the proposal for a number of
reasons including carbon emission implications for coal-fired generation
on the environment and climate change; and because much of the data
used in Western Power’s decision is superceded by the global downturn.
SETS Group submission opposed Western Power’s preferred
option 8 establishing a new 330kV transmission line from Collie to
Hacketts Gully. Among a number of inconsistencies the analysis SETS
noted ACIL Tasman’s variance with Western Power over the
implications of Option 8, that being that ACIL Tasman stated that
the Eastern Terminal will be located to the south at Byford and
referred to as the South East Terminal.
SETS Group submission supported the Landwehr options.
On January 29, 2009, without any endorsement from the ‘focus group’ workshop, Western Power announced that it would proceed with the construction of a ‘gantry tie-in solution’ at Hacketts Gully.
On 28 January 2009 Western Power released a document called ‘Environmental & Social Review of the Line Routes: Landwehr to South East Terminal, Wells Terminal to Hacketts Gully’ (Available on Western Power’s website: Project updates/Powering Perth Communities/ Project History/related downloads/Environment & Social Review)
This review was based on a desk top study and only deals with the most superficial aspects of the 2 proposals, and rather than containing full environmental & social impact studies contains a number of subjective opinions such as; ’The State Forest has comparatively low conservation values…’ There is no discussion of the environmental impacts of the construction process despite the 90 km Wells to Hacketts Gully line passing through a State Forest (80 hectares of which will be cleared for the Wells to Hacketts Gully line) susceptible to Phytophthora disease and 87.7 kms of the line being in Priority 1 Water Catchments of the Mundaring Weir, Middle Helena, Canning, Serpentine and South Dandalup Dams.
The SETS Group submission, dated 4th February, argues that Option 8 (Wells to Hacketts Gully) should be rejected on environmental and social grounds. The submission also raises the matter of an increase in fire risk for the community adjoining the State Forest, either trough line malfunction, lightening strike or misuse of the corridor by off-road vehicles.
May 2009 State Budget;
No allocation was provided for Western Power’s South West Transmission Line Reinforcement or the Eastern Terminal proposal in the State’s May Budget.
On the 23rd June, 2009 Western Power released ‘Assessment of impacts associated with the Wells to Hacketts Gully 330kV transmission line’
This document related to the granting of a permit (dated 12 February 2008) to clear native vegetation under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 for the purposes of upgrading Western Power’s South West Interconnected System (SWIS). It called for submissions ‘on the proposal to upgrade a section of the existing Guildford to Boddington 132kV line to a 330kV capacity from Wells Terminal near Boddington to Hacketts Gully’
Both the Shire of Kalamunda (letter dated 22 July, 2009) and SETS Group made representations on the Western Power document. The SETS Group submission opposed the use of the clearing permit for the line reconstruction for the following reasons:
(1) The results of such clearing are at variance with 8 of the 10 permit principles.
(2) It will contradict the guidelines for land use in all Priority 1 areas of the PDWSA’s and will seriously compromise water management strategy during and after the line reconstruction. [Note that the proposed 90 km line traverses 87.7km of Priority 1 area through the Middle Helena, Mundaring Weir, Serpentine Dam, Canning River and South Dandalup catchments]
(3) The resulting line will increase the risk of fire, both from line mishaps and illegal vehicle activity, to an unacceptable level and consequence for the catchments and the adjacent communities.
(4) It will increase the risk of the spread of dieback in the State Forest during construction and that no management strategy can entirely eliminate that risk. This is unacceptable given the fragile state of the forest.
(5) Any clearing of the State Forest is unacceptable.
To date, December 2009, nothing further has been publicly released to indicate any further advancement of the project, though it is interesting to note that the alternative option, Landwehr to South East Terminal, which was rejected by both Western Power and its consultants ACIL Tasman, has now been listed as a project for the South West Integrated System augmentation!
It is also interesting to note that the initial reason given for the new line (Wells to Hacketts Gully) was the need to supply ‘peak demand power’ for airconditioners in the northern suburbs. Last week (3rd December) the Minister for Energy opened the new open cycle gas-fired 320 mw Neerabup Power Station north of Wanneroo to do just that!
The SETS Group thank ALL our supporters for their help and interest in this vital matter.
We urge our supporters to complete Western Power's survey. Click on the "Take our online survey" link once you get to Western Power's website.
Here is the direct link to the survey.