❓ Question regarding the Albany Wave Farm Project's business case, funding for network augmentation, ministerial advice, technical capacity, and Carnegie Clean Energy's input on project funding sufficiency. The answers clarify the project's approval process, funding responsibilities, and technical specifications.
AnsweredQoN 2768Legislative Assembly
Asked
13 March 2018
Member
Portfolio
Regional Development; Agriculture and Food; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Albany Wave Farm Project and ask: (a) Was a business case for the project completed prior to ERC approval for the project funds; (b) Has funding provision been made for any network augmentation to allow connection of the wave energy project to the SWIS, and if so, who is paying for the augmentation; (c) Is any new funding required for network augmentation need cabinet or ERC approval; (d) Was the Minister provided a copy of a score card referred to in document 3(a) from a FOI request to the Minister's office in October 2017, prior to making a decision on the preferred proponent; (e) What will be the technical capacity of the common use infrastructure required to be left behind once the proponent completes their commitments to the wave farm project; and (f) Was advice from Carnegie Clean Energy provided to DPIRD that $14.4m would not be sufficient to proceed with the project significant in the decision to increase the government funds available to the project?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
17 May 2018
Responded by
Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development; Agriculture and Food; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade
Response time
14 days
a) The State investment into the Wave Energy Technology project was an election commitment approved by Cabinet. As it is an R & D project, the standard business case methodology is not relevant. The decision to award the grant to Carnegie followed a rigorous tender process.
b) Under the terms of the Financial Assistance Agreement, any required network augmentation is the responsibility of the Recipient.
c) N/A.
d) No.
e) The agreement with the proponent calls for the common user infrastructure to have a capacity to export greater than 1MW of electrical power. The current design proposed is for a nominal capacity of 1.5MW.
f) No. No negotiations around the quantum of the grants took place with the proponents.
b) Under the terms of the Financial Assistance Agreement, any required network augmentation is the responsibility of the Recipient.
c) N/A.
d) No.
e) The agreement with the proponent calls for the common user infrastructure to have a capacity to export greater than 1MW of electrical power. The current design proposed is for a nominal capacity of 1.5MW.
f) No. No negotiations around the quantum of the grants took place with the proponents.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.