Generators

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. What environmental testing was undertaken to ensure the state-controlled power plant fully complied with stringent licensing obligations?

The SPEAKER: It is my duty to ensure that this answer is heard in silence.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (14:30): Yes, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for her question and note the support of this government taking back control of our energy future for the benefit of South Australians. Following a series of questions by the opposition yesterday—indeed, by the shadow energy minister, the energy expert on the opposition benches—I located the consultant's report he repeatedly referred to, which, incidentally, was never supplied to my office in September this year, as he claimed.

I would like to outline some of the emission scenarios modelled in this report and correct some of the significant inaccuracies propagated in this place yesterday. Firstly, when we asked South Australia Power Networks to conduct a competitive tender process to procure generators on the government's behalf, they obviously had to embark on a comprehensive approvals process with various bodies in addition to meeting licensing and good connection requirements. As part of the regulatory approvals process, SAPN commissioned Vipac Engineers and scientist consultants to undertake emissions modelling as required by the EPA. I note in the executive summary of the report being quoted yesterday, it explicitly says, quote:

Overall, the modelling results indicate that the operation of the temporary generators will not adversely impact the amenity of local residents and commercial receptors.

This consultancy firm considered a range of potential operating models, as required by the EPA, in relation to both noise and emissions relating to the emergency generators at Lonsdale and Elizabeth. The modelling around noise concluded that potential noise impacts from the turbine units are likely to be limited due to the infrequent operation and time of day when the operations are likely to take place.

In relation to air quality, there were two scenarios modelled, with the results showing the gases were below the criteria at all of the model sensitive receptors for all scenarios modelled. The third scenario is that the model predictions of particulate matter are above criteria for both sites for some of the residential receptors modelled. It is noted that in the third scenario, the third scenario modelled represented the highly unlikely situation of continuous operation of the turbines for a full year or five continuous months.

As a result of the testing, the EPA subsequently approved and issued work approvals for both sites on 5 October and issued licences for both sites on 12 October 2017. Clearly, the EPA, an independent licensing body, is not in the habit of issuing licences to projects that do not comply with the statutory requirements under the EPA Act.