❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice from 2005 regarding the funding and allocation of the underground power program, including historical expenditure, funding sources, and future commitments. The response provides detailed financial data and clarifies allocation processes.
AnsweredQoN 33Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In 1996 when the program to convert older residential areas to underground power commenced, was the funding for the pilot projects set at $24 million?
(2) In the last six financial years have royalties paid to the State Government by Western Power increased from $107,738,000 to $213,025,000, and what were the figures for each of the financial years?
(3) For each year since the program commenced -
(a) how much money has been spent on underground power on an annual basis;
(b) what proportion of this money is from the Government directly;
(c) what proportion of this money has come from Western Power directly;
(d) what proportion of this money has come from Local Governments; and
(e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(4) How much money, on an annual basis, has been allocated to each member’s electorate since the program commenced?
(5) How much money, on an annual basis, has been spent supplying underground power to each suburb within the Alfred Cove electorate?
(6) Will the Government give a commitment to increase the amount of money spent on underground power?
(7) If not, why not?
(8) What is an average cost, in a older suburb, to supply underground power to a residential dwelling?
(9) What criteria do the Government currently use in deciding where underground power will be allocated?
(10) How many years will it take, using the trend of investment since the program commenced, to supply underground power to all residencies/homes -
(a) in the metropolitan area; and
(b) outside the metropolitan area?
(2) In the last six financial years have royalties paid to the State Government by Western Power increased from $107,738,000 to $213,025,000, and what were the figures for each of the financial years?
(3) For each year since the program commenced -
(a) how much money has been spent on underground power on an annual basis;
(b) what proportion of this money is from the Government directly;
(c) what proportion of this money has come from Western Power directly;
(d) what proportion of this money has come from Local Governments; and
(e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(4) How much money, on an annual basis, has been allocated to each member’s electorate since the program commenced?
(5) How much money, on an annual basis, has been spent supplying underground power to each suburb within the Alfred Cove electorate?
(6) Will the Government give a commitment to increase the amount of money spent on underground power?
(7) If not, why not?
(8) What is an average cost, in a older suburb, to supply underground power to a residential dwelling?
(9) What criteria do the Government currently use in deciding where underground power will be allocated?
(10) How many years will it take, using the trend of investment since the program commenced, to supply underground power to all residencies/homes -
(a) in the metropolitan area; and
(b) outside the metropolitan area?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
22 June 2005
Responded by
Minister for Energy
Response time
55 days
(b) what proportion of this money is from the Government directly; (c) what proportion of this money has come from Western Power directly; (d) what proportion of this money has come from Local Governments; and (e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(c) what proportion of this money has come from Western Power directly; (d) what proportion of this money has come from Local Governments; and (e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(d) what proportion of this money has come from Local Governments; and (e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(b) outside the metropolitan area?
(1) No. The Underground Power Program commenced in 1996 as a pilot project with the retrospective installation of underground power in Applecross, Albany, Claremont, West Cottesloe and Wembley. To cover the Government's share of the project costs, Cabinet allocated $4m per year increasing to $6m in the Office of Energy's budget for Round 1 in 1999/2000 and 2000/01. (2) The last six financial years of cash Payments to Government from Western Power are detailed below. Payments comprise dividends, income tax and council rate equivalents. 2003/04 2002/03 2001/02 2000/01 1999/00 1998/99 Cash Payments to Government (in $'000) 213,025 224,818 192,616 149,774 122,273 107 ,738 (3)(a) The following table provides the annual expenditure on the Program: 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/0 2 2002/03 2003/04 Project Expenditure $9.0m $8.8m $7.7m $18.4m $30.6m $21.5m $14.3m $10.2m (3)(b) 25% as per the normal funding arrangements in Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Program. (3)(c) 25% as per the normal funding arrangements in Rounds 1,2 and 3 of the Program. (3)(d) 50% as per the normal funding arrangements in Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Program. (3)(e) No. (4) The Program is a competitive process and funds are not allocated by electorate but are allocated to individual projects submitted by Local Government Authorities. The following table provides the details of actual expenditure during the pilot project and the first two completed rounds of the Program by project. None of the Round 3 projects has yet been completed so expenditure can not yet be calculated. Local Government Area(s) Project Expenditure Pilot Projects (1996-1999):City of AlbanyCity of MelvilleTown of Cottesloe/ClaremontTown of Cambridge AlbanyApplecrossClaremont & West CottesloeWembley $3.4m$6.6m$8.2m$3.1m Round 1 (1998-2001) Major Residential Projects:Town of CottesloeShire of Peppermint GroveCity of NedlandsCity of StirlingCity of South PerthCity of CanningTown of East FremantleLocalised Enhancement Projects:Shire of NannupShire of DowerinShire of Donnybrook-BalingupShire of CollieShire of August-Margaret RiverShire of Irwin East CottesloePeppermint GroveDalkeith & SwanbourneWoodlandsComoRossmoyneEast FremantleNannupDowerinDonnybrookCollieMargaret RiverDongara $2.3m$2.2m$5.4m$4.9m$5.2m$3.8m$7.4m$0.3m$0.1m$0.2m$0.1m$0.3m$0 .2m Round 2 (2001-2004):Major Residential Projects:City of MelvilleTown of East FremantleCity of BelmontCity of South PerthTown of ClaremontCity of MelvilleCity of StirlingTown of CambridgeTown of Victoria ParkCity of SubiacoCity of NedlandsTown of Mosman ParkLocalised Enhancement Projects:Shire of Serpentine-JarrahdaleCity of GosnellsShire of Shark BayTown of VincentShire of HarveyShire of MundaringCity of RockinghamShire of MurrayCity of FremantleShire of Bridgetown-GreenbushesCity of Stirling West BictonPlymptonRivervaleMill PointSouth ClaremontMount PleasantMount LawleyWest LeedervilleEast Victoria ParkSubiacoWest NedlandsMosman ParkJarrahdaleGosnellsDenhamHighgateHarveyMundaringRockinghamPinjarraFremantleBr idgetownScarborough $1.5m$3.7m$4.6m$6.9m$6.6m$6.0m$6.0m$5.5m$7.8m$6.6m$4.8m $3.1m$0.03m$0.5m$0.2m$0.2m$0.3m$0.4m$0.4m$0.2m$0.6m$0.6m$1.0m Round 3 (2004-2007)Major Residential Projects:Town of Victoria ParkCity of SubiacoTown of CambridgeCity of GosnellsCity of FremantleCity of South PerthCity of NedlandsCity of StirlingTown of Port HedlandTown of VincentLocalised Enhancement Projects:Shire of PlantagenetShire of CollieShire of Donnybrook-BalingupShire of NannupCity of BunburyCity of GeraldtonShire of Lake GraceShire of GinginShire of Carnamah Victoria Park SouthShenton ParkCity BeachGosnells NorthFremantleComo EastNedlands EastChurchlands/Wembley DownsPort HedlandHighgate EastMount BarkerCollieBalingupNannupBunburyCBD/foreshoreLake GraceGuildertonTownsite precinct Expenditure not yet available as projects incomplete or not yet commenced (5) Please refer to (4) above. Projects in Applecross and Mt Pleasant included premises in the Alfred Cove electorate. (6) & (7) The Government has committed a record $2.23 billion of capital and operating expenditure for the electricity network over the next four years to meet growth and improve reliability. Underground power is only one option for improving reliability. As part of the Budget process, the Government allocates State funds to numerous projects and sets priorities according to the needs of the community and the State. The Government is committed to continuing the underground power program and will ensure it is funded appropriately in the context of all other funding priorities. (8) The average cost of rolling out underground power to a residential dwelling in an older suburb is now approximately $5,500. These costs can vary significantly, depending on load, geology and lot size. (9) The Guidelines for Major Residential Projects and Localised Enhancement Projects for Round Three are publicly available documents (obtainable from the Office of Energy) which describe the selection process including the criteria used in the evaluation of proposals submitted by local governments. In Round Three, Major Residential Projects were assessed in terms of: ? Power system criteria, assessing the condition of the existing overhead system, its position relative to other areas of underground power and its relative vulnerability to damage (eg. damage from storms, wildlife, traffic). ? Nominated area, including the number and size of lots. ? Budget of the Project, using an estimated average cost per lot. ? Demonstrated commitment of local governments and their ability to fund half of a project. ? Indicative Community Support, seeking evidence of community willingness to participate in and contribute to a project. In Round Three, Localised Enhancement Projects were assessed in terms of: ? Power System Criteria. ? Heritage/tourism/scenic/geographical significance. ? Budget of the project. ? Demonstrated Funding Credibility. ? Regional Preference. ? Indicative Community Support. (10)(a) Under Western Australian Planning Commission Guidelines, all new land development and sub-divisions must be supplied with underground power. Western Power has estimated that it would cost approximately $3.2 billion to provide underground power to the remaining 390,000 overhead connections in the metropolitan area. While the current rate of connection under the underground power program is about 4,000 lots per year (some of which contain multiple dwellings), the time that would be required to replace all remaining overhead connections is unknown as it depends on the availability of the required labour and materials. It should be noted that in some areas the cost of the provision of underground power would be prohibitive because of environmental factors such as rocky terrain. (10)(b) Under Western Australian Planning Commission Guidelines, all new land development and sub-divisions must be supplied with underground power. It is estimated that at least $2b would be required to provide underground power to about 170,000 overhead connections outside the metropolitan area. The rate of installation is unknown as it depends on the availability of the required labour and materials. It should be noted that in some areas the cost of the provision of underground power would be prohibitive because of environmental factors such as rocky terrain.
(c) what proportion of this money has come from Western Power directly; (d) what proportion of this money has come from Local Governments; and (e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(d) what proportion of this money has come from Local Governments; and (e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(e) are there any other funding sources and if so, what are the sources and how much annually have they contributed?
(b) outside the metropolitan area?
(1) No. The Underground Power Program commenced in 1996 as a pilot project with the retrospective installation of underground power in Applecross, Albany, Claremont, West Cottesloe and Wembley. To cover the Government's share of the project costs, Cabinet allocated $4m per year increasing to $6m in the Office of Energy's budget for Round 1 in 1999/2000 and 2000/01. (2) The last six financial years of cash Payments to Government from Western Power are detailed below. Payments comprise dividends, income tax and council rate equivalents. 2003/04 2002/03 2001/02 2000/01 1999/00 1998/99 Cash Payments to Government (in $'000) 213,025 224,818 192,616 149,774 122,273 107 ,738 (3)(a) The following table provides the annual expenditure on the Program: 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/0 2 2002/03 2003/04 Project Expenditure $9.0m $8.8m $7.7m $18.4m $30.6m $21.5m $14.3m $10.2m (3)(b) 25% as per the normal funding arrangements in Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Program. (3)(c) 25% as per the normal funding arrangements in Rounds 1,2 and 3 of the Program. (3)(d) 50% as per the normal funding arrangements in Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Program. (3)(e) No. (4) The Program is a competitive process and funds are not allocated by electorate but are allocated to individual projects submitted by Local Government Authorities. The following table provides the details of actual expenditure during the pilot project and the first two completed rounds of the Program by project. None of the Round 3 projects has yet been completed so expenditure can not yet be calculated. Local Government Area(s) Project Expenditure Pilot Projects (1996-1999):City of AlbanyCity of MelvilleTown of Cottesloe/ClaremontTown of Cambridge AlbanyApplecrossClaremont & West CottesloeWembley $3.4m$6.6m$8.2m$3.1m Round 1 (1998-2001) Major Residential Projects:Town of CottesloeShire of Peppermint GroveCity of NedlandsCity of StirlingCity of South PerthCity of CanningTown of East FremantleLocalised Enhancement Projects:Shire of NannupShire of DowerinShire of Donnybrook-BalingupShire of CollieShire of August-Margaret RiverShire of Irwin East CottesloePeppermint GroveDalkeith & SwanbourneWoodlandsComoRossmoyneEast FremantleNannupDowerinDonnybrookCollieMargaret RiverDongara $2.3m$2.2m$5.4m$4.9m$5.2m$3.8m$7.4m$0.3m$0.1m$0.2m$0.1m$0.3m$0 .2m Round 2 (2001-2004):Major Residential Projects:City of MelvilleTown of East FremantleCity of BelmontCity of South PerthTown of ClaremontCity of MelvilleCity of StirlingTown of CambridgeTown of Victoria ParkCity of SubiacoCity of NedlandsTown of Mosman ParkLocalised Enhancement Projects:Shire of Serpentine-JarrahdaleCity of GosnellsShire of Shark BayTown of VincentShire of HarveyShire of MundaringCity of RockinghamShire of MurrayCity of FremantleShire of Bridgetown-GreenbushesCity of Stirling West BictonPlymptonRivervaleMill PointSouth ClaremontMount PleasantMount LawleyWest LeedervilleEast Victoria ParkSubiacoWest NedlandsMosman ParkJarrahdaleGosnellsDenhamHighgateHarveyMundaringRockinghamPinjarraFremantleBr idgetownScarborough $1.5m$3.7m$4.6m$6.9m$6.6m$6.0m$6.0m$5.5m$7.8m$6.6m$4.8m $3.1m$0.03m$0.5m$0.2m$0.2m$0.3m$0.4m$0.4m$0.2m$0.6m$0.6m$1.0m Round 3 (2004-2007)Major Residential Projects:Town of Victoria ParkCity of SubiacoTown of CambridgeCity of GosnellsCity of FremantleCity of South PerthCity of NedlandsCity of StirlingTown of Port HedlandTown of VincentLocalised Enhancement Projects:Shire of PlantagenetShire of CollieShire of Donnybrook-BalingupShire of NannupCity of BunburyCity of GeraldtonShire of Lake GraceShire of GinginShire of Carnamah Victoria Park SouthShenton ParkCity BeachGosnells NorthFremantleComo EastNedlands EastChurchlands/Wembley DownsPort HedlandHighgate EastMount BarkerCollieBalingupNannupBunburyCBD/foreshoreLake GraceGuildertonTownsite precinct Expenditure not yet available as projects incomplete or not yet commenced (5) Please refer to (4) above. Projects in Applecross and Mt Pleasant included premises in the Alfred Cove electorate. (6) & (7) The Government has committed a record $2.23 billion of capital and operating expenditure for the electricity network over the next four years to meet growth and improve reliability. Underground power is only one option for improving reliability. As part of the Budget process, the Government allocates State funds to numerous projects and sets priorities according to the needs of the community and the State. The Government is committed to continuing the underground power program and will ensure it is funded appropriately in the context of all other funding priorities. (8) The average cost of rolling out underground power to a residential dwelling in an older suburb is now approximately $5,500. These costs can vary significantly, depending on load, geology and lot size. (9) The Guidelines for Major Residential Projects and Localised Enhancement Projects for Round Three are publicly available documents (obtainable from the Office of Energy) which describe the selection process including the criteria used in the evaluation of proposals submitted by local governments. In Round Three, Major Residential Projects were assessed in terms of: ? Power system criteria, assessing the condition of the existing overhead system, its position relative to other areas of underground power and its relative vulnerability to damage (eg. damage from storms, wildlife, traffic). ? Nominated area, including the number and size of lots. ? Budget of the Project, using an estimated average cost per lot. ? Demonstrated commitment of local governments and their ability to fund half of a project. ? Indicative Community Support, seeking evidence of community willingness to participate in and contribute to a project. In Round Three, Localised Enhancement Projects were assessed in terms of: ? Power System Criteria. ? Heritage/tourism/scenic/geographical significance. ? Budget of the project. ? Demonstrated Funding Credibility. ? Regional Preference. ? Indicative Community Support. (10)(a) Under Western Australian Planning Commission Guidelines, all new land development and sub-divisions must be supplied with underground power. Western Power has estimated that it would cost approximately $3.2 billion to provide underground power to the remaining 390,000 overhead connections in the metropolitan area. While the current rate of connection under the underground power program is about 4,000 lots per year (some of which contain multiple dwellings), the time that would be required to replace all remaining overhead connections is unknown as it depends on the availability of the required labour and materials. It should be noted that in some areas the cost of the provision of underground power would be prohibitive because of environmental factors such as rocky terrain. (10)(b) Under Western Australian Planning Commission Guidelines, all new land development and sub-divisions must be supplied with underground power. It is estimated that at least $2b would be required to provide underground power to about 170,000 overhead connections outside the metropolitan area. The rate of installation is unknown as it depends on the availability of the required labour and materials. It should be noted that in some areas the cost of the provision of underground power would be prohibitive because of environmental factors such as rocky terrain.
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.