PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: GLENELG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT POWER SUPPLY UPGRADE

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:25): I move:

That the 312^th report of the committee, entitled Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant Power Supply Upgrade, be noted.

In 2002, upgrades implemented at the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant increased the power demand at the plant. Prior to the upgrade, power to the site was principally being met with on-site generation using digester gas and natural gas with daily short duration peak demands supplemented by externally supplied grid power.

Since the upgrade, the increased power demand requires continuous use of both on-site generation and external grid power. If one of these supplies is unavailable, there is not enough power to run the plant at full capacity and treated wastewater quality deteriorates. Investigations commenced in 2005 into the security and reliability of the existing power supplies and optimisation of energy provision to the plant.

It has been anticipated that a project would be required to upgrade the ETSA power supply and the on-site power generation system. The Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands recycling plant, which is to be commissioned during 2009, includes construction of a new filtration plant and pumping station on the plant site that will further increase the level and complexity of power demand.

Upgrading the power supply is necessary in order to seek capital delivery cost efficiencies and site power integration opportunities associated with the supply to the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant and the future Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands plant. It is proposed to upgrade the Glenelg plant's power supply so as to provide supply contingency to enable it to adequately process wastewater flows during the loss of on-site generated power or during loss of the primary ETSA supply to the plant.

The proposed scope of works is to install a new high-capacity external primary power source from the Plympton substation, retain the current on-site generation facility as a second primary power source, retain the existing primary ETSA feeder from the Glenelg North substation to operate as a backup power source and decommission the existing backup ETSA feeder from the Henley South substation.

This project also provides funding for the new ETSA feeder to provide power to the Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands re-use project. The express ETSA feeder route from the Plympton substation to the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant will be beneath roads except at the Sturt River Creek where the feeder will pass through council property. Council will be notified prior to the commencement of works.

The power supply upgrade objective is to ensure full plant capability during a failure of either of the two primary sources. The strategy chosen to deliver the objective effectively and efficiently is to provide a new appropriately sized ETSA supply and to improve the capability of the backup ETSA supply.

This work specifically involves: ETSA utilities installing an underground express feeder between the Plympton substation and the boundary of the Glenelg plant including boring to feed the cables beneath Tapleys Hill Road, the Sturt Creek and the Patawalonga; on-site works to trench and lay underground cables and install new metering cubicles located between the site boundary and the high-voltage switchboard; reconfiguring the existing primary ETSA feeder to operate as a backup ETSA feeder; and connecting new underground cables to the high-voltage switchboard.

Normally, operation power will be consumed from both the on-site generators and the new feeder. The operational risks that the upgrade will manage relate to the failure of each primary supply. If on-site generation fails, there is sufficient capacity to meet the full power demands of the plant and meet the majority of the power demand of the Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands plant. If the feeder fails, demand is met from the on-site generation and the ETSA backup feeder with no impact on wastewater quality, but there could be a temporary inability to water the Parklands.

The one scenario not covered by the proposal is simultaneous failure of the primary and back-up ETSA feeders. Due to their relative independence (sourced from Plympton and the Glenelg North substations), this is considered to be highly unlikely and would occur only if much of the metropolitan power grid failed.

The key aims of the project are to provide a reliable power supply to the Glenelg waste water treatment plant site that meets all electrical energy demands; to enable the effective management of risk to plant operation during periods of primary grid-supplied power outage and on-site generated power outage; and to ensure that the waste water treatment plant operating licence conditions continue to be met.

It is important to note that, under its operating rules, ETSA will not allow simultaneous use of the two ETSA feeders. None of the available energy sources can individually supply the required average power demand of the plant. The committee has been told that this project is necessary to ensure that SA Water continues to comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act.

The project will also provide a secure power supply to the strategic infrastructure of a waste water treatment plant which services a population of 200,000 and which will enable consolidated supply of power to the Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands recycled water filtration plant. The upgrade will minimise the risk of high nutrient load outfalls into the marine environment during sustained loss of on-site power generation or during a loss of the primary ETSA supply.

Consolidation of power supplies to the plant and to the Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands facility will support an increase in recycling and reduce demand on the River Murray flows due to the resultant supply contingency available to the GAP facility. The capital cost associated with this project is $5.249 million, and it will not require any additional Community Service Obligation subsidies to be paid to SA Water.

SA Water will contract the project to ETSA Utilities to design and deliver as the sole provider of electricity services. This will ensure that all risks associated with meeting design standards and risks associated with construction will be addressed through ETSA's terms and conditions. Based upon the evidence considered, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:32): I just want to make a couple of quick comments. This is not a terribly sexy project. Some interesting projects do come before the Public Works Committee, and a back-up energy supply is not terribly sexy, although it could have been made sexier with the introduction of some form of green power. I was interested to know whether any investigations had been made during the procurement process of this project about the use of renewable energy. According to Hansard, when that question was asked by the committee, they said that they did not know and that they could not answer that question. Certainly, there was no direction from the government to look for green power alternatives for this project.

We know that at any one time 20 per cent of the power will still be coming from the grid, and obviously that is a situation that could have been dealt with by using some form of renewable energy. However, the government chose not to pursue that path, and I am not sure it was explained well enough in the committee report as to why that did not happen. Perhaps the Premier was burnt by his purchase of the wind turbines for the State Administration Building when it was exposed that the wind turbines do not work, although it was quoted in E-mission (the government's climate change newsletter) in September 2006 that these mini wind turbines were part of the government's Capital City Project and that it was another example of the government's commitment to renewable energy initiatives.

From my point of view, the frustrating thing is that we had a situation here where there was an opportunity to introduce some green energy, and there were no instructions from the government during the procurement process for this even to be investigated. What the government says about its green credentials and what it actually does are two different things. When the government has an opportunity to make a song and dance about green issues, it will do that. However, when the government actually has to do the hard yards and work out how we can use green energy more often and make more use of it, it goes into the too hard basket, and this is a classic example of that happening.

Motion carried.