Residents from Southern NSW have urged the Federal and NSW Government to stop and rethink the State’s most expensive energy transmission project that unnecessarily threatens endangered native wildlife and local communities, after a revised Transgrid report reveals that taking the line underground would cost almost half that originally claimed.
The new costings in the HumeLink Project – Underground Report show that undergrounding is a viable alternative to Transgrid’s short-sighted multi-billion-dollar HumeLink proposal, which currently consists of towers as tall as the Harbour Bridge pylons which will cut an ugly 360km long, 70-metre-wide scar through old growth forests, state forests and working farms, from Wagga Wagga and Kosciusko National Park to the edge of the beautiful Southern Highlands.
In fact, the HumeLink Alliance believes undergrounding is a cheaper long-term option when you consider that it would:
Have significantly less impact on endangered species, local communities and industries
Generate savings from far less electricity outages
Cost much less in ongoing maintenance
Reduce energy losses in transmission that have been established in other studies
Michael Katz from the HumeLink Alliance said the NSW and Federal Governments must now force Transgrid to rethink the HumeLink mega-tower project and its unacceptable impacts on approximately 2500 hectares of land - an area twice the size of Wollongong - including clear-felling areas of old growth native forests and other bushlands that are home to dozens of threatened or endangered species such as the Koala, Booroolong Frog, Superb Parrot, Eastern Pygmy Possum, Greater Glider and Powerful Owl.
He said Transgrid has suddenly moved away from telling everyone who’d listen the furphy that undergrounding would cost “10 times as much as towers” and is now peddling another furphy that undergrounding will take three years longer to construct – yet another exaggerated claim that will prove to be false in time.
“We have no confidence in Transgrid’s undergrounding report, nor should governments – first Transgrid push out exaggerated costings in a report they quicky retracted and now they replace with a report that includes so many flaws that it can’t seriously be relied on,” Mr Katz said.
“We must ensure that we build Australia’s renewable energy future based on sustainable, efficient infrastructure and proper planning, not flawed economic modelling, guess work and short-term thinking.
“Transgrid’s current and preferred HumeLink mega-tower proposal completely disregards the environmental, bushfire and economic concerns of affected communities and ignores all but the short-term, upfront economic costs and profit. As such it has failed to attain a social licence for this project.
“After decades of lobbying for climate change reform, environmentally conscious Australians have been slapped in the face by Transgrid using renewable energy as an excuse to rubber stamp clear-felling of native forests and habitat destruction. This isn’t green energy. Far from it.
“Green energy should be about end-to-end delivery of electricity to consumers, not just generation. By this measure, the HumeLink Towers overhead proposal is a complete fail.
Initially costed by Transgrid at $21.5 million per kilometre to take a single circuit 500KV cable underground, the revised Transgrid report admits the costing was wrong, with its new costing almost halved at $11.4 million per kilometre.
Mr Katz said even this radically revised costing is significantly higher than the range of $6.5 million to $7.5 million per kilometre provided by Transgrid’s own independent specialist.
Drawing on the independent specialist’s mean costing of $7 million per kilometre, the Alliance says the total upfront cost to take the HumeLink transmission line fully underground is around $8 billion at today’s costs versus Trangrid’s revised estimate of $11.5 billion.
The Alliance also says Transgrid’s overhead cost comparison in the report is flawed as it is based on 2021 costs and doesn’t account for inflation, which in 2022 costs would be in excess of $4 billion for the double circuit transmission, and not the quoted $3.3 billion.
“We know that undergrounding could well be the cheaper long-term option when you consider the savings from less outages, lower maintenance and a reduction of energy losses in transmission, that have been established in other studies,” Mr Katz said.
“This is even before you factor in the cost of environmental and community devastation associated with these huge towers and the clear-felling of forests and habitat.
“It’s time for Transgrid and our State and Federal politicians to rethink HumeLink for future generations of Australians and put the cables underground like they do in Europe, Asia, California, and many other forward-thinking jurisdictions around the world.”
Mr Katz said in addition to failing to accurately cost the underground option, it was disappointing other concerns held by the Community Consultative Group representative on the HumeLink Undergrounding Steering Committee (CCGs) and wider community have still not been resolved.
“In building HumeLink with no regard for the environment, Transgrid - which is owned by a consortium of foreign companies - will enjoy a revenue increase by some 40 per cent,” Mr Katz said.
“Community concerns are simply ignored by Transgrid on a range of issues such as habitat destruction, bushfire hazards, agricultural concerns and impact on rural communities.
“Despite the huge amount of evidence of the positives that can be realised by undergrounding, it appears that Transgrid is intent on running the line overhead to the detriment of the environment, threatened and endangered species, regional communities and the long-term economy, while also increasing bushfire hazards.
“We are simply not prepared to let this multi-billion-dollar debacle proceed in its current form and fail future generations of Australians.”
Comments