❓ Questioning the Minister for Energy regarding Western Power's proposed Eastern Terminal substation in Hacketts Gully, including community consultation, environmental impact, and alternative locations. The Minister defends the project based on increasing energy demands and limited impact.
AnsweredQoN 6322Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(2) Does the Minister dispute that in 2007 Western Power representatives advised Hacketts Gully residents that Western Power was proposing to construct an Eastern Terminal substation in Hacketts Gully, at the same site that was the subject of negotiations with Hacketts Gully residents during the period 1998-2000?
(3) Which long term electrical load requirements for the east metropolitan area changed from 9 May 2002 to 2007?
(4) During the period 2000-2002, what advice concerning the Eastern Terminal proposal did Western Power receive from, -
(a) the Environmental Protection Authority;
(b) the Waters and Rivers Commission; and
(c) Conservation and Land Management?
(5) Will the Minister direct Western Power to reply to a letter dated 3 December 2007 from Dr Alan Lonsdale which requested information regarding, -
(a) Western Power's community consultation procedures;
(b) the lack of/misleading nature of information provided by Western Power; and
(c) the time period provided for community members to respond to Western Power's proposal?
(6) The Minister has confirmed that the Pinjar generators are actively providing 16hours of power into the grid per day. Given that one of the critical underlying assumptions of the Sinclair Knight Merz study has been invalidated, will the Minister direct Western Power to review the decision to upgrade the Boddington to Hacketts Gully transmission line and the decision to develop an Eastern Terminal Substation?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Will the Minister explain why no public consultation took place prior to Western Power's announcement of 7 February 2008, that it would construct a gantry and associated structures in Hacketts Gully?
(9) Has the visual impact of the proposed gantry and associated structures announced by Western Power on 7 February 2008, been assessed, either formally or informally?
(10) Has Western Power investigated other potential locations for the gantry site that are not as visually harmful to this popular tourist route?
(11) Why was a dieback management plan contracted in June 2007 for a transmission line ending in Hacketts Gully?
(12) Why were dieback management plans not carried out for any other potential Eastern Terminal sites in Western Power’s designated study area?
(13) In answer to question on notice No. 5963, the Minister referred to current studies of the environmental, social, and economic impact of extending the 330kV transmission line from the gantry in Hacketts Gully to the existing Guildford Terminal substation, will the Minister table each of these studies?
(3) Which long term electrical load requirements for the east metropolitan area changed from 9 May 2002 to 2007?
(4) During the period 2000-2002, what advice concerning the Eastern Terminal proposal did Western Power receive from, -
(a) the Environmental Protection Authority;
(b) the Waters and Rivers Commission; and
(c) Conservation and Land Management?
(5) Will the Minister direct Western Power to reply to a letter dated 3 December 2007 from Dr Alan Lonsdale which requested information regarding, -
(a) Western Power's community consultation procedures;
(b) the lack of/misleading nature of information provided by Western Power; and
(c) the time period provided for community members to respond to Western Power's proposal?
(6) The Minister has confirmed that the Pinjar generators are actively providing 16hours of power into the grid per day. Given that one of the critical underlying assumptions of the Sinclair Knight Merz study has been invalidated, will the Minister direct Western Power to review the decision to upgrade the Boddington to Hacketts Gully transmission line and the decision to develop an Eastern Terminal Substation?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Will the Minister explain why no public consultation took place prior to Western Power's announcement of 7 February 2008, that it would construct a gantry and associated structures in Hacketts Gully?
(9) Has the visual impact of the proposed gantry and associated structures announced by Western Power on 7 February 2008, been assessed, either formally or informally?
(10) Has Western Power investigated other potential locations for the gantry site that are not as visually harmful to this popular tourist route?
(11) Why was a dieback management plan contracted in June 2007 for a transmission line ending in Hacketts Gully?
(12) Why were dieback management plans not carried out for any other potential Eastern Terminal sites in Western Power’s designated study area?
(13) In answer to question on notice No. 5963, the Minister referred to current studies of the environmental, social, and economic impact of extending the 330kV transmission line from the gantry in Hacketts Gully to the existing Guildford Terminal substation, will the Minister table each of these studies?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
24 June 2008
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy
Response time
40 days
(1) No
(2) No. Western Power advised that at the very beginning of the current process of consulting with the community about Eastern Terminal, Western Power picked up at the exact point it had left off in 2002. Western Power did talk to the residents of Hacketts Gully regarding their thoughts about the site being constructed at that location. Subsequent to this meeting, Western Power decided that a site selection process should be undertaken.
(3) The long term electrical load requirements in the South West Interconnected Network have been consistently revised upwards every year. The 2003 Generation Status Review - performed by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research - predicted the need for 3600 MW by 2010. This forecast has since been revised and in 2007 the Independent Market Operator (IMO) predicted that 4200 MW will be required by 2010.
(4a-c) Western Power did not receive any advice regarding this project from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) or the Waters and Rivers Commission between 2000 and 2002. Western Power did receive advice from Conservation and Land Management that they may forward Western Power's submission to the EPA for formal assessment.
(5a-c) Western Power's General Manager of Customer Services Division, Mark De Laeter, responded to Dr Lonsdale's letter on Mr Aberle's behalf on 19 May 2008.
(6) No.
(7) Western Power advise that with Pinjar power station running, the existing Western Power network still cannot support the predicted system load by the summer of 2011/12. The IMO's 2007 Statement of Opportunities has increased the WA load forecast substantially and the operation of Pinjar will not address the issue. That is, based on current load demand projections, the project cannot be delayed beyond the end of 2011 without risking service standards.
(8) I am advised that the only way to delay the construction of the Eastern Terminal Switchyard in order to conduct a more detailed community consultation process, whilst still maintaining network capacity and reliability, is to build a gantry structure to facilitate connection into the existing 330kV network of the proposed 330kV line between Wells Terminal substation near Boddington and Hacketts Gully. As rebuilding this line was determined to be the most viable option and the line does not have any direct impact on the community (it is contained totally within Government controlled land), Western Power's usual community consultation process was not conducted.
However, Western Power advises that they have kept the community informed about their plans for carrying out the line works and for the gantry structure. This has included direct contact with residents close to the location of the gantry, and by written advice and media statements to other stakeholders.
I am also informed that Western Power intended to have two sets of poles at the gantry location to connect the existing 330 kV lines to Eastern Terminal, and that this information has been included as part of the Eastern Terminal consultation process from the beginning.
(9) Western Power advises that due to the planned location of the gantry and the existing vegetation in that area, the visual impact of the gantry and the associated line structures will be minimal. Western Power has commissioned an independent consultant to develop a photomontage of the proposed gantry and its associated transmission line structures, and this will be made available to the public in the near future.
(10) Western Power did consider two alternative options prior to choosing the current site. This site was selected as it is the only one that allows the structures to be located outside National Parks and private property. The site offers the least social and environmental impact of those considered.
(11) Once it was identified by Western Power that rebuilding the 132kV line between Wells Terminal substation and Hacketts Gully was the most viable option an external consultant was engaged to undertake a survey of dieback issues along the route and to prepare a dieback hygiene plan.
(12) Dieback management plans have not been developed for any other location because the site selection process for the proposed Eastern Terminal switchyard is still underway and potential sites have not yet been identified. Dieback surveys will be conducted and a plan prepared once a site has been selected.
(13) Western Power is in the process of finalising a report outlining the environmental, social, economic and technical impacts of extending the transmission line from Hacketts Gully to Guildford Terminal substation. This will be made available shortly.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) No. Western Power advised that at the very beginning of the current process of consulting with the community about Eastern Terminal, Western Power picked up at the exact point it had left off in 2002. Western Power did talk to the residents of Hacketts Gully regarding their thoughts about the site being constructed at that location. Subsequent to this meeting, Western Power decided that a site selection process should be undertaken.
(3) The long term electrical load requirements in the South West Interconnected Network have been consistently revised upwards every year. The 2003 Generation Status Review - performed by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research - predicted the need for 3600 MW by 2010. This forecast has since been revised and in 2007 the Independent Market Operator (IMO) predicted that 4200 MW will be required by 2010.
(4a-c) Western Power did not receive any advice regarding this project from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) or the Waters and Rivers Commission between 2000 and 2002. Western Power did receive advice from Conservation and Land Management that they may forward Western Power's submission to the EPA for formal assessment.
(5a-c) Western Power's General Manager of Customer Services Division, Mark De Laeter, responded to Dr Lonsdale's letter on Mr Aberle's behalf on 19 May 2008.
(6) No.
(7) Western Power advise that with Pinjar power station running, the existing Western Power network still cannot support the predicted system load by the summer of 2011/12. The IMO's 2007 Statement of Opportunities has increased the WA load forecast substantially and the operation of Pinjar will not address the issue. That is, based on current load demand projections, the project cannot be delayed beyond the end of 2011 without risking service standards.
(8) I am advised that the only way to delay the construction of the Eastern Terminal Switchyard in order to conduct a more detailed community consultation process, whilst still maintaining network capacity and reliability, is to build a gantry structure to facilitate connection into the existing 330kV network of the proposed 330kV line between Wells Terminal substation near Boddington and Hacketts Gully. As rebuilding this line was determined to be the most viable option and the line does not have any direct impact on the community (it is contained totally within Government controlled land), Western Power's usual community consultation process was not conducted.
However, Western Power advises that they have kept the community informed about their plans for carrying out the line works and for the gantry structure. This has included direct contact with residents close to the location of the gantry, and by written advice and media statements to other stakeholders.
I am also informed that Western Power intended to have two sets of poles at the gantry location to connect the existing 330 kV lines to Eastern Terminal, and that this information has been included as part of the Eastern Terminal consultation process from the beginning.
(9) Western Power advises that due to the planned location of the gantry and the existing vegetation in that area, the visual impact of the gantry and the associated line structures will be minimal. Western Power has commissioned an independent consultant to develop a photomontage of the proposed gantry and its associated transmission line structures, and this will be made available to the public in the near future.
(10) Western Power did consider two alternative options prior to choosing the current site. This site was selected as it is the only one that allows the structures to be located outside National Parks and private property. The site offers the least social and environmental impact of those considered.
(11) Once it was identified by Western Power that rebuilding the 132kV line between Wells Terminal substation and Hacketts Gully was the most viable option an external consultant was engaged to undertake a survey of dieback issues along the route and to prepare a dieback hygiene plan.
(12) Dieback management plans have not been developed for any other location because the site selection process for the proposed Eastern Terminal switchyard is still underway and potential sites have not yet been identified. Dieback surveys will be conducted and a plan prepared once a site has been selected.
(13) Western Power is in the process of finalising a report outlining the environmental, social, economic and technical impacts of extending the transmission line from Hacketts Gully to Guildford Terminal substation. This will be made available shortly.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.