Download PDFThe Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOUTH WEST TASMANIA
Report on Demand and Supply of Electricity for Tasmania and Other Matters
November 1982
Presented and ordered to be printed 23 No vember 1982
Parliamentary Paper No. 314/1982
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOUTH WEST TASMANIA
REPORT ON DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY FOR TASMANIA AND OTHER MATTERS
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOUTH WEST TASMANIA
FUTURE DEMAND AND SUPPL Y OF ELECTRICITY FOR TASMANIA AND OTHER MATTERS
NOVEMBER 1982
Aus t rali an Gove rnmen t Publishing Service , Canberra 1 982
c Commonwealth of Australia 1982 ISBN 0 644 01869 0
Printed by C.J. Thompson, Commonwealth Gov ernment Printer, Canberra
TERMS OF REFERENCE
(a) the natural values of South West Tasmania to Australia and the world; and
(b) Federal responsibility in assisting Tasmania to preserve its wilderness areas of national and international importance, including appropriate financial assistance consistent with the State's development needs and options for the State's
energy requirements.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator B.R. Archer, Chairman (Tasmania) Senator the Hon. D.L. Chipp (Victoria) Senator J. Coates (Tasmania) Senator R. Hill (South Australia)
Senator A.J. Missen (Victoria) Senator C.G. Primmer (Victoria)
Former Member of the Committee
Senator J.R. Siddons ceased to b e a member of the Committee on
27 october 1981 and wa s replaced by Se nator the Hon. D.L. Chipp
on the same day.
Secretary
P. Barsdell The Senate Parliament House Canberra
iii
CONTENTS
PART I - THE DEMAND FOR POWER
CHAPTER l - INTRODUCTION Brief History of the Issue Terms of Reference Committee's Approach to the Inquiry Acknowledgements
CHAPTER 2 - THE TASMANIAN ECONOMY AND POPULATION Introduction Problems of an Island State Hydro-industrialisation Future Industrial Development
Population Projections Age Structure of the Population Decentralisation of the Population
CHAPTER 3 - THE EXISTING POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM History and Function of the HEC The Existing System Sanctioned Developments
Projection of total system capacity Energy Use in Tasmania Breakdown of energy use Per capita consumption of energy
Electricity Consumption in Tasmania
CHAPTER 4 - FUTURE DEMAND FOR POWER IN TASMANIA Introduction Major Industrial Load Composition of the major industrial load
Contract system Pricing policy Historical growth of major industrial load Future demand for the MIL General Load
Definition Components of the general load Factors influencing electricity consumption Demand forecasting methodology
HEC forecasts of demand Recent growth in the general load Other forecasts of demand
v
page
l
l
4
7
9
ll ll ll 12 14 15 18 18 21 21 22 30 31 32 32 35 37 41 41 41 41 42 44 45 48 54 54 54 55 58 59 66 68
South West Tasmania Committee (NSW) Tasmanian Wilderness Society (Canberra Branch) Saddler and Donnelly Directorate of Energy Harwood and Hartley Summary of demand forecasts McLachlan Group forecast Factors which may modify demand
Co-generation Energy conservation Forecast of Demand
PART II - SUPPLY OPTIONS
CHAPTER 5 - INTRODUCTION Sources of Electrical Energy Feasibility Technological feasibility
Financial feasibility Economic, social and environmental factors Options Available to Tasmania
CHAPTER 6 - OPTIONS Hydro-Electric Schemes Introduction Gordon-below-Franklin scheme
Gordon-above-Olga scheme Other hydro-electric schemes Pumped storage Thermal power
Introduction A 2 x 200 MW thermal power station
Coal supply and cost Other fuels Magneto hydro dynamics (MHD) Interconnection with Victoria
Introduction HEC proposal Zeidler Committee proposal McLachlan Group proposal Victorian power supply Nuclear Power Solar Power Wind Power
CHAPTER 7 - OPTION COMPARISONS Introduction Cost Comparisons
vi
69 69
71 73 74 75 76 77 77 83 88
97 97 99 99 102 103
104
109 109 109 lll 113 115 117 123 123 123 126 128
131 132 132 134 137 139 140
142 143 146
151 151 152
Cost comparison methodology Discount and interest rates Cost escalator, capacity factor and conversion efficiency HEC cost comparisons Cameron, Preece International review Other cost comparisons
McLachlan Group cost comparisons Other Economic Considerations Flexibility and risk Effects of HEC funding
Flow-on effects of intra-state spending Employment Conclusions
CHAPTER 8 - SUPPLY STRATEGY
PART III - OTHER MATTERS
CHAPTER 9 - ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GORDON/FRANKLIN AREA
CHAPTER 10 - FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL INVOLVEMENT
The Commonwealth's Obligation to Intervene Commonwealth Constitutional Powers Commonwealth power to legislate Powers under existing legislation
Fiscal powers Conclusions
PART IV - CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 11 - CONCLUSIONS
DISSENTING REPORT BY SENATOR B.R. ARCHER
REFERENCES
APPENDIX I RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE RELATING TO THE COMMITTEE
vii
152 152 155
157 162 163 167
172 172 174 17 8 179 186
189
199
205
206 210 210
214 215 216
219
225
229
237
APPENDIX II LIST OF WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE 241 THE COMMITTEE
APPENDIX III LIST OF PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS WHO 245 PROVIDED THE COMMITTEE WITH SUBMISSIONS OR OTHER WRITTEN MATERIAL
APPENDIX IV ABBREVIATIONS 261
APPENDIX v GLOSSARY OF TERMS 263
viii
PART I
THE DEMAND FOR POWER
1.3 In 1979 the Hy dro-Electric Commissi o n (HEC) publishe d
the Gordon River Power Development Stage Two' in this Report as the 'HEC 1979 Report'). In the
its 'Report (referred to on report, the HEC recommended, among other things:
' ( i) that the future increase in demand for
electricity at least up to the year
2000 be met by the continuing
development of the State's water power resources in the form o f the Integrated
Development of the Lower Gordon,
Franklin and King Rivers.
(ii) the approval by Parliament of the
construction of the first stage of the
Integrated Development the Gordon
River Power De v elopment Stage Two; â¢l
1.4 After receipt of the HEC's report the Tasmanian
Government established the Co-ordination Committee on Future Power Deve lopment to examine the report and to make
recommendations to the Government o n future power d e velopment. Th e Co-ordination Committee receive d submissions from v arious
Tasmanian Government departments and authorities and from the general public. A majority of the Committee, in its report of
Ma y 1980 to the Premier, recommended the con s truction of a
200 f1W coal-fired thermal station to be completed by 1985 as
well as, in a second stage, a hydro-electric sche me to become
operational in the mid 1990s. It deferred to the Gov e rnment the
choice of a hydro-electric scheme.
1.5 The Government considered the reports of the HEC and
the Co-ordination Committe e in July 1980 and finally decided t o reject the HEC's recommendation for the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme and to opt instead, as a compromise, for the Gordon
abov e-Olga scheme. The HEC had included th e Gor d on-abov e -Olga sch e me in its 1979 Report but had stated its preference f o r th e
Go rdon- bel ow-Franklin scheme. The Go ve rnment al so rej e ct e d th e
Co-ordination Committee's recommendation for a coal-fired
th e rmal station and announce d the establishme nt of th e Wil d
Ri v ers National Park which included the Franklin River.
2
1.6 A Bill was introduced and passed in the House of
Assembly to give effect to the Government's decision. However, the Legislative Council, having had a report from its Select
Committee on Future Power Development recommending support for the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme, refused to pass the Bill.
1. 7 In the ensuing period both Houses of Parliament
remained deadlocked. Eventually the Government decided to hold a referendum on 12 December 1982 to seek the views of the public
on the issue. In spite of considerable public opposition to any
dam on the Gordon River, the Government restricted the options
on the ballot paper to a choice between the
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme and the Gordon-above-Olga scheme. Voters were not given the choice to vote against both dams. In
the campaign leading up to the referendum, opponents of both
dams encouraged people to write 'no dams' on their ballot
papers. The official results of the referendum were:
Total Gordon-above-Olga vote
Total Gordon-below-Franklin vote
Total Informal
9.78 per cent
54.72 per cent
35.50 per cent
A total of 84 514 (33.25 per cent) ballot papers were endorsed
with 'no dams' including 2648 for which a valid preference had
also been given for one of the options.
1.8 On 15 December 1981 the Tasmanian Parliament was
prorogued until 26 March 1982. At the end of a long debate on 26
March 1982 the Government lost a motion of no confidence and
elections were subsequently announced. The elections held on 15 May 1982 resulted in a change of government. Another Bill, this
time approv ing the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme, was passed by the Parliament on 1 June 1982.
3
Terms of Reference
1. 9 On 23 September
Committee on South West upon:
1981 the Senate appointed the Select
Tasmania to inquire into and report
1.10
'(a) the natural
Tasmania to
world; and
values of
Australia South and West
the
(b) Federal responsibility in assisting
Tasmania to preserve its wilderness areas of national and international importance, including appropriate financial assistance consistent
with the State's development needs and options for the State's energy
requirements.'
There are several words and phrases within the above
terms of reference which require definition by the Committee.
1.11 In part
'natural values' things which are
(a) of the terms of reference, the phrase
is regarded by the Committee as meaning all
of worth, desirability or utility which e xist
naturally in South West Tasmania. This can be taken to include
the fauna and flora, the beauty of the landforms, as well as
things which have a commercial value such as minerals and
timber.
1.12 The Committee found that there was not unanimity of
opinion as to what constitutes the area known as South W e st
Tasmania. This problem was faced by the South W e st Advi s ory
Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir George Cartland, which recomme nded the area shown in Figure 1.1. In its Preliminary
Re port dated 28 May 1976, the Ad v isory Committee stated:
'In choosing this areas (sic) the Committee
is conscious that it embraces an area much
larger than that which is dealt with in the
Draft Management Plan and an area north of
4
the Lyell Highway which is not generally
regarded as part of the South West. However,
the Committee believes that its approach to
this matter is such that the entire area can
be properly and responsible (sic) considered for integrated planning from the point of
view of both development and the Tasmanian
National Park System. â¢2
1.13 In its final report dated 29 August 1978, the Advisory
Committee confirmed its earlier choice of the area to be
regarded as South West Tasmania. It stated:
1.14
'In our Preliminary Report, we indicated that we believed that the area referred to in
paragraph 26(11) of that Report was the
appropriate area to be considered for zoning in accordance with the proposals in it.
Having exposed that proposal to public
examination and comment, we are confirmed in our opinion that this area together with part of Macquar ie Harbour is the appropriate area for the proposals contained in this Report.
This area is referred to, in this Report as
South West Tasmania and is shown on the
attached map (Appendix D). The area generally is of high aesthetic value and extends from
the Cradle Mountain Lake St Clair National
Park in the north to the South west National
Park in the south. The appropriateness of
considering this area as a unit from the
point of view of natural values and
conservation was endorsed by many witnesses. There was no serious challenge to this point
of view although, of course, many other
witnesses argued that for other reasons the
area should not be subject to any further
controls than currently existed. â¢3
This definition of South West Tasmania received further recognition on 16 July 1980 when the South west Conservation
Area was proclaimed. The Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governmen ts also used this definition for the South West Tasmania Resources Survey which they jointly funded.
5
1.15 In view of the recognition given to the South West
Advisory Committee's definition of South west Tasmania, the
Select Committee decided to adopt it for the purposes of the
inquiry.
1.16 Notwithstanding the Committee's definition of south west Tasmania, reference refers to 'wilderness
part adoption (b) of
of
the the above
terms of
international importance'. In Government proposed the Western
areas
November Tasmanian
of
1981
national and
the Tasmanian Wilderness Na tional
Parks to the Commonwealth Government for nomination to the world Heritage List. This area consisted of the South West National
Park, the Franklin-Lowe r Gordon Wild Rivers National Park in South West Tasmania) and the Cradle Mountain-Lake St National Park. As the Commonwealth Government accepted
(both Clair the
nomination and forwarded it to UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park may be regarded as a wilderness area of national and international importance , and hence comes within the scope of the inquiry under part (b) of
the t e rms of refer ence.
1.17 Under part (b) of the terms of reference, the Committee
is required to inquire into 'Federal responsibility in assisting Tasmania to preserve its wilderness areas of national and
international importance'. Any land use within these wilderne ss areas which might in any way threaten their preservation com es within the scope of the inquiry. Therefore such activities as
mining, logging, recreation and tourism as well as pow er
developments in those areas are subject to the scrutiny of the
Committee.
1.18 The second half of part (b) of the terms of ref e rence
requires the
'development Committee needs' and
to take
'options into for account Tasma ni a ' s
th e State 's energy
requirements'. Because the Hyd r o-Electric Commission in it s 'Report on the Gordon Ri ver Power De velopment Stage Two' deals
6
with power demand and supply until the year 2000, the Committee decided to confine its investigations generally to the same
period.
Committee's Approach to the Inquiry
1.19 Although the debate on future power development is
taken by many witnesses to be an environmental issue, many of
the critics of further hydro-electric development questioned the need for more power and the alleged economic and financial
advantages of hydro-electricity over other forms of power
generation. They argued that, environmental issues aside, there were good reasons for either postponing a decision on future
power development or opting for an alternative means of
generation.
1.20 The Committee decided that it should first establish
whether further increments of power would be needed up to the
year 2000 and then it should do a comparative technical,
financial and economic study of the feasible options. If this
study confirmed that the HEC' s analyses had been of the right
order, the Committee would then consider whether the expected economic benefits attributed to the scheme would outweigh the environmental damage it would cause and the steps that the
Commonwealth Government should take in this matter.
l. 21 Advertisements were placed in the Tasmanian and
mainland press in November 1981 calling for written submissions. The Committee also solicited written submissions from a wide
range of government, business, environmental and other community organisations which the Committee thought might make some
contribution to the inquiry.
l. 22 The Committee's call for written submissions was met
with a good response from around Australia. A total of 746
submissions was received, of which 606 came from the mainland
7
States and Territories and 140 from Tasmania. Victoria provided 278 submissions, South Australia 156, New South Wales 79 and the
other States and Territories 93 among them.
1.23 J.I'Iost of the submissions wer e received from individuals
(562) while 143 submissions came from the community groups and trade unions category, 20 from Commonwealth, State and local
governments and their instrumentalities and 21 from industry.
1.24 Canberra, Emphasis Committee
The Committee conducted public hearings in Hobart,
Sydney and Nelbourne beginning on 4 February 19 82.
was placed on calling witnesses who could help the
examine demand and the supply options, in line with
the Committee's earlier decision to concentrate on these areas first. In all, public hearings were held on 17 days.
1.25 In Decembe r 1981 the Committee visited Lake Gordon and
Lake Pedder and associated darns and power stations. It also
inspected part of the new Piernan hydro-electric scheme on the
west coast of Tasmania.
1.26 On 3 March 1982 the Committe e made an aerial inspection
of South West Tasmania by helicopter, with particular emphasis on the Franklin and Gordon Rivers. The helicopters landed twice on the banks of the Franklin, once at the foot of the Newlands
Cascades and once near Fraser Cave . The latter stop was made to
allow the Committee to inspect the cav e and receive explanations on the archaeological finds and the work being done there from
the archaeological team on site.
1. 27 The Co mm ittee also engaged a firm of consultants,
f1cLachlan Group Pty Ltd, to assist it in some of the technical
and economic aspects of the inquiry.
8
Acknowledgements
1.28 The Committee wishes to thank all the people and
organisations who have contributed so far to the inquiry by
making written submissions or appearing as witnesses in public hearings. The Committee also expresses its gratitude for the
work done by its secretariat, Paul Barsdell (Secretary), Pippa Carron and David Nimmo (Research Officers) and Annette Fischer (Steno-secretary), in this complex and lengthy inquiry. The
Committee also thanks its consultants, McLachlan Group Pty Ltd, for their reports and other information prepared for the
Committee.
9
CHAPTER TWO
THE TASMANIAN ECONOMY AND POPULATION
Introduction
2.1 The Tasmanian economy is inextricably linked with the
State's electricity generating system through the presence of a number of energy intensive industries. These industries use
about two-thirds of the State's electricity, and they also make a significant contribution to the Tasmanian economy. Any
consideration of Tasmania's future power needs cannot therefore be divorced from industrial and commercial development in the State. This chapter therefore discusses briefly aspects of the Tasmanian economy which impinge on future power needs, to
provide a context in which to consider the future d ema nd for and
supply of electricity. It also examines population projections for Tasmania and the changing age structure of that population. Population is an important factor in electricity demand
forecasts and is discussed in Chapter Four.
Problems of an Island State
2.2 The phrase 'the barrier of Bass Strait' encapsulates
the feeling many Tasmanians have about the Sta te's separation from the mainland. The separation has cause d numer o u s social and economic problems for Tasmania, especially in relation to the
cost and reliability of the interstate fr e ight and passenger
transport system.
2.3 In the last ten years there have been many inquiries
into the problems of freight and passenger transport across the Bass Strait. One of these inquiries , the Comrr.ission of Inquiry
11
into Transport to and from Tasmania under the chairmanship of Mr J.F. Nimmo (1976), found that there were a number of
disadvantages in locating a business in Tasmania. These included the costs and delays of having to use sea transport to import
raw materials and to send goods and produce interstate, higher inventory costs, the emigration of skilled labour and the small local market existing in Tasmania.l
2.4 As
Commonwealth a result of the Commission's findings, the
Government introduced the Tasmanian Freight
Equalisation Scheme to alleviate some of the disadvantages faced by businesses in Tasmania.
2.5 In 1977 the Commonwealth Government commissioned Sir
Bede Callaghan to inquire into the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania. He reiterated the Nimmo
Commission's findings on transport disadvantages and drew
attention to other economic problems facing Ta smania, including the small size of the economy, the local market and the revenue
base. These problems, together with the transport difficulties, have discouraged the establishment of large-scale manufacturing industries in the State and have, therefore, restricted the
avenues available for industrial development.
2.6 Although some of the Callaghan recommendations for
assisting the Tasmanian economy have been adopted, the same
fundamental problems which hav e confronted Tasmania in the past are still relevant today.
Hydro-industrialisation
2. 7 Tasmanian governments have, for a long time, sought to
exploit the available natural resources to form an industrial base for the State's economy. Encouragement was given to the
development of the abundant forest resources and of mineral
deposits found in the State. It was, however, the harnessing of
12
the State's water resources to provide cheap hydro-el ectric
power that gave real impetus to industrial development .
Tasmanian governments sought on the one hand to combine the
exploitation of mineral and forest resources with that of its
water-based power resource and, on the other hand, to use the
offer of cheap power to encourage energy intensive industries to establish plants in Tasmania to process mainland ore. This
resulted in Comalco, Temco and EZ Industries (70 per cent of its
ore is imported) establishing processing plants in the State.
2.8 The policy of using cheap hydro-electric power to
attract industry to the State became known as hydr o-
industrialisation. The extent to which this policy has been
developed is evident in the fact that, in 1982, two-thirds of
the State's electricity is c o nsumed by the 16 major industrial
load users.
2.9 Both Sir Bede Callaghan in his report and th e
Department of Industrial Development in i ts submission t o th e
Committee commented on Tasmania's narrow industrial struc tur e based on exploitation and first stage processing of natural
resources. The narrowness and nature of that stru cture and its
dependence on export markets has made it more susceptible to the vicissitudes of national and ov erseas economie s. The closures, curtailment of production and retrenchments within those
industries in the 1982 economic reces s ion are ev ide nce of this.
2.10 The Department of Industrial Development emphasised,
however, the importance of the contribution of the major
industrial load companies to the Tasmanian economy. It estimate d that approximately 30 000 people were dependent o n that sector for either direct or indirect employment in 1977-78.2 For towns like Queenstown and George Town, their well-be ing depe nd ed
largely on the fortunes of one or two lar ge compa n i e s.
13
2.11 In recent years the policy of hydro-industrialisation
has come under increasing criticism because it has not attracted new industries to the State and expansion of existing industries
has done little to ameliorate Tasmania's serious unemployment situation. Opponents have also pointed to the limited amount of potential hydro-electric development left in the State. With much of that power de signa t e d by the HEC for th e general load,
relatively little hydro-electric power could be spared for new energy intensive industries.
2.12 The former Tasmanian Government supported hydro-
industrialisation, but it told the Committee that it was opposed to the establishment of any more energy intensive companies
which were not based on Tasmanian resources.3 The current
Government's view on this point is not known.
Future Industrial Development
2.13 The Department of Industrial De velopment estimated that to achieve full employment by 1991, an additional 40 000 to
45 000 jobs would have to be created. This estimate included the
19 000 people unemployed in January 1982 and 23 600 people who,
on the basis of the number of children already at school, are
expected to join the workforce by that time.4
2.14 The Departme nt advocated the broadening of the
industrial base to increase the opportunities for employment and to lessen the impact of fluctuations in export markets on the
economy. It emphasised the need for an expansion of the base
productive sector (mining, agriculture, manufacturing, forestry and fishing) including down- s tream o r value-added processing and the establishment of high technology industries whose products could be easily transported from 'l'asmania.S It also supported
the creati on of new labour inte nsive industr ies6 and further
growth in the tertiary sector, especially in touri sm . 7
14
2.15 Both Sir Be de Callaghan and the Departmen t of
Industrial Development believed that the State should encourage efficient industries and businesses which could take advantage of available resources and exploit new technologies.8
2.16 The research and initiatives being undertaken by th e
Department in furthering these goals were documented in its
submission to the Committee.9
Population Projections
2.17 The National Population Inquiry (1975), chaired by
Professor W.D. Barrie, made projection s f or Tasmania's
population to the year 2000 based on 1971 population data. These are reproduced in Table 2.1
2.18 In its 1979 Report, th e 1:-iEC pointed out that actu a l
population between 1971 a nd 1978 had incr ea sed at a faster rate
th an forecast by Professor Borrie. It went en to s tate:
'The r e cent population increase appear s to
provide evidence that Barrie's projection may be exceeded. Whether thi s will be so in the
long term will depend on many factors. For
the purpose of the (demand) foreca s t it has
been assumed that the present rate of growth
will taper off so as to reach th e Barrie
Figure by the year 2000. â¢10
No reasons were given by the HEC in its Report why it expected
the growth rate to taper off. The HEC' s population projections
for Tasmania ar e contained in column 4 of Tabl e 2.1.
2.19 Th e HEC also drew attention to the projecti on s of the
Australian Bureau of Statistics in 'Pr o jections of the
Population of the States and Territories of Australia 1978-2021' (May 1981). Th e four projections ranged f rorr, just above t hose of Professo r Barrie to 7.7 per cent higher at the yea r 2001.11
15
Table 2.1: Tasmanian Population 1971 to 2001
Tasmanian Population
Year at 30 June
Borrie Projection (
1
000)
Col. 1
1971 390.4
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 417.9
19 82 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 445.4
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 462.4
Tasmanian "Mainland" Inferred Borrie Projection
(I 000)
Col. 2
386.46 (389 .24) 392.01 (394. 79) (397.56) (400.34) (403.12) (405.89) (408.67) ( 411. 44)
414.22
441.82
458.72
Tasmanian "Mainland" Actual Population 30 June
(
1
000)
Col. 3
386.46 388.49 391.94 395.55
400.94 403.63 407.05 410.12
Source: HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p.l8.
Tasmanian "Mainland" Population Used for Forecast
(I 000)
Col. 4
413.1 415.9 418.7 421.4 424.0 426.6 429.1 431.6 434.0 436.4 438.7 441.0 443.2 445.3 447.3 449.2 451.0 452.7
454.2 455.6 456.8 457.8 458.7
2.20 Recent figures from the 1981 Census of Population and
Housing confirmed that the growth of the Tasmanian population is exceeding that of the Borrie projections. According to the
Census, Tasmania (including the Bass Strait Islands) had a
population of 418 957 compared with the Borrie projection of
417 900 for that year.
16
2.21 Other organisations have also regarded the Borrie
projections as being too low. The Department of Industrial
Development stated in its submission to the Committee that part of its responsibility was to prepare and publish population
projections for Tasmania. It forecast that the population would rise from a level of 423 400 in 1981 to 477 500 in 2001, which
is higher than the Borrie projections.l2
2. 22 The Directorate of Energy in a report to the
Co-ordination Committee on Future Power Development in May 19 80 based its population projections on a report of the former
Commonwealth Department of Environment, Housing Development (DEHCD), 1977, which predicted that and the
Community Tasmanian
population would grow at an average annual rate of 1.1 per ce nt
f rom 1977 to the year 2000 (compar ed to Barrie's rate of 0.5 per
cent) at which time Tasmania would have a population of
527 835.13 The Directorate stated in its report that it assumed
that the Borrie projections represented the lowest limit and the DEHCD projection the highest population.l4
2.23 At the present time all the indications point to the
continuation of actual population exceeding the Borrie
projections in Tasmania. There is no evidence to support the
HEC's assumption that the population growth rate will taper off so that Barrie's projection for the year 2000 will be realised.
Howe ve r, circumstances may change in the future to either
accelerate or slow down the population growth rate. If, for
example, the Tasmanian economy does not recover from its prese nt recession within the next one o r tw o years and unemployment
increases, emigration may increase thereby reducing the
population growth rate. Because of the imp ortance of the
population growth rate in forecasting demand for the general
load, this element of unpredictability has to be taken into
account in making demand projections.
17
Age Structure of the Population
2.24 The Department of Industrial Development drew the
Committee's attention to the changing age structure in Tasmania. Between 1979 and 2000, there will be a noticeable ageing of the
population. This is shown in Table 2.2
Table 2.2: Changing Age structure of the Tasmanian population
Age Grou,p
0-14 15-44 45-64 65 +
All groups
% Change in Size of Age Group
1979 - 2001
8.1
+ 11.4 + 35.8
+ 49.6
+ 14.3
source: Evidence, p,2525
The Department went on to say:
'To summarise, the numbers of consumers is
(sic) growing and these consumers are likely
to consume more electricity per capita
because this growth is reflected most in the
older age groups. This change in age
structure will contribute to lower occupancy levels, tl::us increase the stock of dwellings
and alter the discretionary purchasing power of the communityâ¢.lS
Decentralisation of the Population
2.25 In th e mainland State s of Australia, the majority o f
p eople live in the capital cities. The Tasmanian population is
more decentralised, spread among the three main regions. In 1980 the estimated population was 199 880 in the Southern Region,
18
including Hobart; 114 490 in the Northern Region (including
Launceston); and 104 260 in the Mersey-Lyell Region (including the North West and West Coasts). There were also 3700 people
living on the Bass Strait Islands. Only 75 per cent of
Tasmania's population live in urban areas (defined as having a population of a minimum of 1000 persons) compared with between 80 and 90 per cent in other States. This dispersed population
reflects the patterns of historical growth as well as industrial and rural development.
2.26 Sir Bede Callaghan mentioned some disadvantages flowing from the decentralised nature of the population. In particular, specialist skills and equipment are thinly spread around the
State, some areas are poorly served with intra-state and
interstate transport services and the frequency of shipping
services has suffered from the multirlicity of ports.
19
CHAPTER THREE
THE EXISTING POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
History and Functions of the HEC
3.1 In 1895 the fir st public hydro-electric power sc heme
became opera tional in Tasmania when the La uncest on Ci t y Council
opened the Duck Reach Power Station on the South Esk River. In
1911 the Hydro-Electric Power and Metall u rgical Company planned the first s i gnifica nt h ydro- e l ectri c scheme t o e xploit the
waters of t he Gr eat Lak e fo r the purposes of hydro-electric
power generation. However , before c onstructi on began the State
Government purchased the Company a nd for med the Hydro-Electric Department. The t wo generators at 'tladdamana on the Great Lake
were opened in 1916 and provided e l ectr icity for Hobart.
3.2 Fr om the opening of th e vJa ddamana p ower stat i o n until
the present, the Hydro-Electric Department and its successor , the Hydro- El ectri c Commissi on , have deve l oped an e l ectric power generating system base d mainly on the Sta t e 's water r esour ces.
3 .3 In i ts 192 8 Annua l Report , the Departmen t recommended
that the Government form the Hydro-Electric Commission with
specific powers to ma intain and develop t he State's e l ectric
power needs. The necessary le g islation was passed in 1929 and
the HEC wa s fo rmed in early 1930.
3 . 4 The Hydro-Electric Co mm i ss ion Ac t 1929 ga ve the 1-i EC
wide p owers over the developmen t of the Sta te's electri c ity
gene rating sys t em a n d , because of t he predom i nance of
hydro-electric development in tha t system, over the wa t e r
res ou rces of Tasmania . Th e Act also made the HEC an autonomous
s t atutory au th ority ab l e t o f u nct i on as a ope r at i on .
2 1
3.5 The Minister responsible for the HEC was able to call
for information on the running of the Commission but could not
direct the activities of it. In 1979 the Act was amended to
bring the Commission under general ministerial control by
requiring it to respond to ministerial directives and government policy decisions with certain qualifications. Provision was also made for appeal by the HEC to the Governor against ministerial
directives.
3. 6 The Commission consists of one full-time Commissioner
and three part-time Associate Commissioners. Under their
direction the Commission operates five branches dealing with all aspects of the Commission's operations.
3. 7 Before any new power development is undertaken by the
Commission, it is required to present a report to the Parliament outlining its cost, financial implications and technical
details. Construction of the power development may commence only after parliamentary approval has been obtained. However,
preliminary surveys, designs and planning are carried out prior to parliamentary approval to enable a detailed report to be
presented to the Parliament.
The Existing System
3. 8 The system, before the commissioning of the Mackintosh
power station in the Pieman scheme, consisted of 23 hydro
electric power stations supplemented by two oil-fired thermal generators situated at Bell Bay. The hydro-electric system uses water from five catchment areas: the Great Lake, the Derwent,
the south Esk, the Mersey-Forth and the Gordon (see Figure 3.1).
22
"' 0 c.
\
source:
Figure 3.1: The Tasmanian
. Year Book, Ta sman l an 19 81 ,
23
p.
t . g S;t:stem Genera 1D
252 .
3.9 There are two basic types of hydro-electric stations:
run-of-river and major storage.
3.10 Run-of-river stations use the flow of the river to
drive the generators. Some river storage helps to maintain a
regular flow but, overall, Tasmanian rivers have relatively
steady discharge characteristics. Most Tasmanian hydro-electric stations are of this type.
3.11 Tasmania 1 s two major storage stations are Poatina and
Gordon Stage One.
1
These stations are based on hydro-electric schemes with large water storage back-up and either have additional machine capacity well in excess of that required for average
catchment yield, as in the case of Poatina,
or have provision for further capacity such
as Gordon Stage One. In times of low seasonal
flows or drought, additional water can be
released from storage to make up deficiencies in the energy output from run-of-river
stations. In times of excess rainfall, water
can be retained in these storages while the
system load is largely met by the above
average output from the run-of-river
stations. A third function of storage power stations is to supply peak capacity for the system, a
role which has not been of great concern in
the past, but will become increasingly
critical if the system expansion is
predominantly by increasing generation from thermal power stations. ll
3.12 Power station energy production for each station and
the total system in 1981-82 is shown in Table 3.2.
3.13 Predominantly hydro-electric power systems different characteristics from systems dependent power.
24
have very
on thermal
'In a mainly thermal generating system the
ability to supply energy (measured in
kilowatt-hours) is directly related to the
installed capacity of the generating plant
(measured in kilowatts). Provided that
sufficient fuel is available, the only
limitation on the production of energy is the size of the plant and its losses. Similarly,
expansion of the system is limited only by
the generating plant which has to be
installed to match the increasing demand.
However, in a predominantly hydro-electric system the installed capacity of the
generating plant in the power stations is
less important. The dominant factor
controlling the ability of the system to
satisfy requirements is the energy output
from the water available to the power
stations. â¢2 'The nominal peak capacity of the station
takes account of the conditions under which
the machines may operate and is a measure of
the reliability to be expected from the
station, when all the machines are on maximum output. It can be more or less than the
installed capacity depending on whether the machines can be run on over load, and whether
the operating head on the station is reduced
by the lower level in the head pond and the
higher level in the tailrace when all the
machines are running together. â¢3
3.14 The HEC went on to say that the nominal peak capacity
of the system is less than the sum of the nominal peak
capacities of the stations. This is due to the need to have
reserve plant to allow for normal maintenance or for unexpected outages. Table 3 .l shows the installed c apacity and the nominal peak capacity of each existing station in the system and Table
3.2 shows power station production of energy. The system peak
capacities are shown in Table 3.3.
25
Tal;!J, e 3.1 - De t a i l §
Capacity (Megawa tts )
Powe r Station Yea r of Numb e r
Commi ssi oni ng of I nstalled Normi nal Peak
M achine s
Ea ch Ea ch
M a chine Stati on Mach i ne Sta t i on
Tarraleah 193 8 6 15.0 90 .0 13 80
Waddamana ' B' 1944 4 12 . 0 48.0 10 40
Butlers Gorge 19 51 1 12. 2 12 .2 7 7
Tungatina h 19 53 5 25. 0 125. 0 26 132
Trevall yn 1955 4 20 . 0 80. 0 19 75
La ke Echo 1956 1 32. 4 32. 4 32 32
Wayati nah 195 7 3 12 .7 5 38 . 25 14 41
Liapoo tah 1960 3 27. 9 83 .7 28 83
Ca t agunya 1962 2 24 . 0 48 . 0 23 46
Poatina 1964 6 50. 0 30 0 .0 57 342
Tods Co r ner 1966 1 1. 6 1. 6 0 0
Me ad ow bank 1967 1 40. 0 40 .0 41 41
Repulse 1968 1 28 . 0 28 .0 32 32
Cl uny 1968 1 17. 0 17 . o 18 18
Row allan 1968 1 10 .45 10 . 45 5 5
Lemon thyme 1969 1 51. 0 51. 0 57 57
Devils Gate 1969 1 60 . 0 60 . 0 63 63
Wilmot 197 1 1 30 .6 30.6 30 30
Ce thana 197 1 85 . 0 85 . 0 93 93 Pa l oona 1972 28.0 28 . 0 32 32 Fi sher 1973 43 . 2 43 . 2 45 45 Co r don Stage I 1978 2 144. 0 288 . 0 115 230 Comm i s sioned Hyd r o Syst em 48 1540 .4 1524
Bell Bay The r mal Pow e r Station 197 1 2 120 . 0 240 . 0 11 3 226
Total Commiss i oned System as at June, 1979 50 1780 . 4 17 50
Sou rce : HEC 1979 Report Appe ndix I , p. 9.
2 6
3.2;
frQQUQt 1
on
King
ang
Elinders
l§langs}
ENER
GY
AVERAG
E L
OAD
PEAK
LO AD
LOAD
F AC
TOR
(MW.
h)
( HW)
(H W)
(p.c.)
S TATION
1 980
- 8 1
1 98
1-82
1 98 0-
8 1
1 98
1-82
1 98 0-
8 1
1 98
1-82
1980 - 8 1 1
98 1-82
Waddam
a n a
6 798 5 247
0.8
0.6
40.0
2 0.0
2 3
B utler
s Gorge
55
8 60
73
377
6.4
8.4
15.2
1 2 .6
42
67
Ta rr
aleah
606
86 5 589 8
62
6 9.3
6 7.3
9 1.0
9 1.
0
76 7 4
Lake Ec h o
84
2 7 2
82
010
9.6
9 .4
33 . 0 3
4. 0
29
28
Tu ngat
i nah
623 2 7 9 588 7 2 4
71.
2 6
7. 2 1 32
.5
1 32
.5
54
5 1
Liapootah
481
073
47 1
37 5 5
4.9
53 . 8
86 . 0
86 . 0
6 4 6 3
W a yati
nah
2 4
92 9
2 7 0
511
2 6.8
3 0.9
4 3 .5
4 3 .0
6 2 7 2
Catagun
ya
260
401
252 894
29.7
2 8.9
49.0
48.0
61
60
Re pul
se
1 77
30 6
1 6 4
931
2 0.2
18 .8
32 .5
32 . 0
62
5 9
Cluny
103
690
9 5
60 5
11.8
1 0.9
1 9.
0 1
9.0
6 2 5 7
rv
Meado w ba n k
2 11
779 1
96
22 4 2
4. 2 22
.4
4 2.
0 4
3. 0 5 8 5 2
--.)
Poat
i na
940 9 1 0
1
026
737 107.4 117. 2
3 40.
0 3
44.
0
32 3 4
T re v a l l y n
442 9
47
416
3 59
5 0.6
4 7.5
8 4.5
8 5.
0
6 0
5 6
Tods
Co r n
er
7 2
79
4 942
0.8
0.6
1.4 1.4
57
43
F isher
2 44
9 31
2 41
7
46
28.0
27 .6
47.0
4 6 .0
6 0 6 0
Ro w
allan
44
863
48
142
5.1
5.5
11.
2
11. 0
4 6
5 0
Lemon t h y m e
326 5 4 8 3 1 9
439
37 .3
36 . 5
59 .0
59 .0
63
62
Wil m o t
1 49
835
136
305
17.1 1 5
.6
33 .0
33 .0
52
47
Cethana
457
927
4 43
4 00
52 . 3
50 . 6
98 . 0
96 . 0
53
5 3
Dev
il &
G a te
291
76 4 3
17
3 97
33 .3
3 6.2
6 6.0
66 .0
50
5 5
P a loona
1 40
8 90
14 2 325 16.1
16.2
3 3.0
3 4.0
49
48
Go rdon
1 892
66 7 1
631
3 87
2 16.1 1
86 .2
309
.0
3 01.0
70
6 2
Be l l
Bay(Thermal)
159
950
426
8 76
18 . 3
48 .7
120 . 0
1 21
. o
1 5
40
Mt
L ye
ll (lmpo
r t)
4 3 4 5 4 393
0.5
0. 5 6
.0
7 .0
8 7
Mack
in tos
h
-
85
7 4 8
-
2 7.5
-
8 8 .0
-
3 1
SYSTEH
7
951
108
8
035
956
907.7 917.3
1225.4
1241.1 74 74
So ur
ce ; H E C
Ann
u a l R
eview
198
1-82
,
p.
2 .
Table 3.3: System Peak Capacities
Contribution
Nominal Peak Capacity of hydro-electric plant
Nominal Peak Capacity of Bell Bay thermal plant
Total System Nominal Peak Capacity
Allowance for necessary routine maintenance
Allowance for spare plant
Total deduction for system requirements
Effective Peak Capacity of System
Source: HEC 1979 Report, Appendix I, p, 10,
3.15 The average energy output over
hydro-electric generating system, which kilowatt-hours (kWh), is termed the assessed
Peak Capacity (Megawatts)
1524
226
115
228
the life of the
is measured in
long term average
hydro energy output (ALTAEO). This energy output is assessed
under average conditions and may not be reached during a drought or when river flows are below average. To ensure a reliable
supply of electricity under all conditions, the energy output
needs to be 'firmed up' by major storages or thermal generation. The reliable or firm energy output is termed the assessed
average capacity of the system. Table 3. 4 shows the ALTAEO and
firm energy capacities of the system in 1979.
28
Table 3.4: System Average Energy Capacities
Energy Output
System Configuration
Million (kW. h) per annum
Megawatt s Average
System Average Capacity with no thermal generation (firm energy)
Assessed Long Term Average Hydro Energy Output (firm plus non-firm energy)
System Av erage Capacity with maximum thermal generation (firm energy)
7 481 854
7866 898
9049 1033
Source: HEC 1979 Report, Appendix I, p. 12.
3.16 The Great Lake and Lake Gordon are the two major
storage lakes in the system. As at 30 June 1979, the stored
energy in these two lakes amounted to 8687.4 gigawatt-hours
(GWh) out of a system total of 11850.1 GWh.4
3.17 Since 1964 the HEC has
experiments with positive results. venture with CSIRO between 1964
undertaken cloud seeding For example, in a joint
and 1970, 'increases in
precipitation of up to 37 per cent were measurable during the
autumn and up to l4 per cent in the winter months. ,5 The HEC
also stated:
'Analysis of the experimental data sh owed
that cloud seeding could become a feasible
and economic propositi o n for the Co mmission under defined circumstances. No credit is
assumed to system capacity at this sta g e
because of the natural variability of c l o ud
seeding yield increments and the need t o
29
acquire much more experience on which to base storage operation rules and system
management.
Nevertheless with the present system it
should be possible to achieve significant
savings in fuel for the Bell Bay Power
Station by the use of cloud seeding. Just as
the thermal station can be used to allow
natural recovery of major storages, cloud
seeding can increase the output of
run-of-river stations so that they can assume more of the system load, while the major
storages are replenishing from normal yield and cloud seeding increments.
The present cloud seeding programme being
carried out by the Commission is designed to
confirm this commercial feasibility. The need for cloud seeding will be reviewed annually
under provisional management rules, which
specify that when the storages are below a
predetermined level at the end of a calendar
year, cloud seeding should be carried out in
the following autumn and winter. â¢6
3.18 After
restrictions, the 1967 drought,
the HEC obtained the
which resulted in power
approval of Parliament to
construct an oil-fired thermal generating station at Bell Bay. This station consists of two generating units each with an
installed capacity of 120 MW. The station was originally
intended to be used for the provision of base load power to the
system. However, after commissioning, high rainfall in the
catchment areas combined with a downturn in the economy made it unnecessary for the station to be used in this way. The
subsequent escalation of oil prices made the station uneconomic for a base load role while there was sufficient hydro-electric base load capacity. It has therefore been little used although
in 1981-82 use was increased to 48.7 MW av.7
Sanctioned Developments
3 .19 Since
construction: Lake.
1979 the
the Pieman HEC scheme
30
has and had the
two projects
raising of the
under Great
3.20 The Piernan scheme is the development of the sixth
catchment area and is located on the west coast of Tasmania (see Figure 3.1). The scheme will consist of four darns and three
power generating stations and will increase the installed
capacity of the Tasmanian system by 385 MH.
3.21 Parliamentary approval for the scheme was obtained in
1971 and construction commenced in 1973. The first power
station, the Mackintosh, was commissioned in February 1982 but was not due to be fully operational until later in the year. The
rest of the scheme is expected to be completed in 1986.8
3.22 In 1980-81 the HEC received approval to raise the Miena
Dam on the Great Lake by approximately six metres. This work was
completed by June 1982 except for clean-up and revegetation
work9 and it will increase the effective energy storage capacity
of the Great Lake by 2055 GwhlO and the system energy storage by about 19 per cent,ll
3.23 The HEC foreshadowed another two modifications to the
system in its 1979 Report. They were the conversion of the
existing Bell Bay thermal station from oil to coal and the
installation of a third generator at the Gordon Stage One power station. Neither proposal has been approved by the Government.
Projection of Total System Capacity
3.24 At present the total installed capacity, including
thermal generation, of the Tasmanian grid is 1780.4 MW and the
nominal peak capacity, including thermal generation, is 1750 t1W. Without thermal generation the installed capacity is 1540.4 and the nominal peak capacity is 1524 (see Table 3.1). The
completion of the Pieman scheme will increase the installed
capacity of the system by 385 MW and the nominal peak capacity
by 366 MW. The scheme will increase the long-term average energy
31
output by 185 MW,
generation by 152
the system average capacity with no thermal MW and the system average capacity with
maximum thermal generation by 135 MW. The average energy
capacities of the system after the completion of the Pieman
scheme are shown in Table 3.5.
3. 25 The raising of the Miena Dam will increase the system
average capacity by between 24 and 29 Mw.l2
Table 3.5; System Average Energy after Pieman
System Configuration
System Average Capacity with no thermal generation (firm energy)
Assessed Long Term Average Hydro Energy Output (firm plus non-firm energy)
System Average Capacity with maximum thermal generation (firm energy)
Energy Output
Million (kW.h) per annum
8813
9522
10232
Megawatts Average
1006
1087
1168
Source; HEC 1979 Report, Appendix I, p. 15.
Energy Use in Tasmania
Breakdown of energy use
3.26 Consideration of the use of one form of energy, such as
electricity, should be within the framework of total energy use. Particular forms of energy assume greater or lesser importance
32
from State to State depending on the availability of energy
resources. Changes in the availability or the economics of one
form of energy may change its proportion of total energy use.
The rapid escalation in the price of petroleum products in the
mid 1970s caused considerable substitution of other forms of
energy for petroleum.
3.27 The first pie
the 1979 Report of the
use of energy in
hydro-electricity. The
diagram in HEC, shows Tasmania, second pie
Figure that in
oil
diagram
3.2, reproduced from terms of the primary
exceeded that of
breaks down oil use
into components and also differentiates between components for which substitution by other forms of energy is possible and
those for which it is not.
3.28 The extent
among other things,
and rate of substitution will de pend on,
the availability and the price of oil and
its substitutes. Electricity is one substitute for oil in
various applications, but it is not known to what extent
electricity will be favoured a s the substitute over other forms of energy.
33
Figure 3.2:Energy Use in Tasmania
Hydro Electricity
(a)
Oil
PRIMARY ENERGY USE IN TASMANIA
Source: HEC 1979 Report, p, 6.
34
(b)
COMPONENTS OF OIL USE IN TASMANIA
Per capita consumption of energy
3.21 The HEC included in Appendix II of its 1979 Report a
table taken from Department of National Development and Energy sources which showed that in 1975-76 Tasmania had the lowest per capita primary energy consumption of all the Australian States. The HEC commented on the table:
3.29 figures capita energy
'Table 1 also shows that the average per
capita consumption of primary energy in
Tasmania is among the lowest of the States.
This is partly accounted for by the fact that
a significant proportion of that energy is
utilized at very high efficiencies. A
relatively lower standard of living in
Tasmania may also account in part for the
lower consumption of primary energy.
Both of these aspects indicate that the scope for energy savings in Tasmania may well be
less than in other States. â¢13
The Committee does not contest the accuracy of
provided by the HEC but it does contend that a
comparison of primary energy use rather than end
figures is misleading, especially in relation to
the per use the
conclusion drawn.
3.30 Primary energy is the energy obtained direct from
primary fuels such as coal, oil, gas or water. In the process of
the refining of oil or the thermal generation of
from fossil fuels, much of the energy is lost.
electricity Only about
one-third of the energy of primary fossil fuels is retained in
the form of electricity after generation. However, energy loss is comparatively low in hydro-electric generation as it has a
conversion efficiency of between 80 and 90 per cent.
3.31 The energy derived from secondary fuels such as
electricity and refined petroleum is known as end use energy.
For a comparison of actual per capita energy consumption among
35
the States, end use energy statistics, which make allowance for the difference in conversion efficiency, provide a more valid measurement than primary energy statistics.
3.32 The HEC was therefore correct when it commented that
Tasmania's low average per capita consumption of primary energy is due in part to the high conversion efficiency of
hydro-electric power. The Committee doubts the validity,
however, of suggesting the possibility for energy savings in
Tasmania being less than in other States on the basis of primary energy per capita consumption.
3.33 Saddler and Donnelly, in their submission to the
Committee, calculated end use per capita energy· consumption in Tasmania from 197 8-79 data compiled by the Electricity Supply Association of Australia. These calculations gave Tasmania the second highest per capita consumption of end use energy in
Australia and supported in general terms the results of a study done by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in 1974-75. That study showed that per capita end use energy consumption in
Tasmania was 134 gigajoules in that year compared with the
Australian average of 119 gigajoules.l4
3.34 These statistics should be treated as indicative rather
than definitive. They indicate that Tasmania is a high per
capita energy user compared with the Australian average.
However, the per capita energy consumption figures include
industrial as well as domestic and commercial consumption and as a much higher proportion of its energy is consumed by industry
than in other States, Tasmania is likely to have a higher per
capita consumption rate. Per capita consumption figures should therefore be treated with caution when drawing conclusions from them.
36
Electricity consumption in Tasmania
3.35 Table 3.6 shows the amount of electricity sold annually
between 1970 and 1982 to bulk and retail users with the annual
percentage variation. The fluctuations in the rate of growth in demand of the major industrial load can be attributed, at least
partially, to prevailing economic conditions.
37
Table 3.6: Electricity Sales in Tasmania 1970 to 1982
(in thousands of kWh)
1..eM Qse.r;s % Sgles % IQtgJ. Sales* %
chgnge change chi::lnge
1970 3 236 659 1 331 264 4 571 379
6.5 4.2 5.8
1971 3 445 784 1 386 902 4 837 239
6.2 7.9 6.7
1972 3 658 127 1 496 076 5 159 497
1.8 3.4 2.3
1973 3 725 776 l 546 267 5 277 100
0.7 5.4 2.1
1974 3 752 872 1 629 507 5 387 414
-3.2 9.0 0.5
1975 3 634 252 1 776 103 5 415 848
-3.9 5. 8 -0.8
1976 3 491 378 1 879 686 5 371 064
16.7 6.7 13.6
1977 4 07 3 868 2 005 954 6 099 822
5.4 7.5 5.8
1978 4 293 730 2 157 237 6 450 969
9.7 6.3 8.6
1979 4 708 510 2 294 190 7 002 700
l.l 5.5 2.5
1980 4 759 773 2 419 960 7 179 733
-0.9 2.3 0.2
1981 4 715 669 2 4 7 5 600 7 191 269
0.6 7.2 2.9
1982 4 741 917 2 654 572 7 396 489
* The HEC also sells power to its own villages, works, etc. so
some discrepancy in figures will occur.
source: Committee Secretariat, compiled from information
contained in HEC Annual Reviews.
38
3.36 Several witnesses drew the Committee's attention to the
high per capita consumption of electricity in Tasmania compared with other Australian States and overseas. The Committee
believes that isolating the consumption of one form of energy
and comparing it with similar consumption elsewhere is
misleading because it does not take into account the fact that
the form of energy used in a particular area will depend on its
availability and the economics of its use compared with
potential substitute forms of energy. For example, Tasmania is heavily reliant on electricity because of the abundance of
sui table water resources for generating hydro-electricity, but there is no natural gas consumption in the State. It is valid to
compare only per capita total energy consumption, but even then, as mentioned earlier, cognisance should be given to local
factors affecting consumption in drawing conclusions from such data.
39
CHAPTER FOUR
FUTURE DEMAND FOR POWER IN TASMANIA
Introduction
4.1 In its 1979 Report, the HEC published its forecast of
demand for electricity for each year up to the year 2000.
4.2 The Committee decided to examine demand for electricity
over the same period and to make projections to the year 2000.
The consulting firm, McLachlan Group Pty Ltd, was commissioned
to assist the Committee in examining demand.
4.3 The Committee followed the HEC practice of dividing the
total electricity load into two components: the general load and the major industrial load. The operation and methods of
forecasting future demand are quite different for each
component. The growth in demand of each was therefore examined separately. The sum of the forecast loads of the two components
formed the total load forecast for the system.
Major Industrial Load
Composition of the major industrial load
4.4 The HEC defined 'major industrial loads' as loads
'which because of the nature of the supply, voltage, high load
factors and size (generally 5 MW and above) are covered by
individually negotiated agreementsâ¢!.
41
4.5 (J.'IIIL)
The 17 companies which formed the major industrial load
at the time the HEC prepared its 1979 Report are listed
with their contract loads in Table 4.1. Although some minor
increments of power have been added to the HIL since then, the
general downturn in the Australian and overseas economies has resulted in reductions in the production of many MIL companies. For example Temco' s No.1 furnace and sinter plant was closed
from 1 July 1982. BHP indicated in a letter to the Committee
that the resumption of operations of the furnace and sinter
plant of its subsidiary Temco would depend on the return of more favourable conditions for the Australian steel industry. The Electrona Carbide plant also closed in 19 80 but this was due
partly to other factors.
Contract system
4. 6 Among Australian State electricity systems, Tasmania
has an unusually high major industrial load with about
two-thirds of its power output contracted in 1979 to 17
companies. The high load factor, 74 per cent in the year ended
30 June 1982, was achieved through the continuous use of
electricity by the large industrial consumers. However, heavy dependence on a few companies attaches a greater risk to the
continuity of demand in the long term because the closure of a
large energy intensive plant might leave significant generating facility unused. This is particularly important in a
predominantly hydro-electric system which is capital intensive with low operating costs.
42
Table 4.1; Companies with Major Industrial Load Contracts. 1979
Company Contract Load
MW av.
Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd, Risdon Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Company Pty Ltd Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd
Savage River Mines Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, Burnie Electrona Carbide Industries Pty Ltd Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, Wesley Vale Goliath Portland Cement Company Ltd
Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd, Ro s ebery Renison Ltd Mt Lyell Mining & Railway Company Ltd Tasmanian Pulp and Forest Holdings Pty Ltd Tioxide Australia Pty Ltd
Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, Tamar Northern Woodchips Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd TOTAL
237 98.2 72.5 58
34.6 32.45 l3 .5
13.125 10 10 8
7
5.3 4.5 4.5 3.6 .3._.__2_
616.275
Source; Committee Secretariat (information compiled from HEC 1979 Report, Appendix 2)
4.7 To some extent the system is protected from the
vagaries of the market place by the contract arrangements which require quarterly payment in advance for about 80 per cent of
each company's contracted power requirements, irrespective of the actual use of power in that quarter. Additional electricity used is paid for on a pro-rata basis. This system provides some
incentive for conserva tion but at the same ti me guarantees a
fixed return to the HEC.
4. 8 The term of each contract varies greatly depending on
the negotiated agreement between the company and the HEC. All
contracts are confidential. Lon g contracts are gener ally
negotiated with companies with substantial investments in plant and which need large blocks of power. Although a company which
closes its operations, either temporarily or permanently, is
s till contractually required to pay for the bu lk of its
43
electricity for the remaining part of the term of that contract, an accommodation is likely to be reached between the HEC and the compa ny on that point.
Pricing policy
4.9 Under the system of marginal pricing, whereby bulk
electricity is priced on the cost of the scheme from which it is
notionally drawn, companies with long-standing contracts for electricity are charged relatively low rates for it. According to the HEC, the average price paid by the bulk users is about
one cent a unit.2 The HEC has estimated that the price of power
from the Pieman scheme will be 2.1 cents a uni t3 and from the
Gordon-below-Franklin schem e will be 1.8 cents a unit (with
transmission)4, which is about double the current average price. Recently, with the first stage of the Pieman scheme not yet in
full operation, power has been available only from the Bell Bay oil-fired thermal station at 4.5 cents a unit or a combination
of Pieman and Bell Bay electricity has been offered at a price
between the two.S
4.10 If a company were to give up its block of power, it
would have to negotiate a new block at the prevailing price if
it were to start another operation in Tasmania. Special
arrangements have been made between the HEC and Elect rona
Carbide and Temco to reserve their blocks of power during their temporary closures.
4.11 The marginal pricing policy for the MIL is currently
under review by consultants to the Tasmanian Government. The
policy has attracted considerable criticism for its
disadvantages to new industries contemplating investing in
Tasmania because of their need to negotiate a block of power
available at current prices, which would be considerably more expensive than those paid by existing bulk users. bulk user seeking a contract at the present
44
For example, a
time would be
offered electricity at either Bell Bay or Bell Bay/Pieman rates, both of which would be several times more expensive than
existing bulk user contracts. Most of the other State
electricity authorities in Australia average the costs of the system so that new companies are not put at such a disadvantage. The pricing policy is of particular importance to Tasmania
because of perceived need by both major political parties to
attract new industrial growth to alleviate the burgeoning
unemployment and other social development problems in the State.
4.12 Any change of pricing policy will need to be introduced
over a period of time because of the long-term contractual
arrangements which tie up the bulk of the power generated in the
State. At present, the bulk prices are increased quarterly in
accordance with an escalation formula which takes account of
such things as movements in salaries and wages, general system costs and variations in interest arrangements. Prices may also be increased when a contract is being renegotiated, but it seems that in most cases prices vary little between contracts for the
same company.
Historical growth of the major industrial load
4.13 In Appendix II of its 1979 Report, the HEC included a
graph of the major industrial load for the period 1968 to 1979.
This graph is reproduced in Figure 4.1.
45
Figure 4.1: Major Industrial Average Load
MW AVE RAGE
6 0 0 -······-----·-·-- ----------------------------- ----
550
500 ----------- - -
./ ·
- - ----·----·- --- -----/-,/ '-------- - --------{
-·- --·-·-.-·"· ; · /. ""--· 4 00 ---·--·--- . ............ -· 350 . ---···-- --/--- .- - -------------------- ----------- - --·-·-----
"'l ----- - - -·------------ - ---·---·--------·. ·---·-·--.-
25 0 - -- ------·-- - ---- --------- -- - -- - -------------- -- -- - . -- - -· -· -----···--·- - . - ·· ·---
1968 19 69 1970 1971 19 72 19 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 19 78 1979
Source: HEC 1979 Report, Appe ndix II, page 32.
46
5000
'JOOO
?000
1000
0
1350
Figure 4.2: Major Industrial Load Annual Energy Consumption. 1950-1981
ANNUAL t:Nt:RGY CONSUUPTION GWh (UILUON kWh)
UAJOR INDUSTRIAL LOAD
1360 1370 1380
FINANCIAL Yt:AR eNDING 30 JUNe
Source: Evidence, p.2982
47
4.14 Although growth has been fairly steady over the period,
no new industries have contracted for electricity for about 20 years. The increments added to the MIL in this period have been
for existing bulk users.
Future demand for the MIL
4.15 In formulating a forecast of demand for the MIL to the
year 2000, the HEC approached existing bulk users 'to ascertain the possible extent of future increases in their electrical
requirements'. Table 4.2, reproduced from the HEC's 1979 Report, shows the results of those approaches.
48
Tab l e
4.2:
Establi
s hed
maior
industries
foreshadowed
progressive
additional
loads
PR OGRESS
I V E
A D D I
TIO
NAL
CO N T
RAC
T D E
MANDS
PR OGR
E SS
IVE
A D DI
TIONA
L T O
TAL
S
YEA
R
-------
C om
alco
EZ
Co .
Tern
co
ANM
A PPM
APPM
GPC
EZ
Co.
Renison
TP F H
Contract
Aver
age
Bell
Bay
Ri sdo n
Bell
Bay
B o y
er
B ur
ni e Wesley
Rail
ton
Ros
eb e
ry
Hension
Tri ab
u nna D emand
Inc.
Lo sses
Vale
Bell
1979 2 1 3 3 1 980
1 3 1 2 1 6 2 2
27
13
1 98 1 1 3 1 2 1 6 2 6 3 1 1 6
1 982
1 0
22
26
2 2 1 6 2 6
11
60
1 983
1 0
22
26
2 2 4 6 6 2 8 1 2 4
1 0 4
1984
1 0
22
5 2 3 2 4 6 6 2 8 1 5 1
131
1985
1 0
22
5 2 3 2 4 6 6 2
10
5 158 1
36
19 86
1 0
32
78
4 2
46
6 2
10
5 1
95
17 2
1987
1 0
32
78 4 2
46
6 2
10
5 1 9 5
17 2
1988
60
3 2 78 5 2
46
6 2
10
5 246 22 3
1989
60
32
78 5 2
46
6 2
10
5 2
46
2 2 3
1990
50
32
102
5 2
46
6 2
10
5
2 70
24 8
1991
60
4 2
102
5 2
46
6 2
1 0
5
280
258
1992
60
4 2 128 5 2
46
6 2
1 0
5
306
283
1 993
60
4 2 1
28
5 2 4 6 6 2
10
5
3 0 6
283
1994
60
52
1 52
5 2 4 6 6 2
1 0
5
3 40
3 1 8
1 995
60
5 2 1 52 65 2 4 6
16
2
10
5
410
382
1996
60
52
17 8 65 2 4 6
16
2
10
5 4
36
4 0 7
1 997
60
6 2 1 78 65 2 4 6 1 6 2
1 0
5 446 417
1 998
60
62
202
65
2 4 6 1 6 2
1 0
5
4 70
44 2
1 9
99
60
62
202
65 2
46
1 6 2
1 0
5
4 70
44 2
2000 60
72 228
65
2
46
1 6 2
10
5
5 06
477
Sourc
e :
HEC
1 9 7 9
Report
, p. 12.
4.16 From this information, the HEC derived a forecast of
demand for the MIL. It stated:
'It can be seen that if energy is available
at a competitive price, ten of the eighteen
established major industries expect to
require additional increments of energy in
the period under consideration. The aggregate of the expectation is 477 MW av. and this
figure makes no allowance for any new major
industry which may wish to become established in the future.
Clearly the aggregate of the envisaged
increments is much larger than can be
supplied from hydro sources and this factor
in itself will result in some moderation of
future demand.
After consideration of the probability of
each particular foreshadowed increment
becoming a contract commitment it is
considered reasonable at this stage to adopt a linear increase of 10 MW av. per annum in
the forecast in order to cover Major
Industrial Load. â¢6
4.17 In the first paragraph of the above quotation, the HEC
qualified the possible requirement for additional power by
making demand for power subject to a 'competitive' price. A
'competitive' price was not explained, but the inference can be drawn from the second paragraph that it was the price of
hydro-electricity. Again, in the second paragraph, the HEC was vague about the extent that the moderating influence of the
price of non-hydro-electricity would have on demand. As
explained later, the price of power is only one factor in the
industrial investment decision-making process.
4.18 In its submission to th e Committee, the HEC provided
its probability table for
requirements as an example Temco' s possible future electricity of the probability tables compiled
for each of the major electricity users.
May 1982 and afterwards in writing,
probability tables prepared for the
so
the other
At the hearing on 21
Committee sought the companies.? Although
the HEC undertook at the hearing on 21 May 1982 to provide them
to the Committee, the Committee had not received them at the
time of reporting.
4.19 A representative of the HEC told the Committee that the
probability tables were compiled on the basis of the HEC's
subjective judgement on the likelihood of each company
proceeding with its foreshadowed possible expansion.8
4.20 The HEC emphasised that although the increase could
vary significantly from year to year, the MIL is expected to
increase at an average of 10 MW av. a year over the period.
4.21 In a report dated May 1980, the Directorate of Energy
criticised the HEC for restricting the major industrial load to a linear increase of only 10 MW av. a year. In the opinion of
the Directorate, demand from existing users would be greater
than that allowed by the HEC, and that made no allowance for the
possible entry of new industries. This prompted the Directorate to state:
'The Commission's forecast has been strongly influenced by the available supply of
hydro-electricity, if not governed by this
factor. Indeed, one is left with the
impression that the arbitrary allocation to major industry serves only the tactical
objective of allowing the total load
projection to dovetail neatly with the
developmental lead time for the Integrated
Development'. 9
4.22 The Directorate forecast demand for
in 1990
the
industrial load to be a total of 755 MW av. and
major 785 MW
av. in 1995. It did not make a projection fo r the year 2000.
4.23 The Tasmanian Chamber of Industries also disagreed with
the HEC in its forecast on the size of the major industrial
load. A survey conducted in 1980 by the Chamber resulted in the
51
possible use of 236 MW av. in 1990 and 761 MW av. in 2000 in
addition to the current load. These figures are 136 MW av. and
561 MW av. higher than the HEC's projections for 1990 and 2000
respectively. There does not appear, however, to have been any critical assessment done of the figures by the Chamber and,
therefore, little weight can be attached to them.
4.24 The Committee obtained information from the main
companies listed in the HEC's table, not only on the ir
investment plans but also on the factors used in making
investment decisions. Although the price of electricity was
generally acknowledged to be an important factor
it represented a
in the
sizeable decision-making process component of operating overriding factor. Other
because costs, factors it
may
importance or the total
was not necessarily the
assume equal or greater
package may be less investment
attractive than an alternative package elsewhere in Australia or overseas.
4.25 All of the companies from which information was sought
had no firm plans beyond five years and even their plans within
that period were tentative. For example, Mr L.B. Allsopp,
General Nanager (Smelting Operations), Comalco (Bell Bay) Ltd told the Committee:
4.26
'Our planning at this stage does not have an
expansion of the Bell Bay smelter on the
books. Any expansion of the Bell Bay smelter
would depend upon power being available and then an assessment of the price of that
power, the cost of the expansion and an
analysis of the economics of that. â¢10
The current rece ssion has been a c centuating th e
difficulties for companies in formulating investment plans
through their need to reduce production and r e trench staff at
least until economic conditions improve.
52
4.27 The present state of the economy, the closures of
plants and reductions in production have prompted some people to regard these problems as likely to retard long-term growth in
electricity demand. Without understating the seriousness of the present economic problems, it may be more prudent to treat them as transient. However, in saying that, the Committee does not
wish to imply that the current recession will be followed by a
period of stability. The Committee regards the economic outlook as very uncertain and this highlights the difficulties facing forecasters of future demand for power and underlines the need
for flexibility in both demand forecasts and supply options.
4.28 The McLachlan Group was asked to examine the
information available on the possibility of the current major industrial users requiring additional increments of power up to the year 2000. In its report to the Committee, it dealt with
each of the companies in turn and made initia l projections, with possible variations, for the years 1990, 1995 and 2000. The
McLachlan Group then went on to say:
4.29
'How should the possible variations be
handled? We believe that the 1990 variation
is reasonably possible say 70% of it. The
1995 and 2000 variations need severe
discounting. Note that the 1995 and 2000
variations are almost totally limited to
Comalco, Temco, ANM and APPM Wesley Vale (EZ might also make an impact). Howe ver, the 1995 and 2000 figures ar e outside the planning
horizon for firm decisions on construction of power schemes. â¢ll
The McLachlan Group major industrial load forecast, as derived above, is set out in Table 4.3.
53
Table 4.3: McLachlan Group Major Industrial Load Forecast Compared With HEC Projection
Actual in 1981 - 538 MW (ay.l
MgL.agblan
.GL.QlW
11..W gV, Limit
MW av,
MQI,Q,cblil.!l iirmW
MW av,
McLachlan LQwer. Limit MW ay,
1990 701 6 80 648 616
1995 751 737 670 603
2000 801 888 740 592
Source: Committee Secretariat (information McLachlan Group Report dated 9 June 1982). obtained from
General Load
Definition
4.30 For the purposes of this inquiry
accepted the HEC definition of the general load: the
'The Residential, Commercial and Industrial categories are described as the Retail
Consumers and except for a few special cases
are supplied at published tariff rates. Their combined energy consumption, together with system losses and HEC usage is known as the
General Load. â¢12
Components of the general load
Committee
4.31 The retail consumers can be divided into a number of
categorie s on the basis of the tariff rate at which they are
char ge d. These categories are: residential, industrial, hot
water, off-peak, lighting, commercial, bulk commercial, unread meters , etcetera and HEC villages.
54
4.32 The various components of the general load have grown
at different rates during the last decade, as shown by Table
4. 4.
Factors influencing electricity consumption
4.33 A number of factors i n fluence the rate at which
electricity is consumed in the general load. Evidence to the
Committee suggested that the most important of th ese are the
real price of electricity, the price and availability of
substitute energy s ources, the price and availability of
electrical goods, income levels and the length and sever ity of
the winter,l3
4.34 The way in which the rate of electricity consumption
changes for a given change in each of these f actors can be
measured and is termed an elasticity.
4.35 The price elasticity of demand is usually negative,
that is, as the price of electricity increases demand decreases and vice versa. Between 1963-64 and 1977-78 the price of
electricity in Tasmania decrease d by about 30 per cent in real
terms.l4 During the same period the per capita consumption of
electricity increased from 2648.7 to 5343.4 kWh,lS
4.36 The HEC stated in the 1979 Report: 1 In the short term
the Elasticity of Demand f o r electricity with respect to price
i s very small and it is possible th a t the decreas i ng r eal price
since 1972 has had only a very minor impact on th e l evels of
demand. 1 16 However, short-term price elasticities for
electricity consumption are generally small (about -0.1 ) because of a lag effect, partially caus ed by a number of factors.
Long-ter m elasticities are generally l a rger ( -0.5 to -1.5) and
are probably more realistic as they tak e into account time lags
between cause and effect.l7
55
4.37 For the period 1960-61 to 1979-80 Drs
Donnelly calculated a price elasticity This value was statistically significant than the figure of -0.86 for the whole of
of demand
Saddler and of -0.56.18
but is somewhat less
Australia provided by
the Commonwealth Department of National Development and
Energy.l9 Saddler and Donnelly's price elasticity indicated that the decreasing real price of electricity over the last two
decades has influenced the consumption in much more than a ' ve r y minor' way.
4.38 The most common substitute energy source in the general
load is heating oil. In accordance with demand theory, Saddler and Donnelly found a positive elasticity for the effect of
heating oil price on consumption of electricity. Although
smaller than the price elasticity, the substitute energy
elasticity (0.31) was also statistically significant.20
4.39 Rapid increases in oil prices in the 1970s l ed t o a
move away from the use of oil for heating in most Western
countries. In Tasmania, where supplies of coal and natural gas
were limited, this led to an increase in electricity
consumption. More recently, the stabilisation of oil prices and the fashion for wood-burning slow combustion space heaters has led to a slowing of this trend.
4.40 Higher standards of living, stemming from increased
real income levels, generally result in higher levels of
electricity consumption. In Tasmania, during the period 1960-61 to 1979-80 the income/demand elasticity was 1.13, showing that there was a strong propensity to consume greater amounts of
electricity as real income leve l s increased.21
4.41 The price and availability
in
of e lectrical
complex wa ys appliances as new and influence electricity consumption more efficient consumer goods are continually introduced into
the market. This makes appliance saturation levels diffic ult to
56
determine. Changes in house occupancy levels also influence
electricity consumption. The current trend of decreasing
occupancy will probably level out, but exactly when thi s will
happen is impossible to determine.
4.42 The 1979 HEC Report made no mention of the relationship
between temperature and electricity consumption. However, in its submission to the Committee the HEC claimed that, when a few
individual years are considered, temperature makes a significant difference to electricity consumption.22 In Saddler and
Do nnelly's econometric analysi s of electricity consumption
between 1960-61 and 1979-80 it was found that temperature was
not a statistically significant variable in explaining changes in demand for electricity.23 Thi s difference of opinion is
probably explained by differences in methodology as well as by the fact that, in the long term, small deviations in the use of
electricity caused by temperature variations are ma s ked b y more significant factors such as income levels, the price of
substitute energy forms , population changes and house occupancy rates.
4.43 In conclusion, it is clear that there are numerous
relationships between social factors and the rate of electricity use. Howe ver, it i s also clear that to separate and test the
relative impact that these variables have had, and possibly will hav e, on demand is a complex and time con s umi ng ta s k.
57
Table 4.4: Components of the General Load. and Their Growth Rates Since 1973.
Component* ADD!Hl.l r9te P,t:QpQrtiQD Qf
1n3-12za 1279 geoez:al lQgQ
19:Z9
Public lighting** 15.7% -14.0% 5.3%
Commercial 5.4 5.1 4.8
Bulk commercial 15.4 2.7 3.0
Industrial 6.8 3.9 22.1
Off-peak 13.5 15.2 9.2
Hot water 3.6 2.7 21.5
Residential 7.8 5.9 32.5
Unread meters, etc. erratic 1.6
Overall growth in sales 7.4% 5.0% 100.0%
in
* System losses and HEC use account for an
approximately equal to 12% of general load sales. Not metered - unreliable estimate.
amount
**
Souz:ce: Harwood and Hartley, p.9a. HEC Annual Review 1978-79.
Demand forecasting methodology
4.44 One of the most frequently used methods of estimating
the future demand for any commodity is to begin with the premise that long-term trends in growth rates can be projected into the
future. However, the way in which growth rates are det e rmined
and projected into the future, and thus the final estimates o f
demand, can vary considerably according to the statistical
method chosen.
4.45 The simplest method is to calculate a growth rate fr om
aggregate electricity consumption data and to project this rate into the future. A refinement of this method, and that advocated by the HEC, is to calculate per capita electricity consumption and to project this rate into the future taking into account the
estimated size of the future population.
58
4.46 However, in some circumstances, such as periods of
economic instability or when there is uncertainty about the
availability of particular energy resources, the premise that past trends can be used to predict future consumption may be
invalid. The alternative, therefore, is to make subjective
assumptions about the way in which trends will change in the
future. As the general load is made up of a number of components
which may be consumed at different rates, each must be assessed independently for likely future demand before reaggregating to form a total projection. An alternative approach is to assess
the way in which various factors have influenced the consumption of electricity in the past to produce an econometric model.
After making assumptions about how these factors will influence consumption in the future, this model can then be used to
project demand. This method allows a range of projections to be made each dependent upon the set of assumptions, or scenarios, used. The scenario which is considered to be most likely is then used for the final projection.
HEC forecasts of demand24
4.47 The methods used by the HEC to forecast demand began
with the premise that the past trends of electricity consumption could be projected into the future. Analyses were performed on basic average load figures, which exclude weekends and holidays. These figures were then corrected, by the addition of about
seven per cent, to arrive at values for the general load.
4.48 To assess the historical growth rate of the general
load the HEC plotted electricity consumption since 1953 on an
arithlog graph (Figure 4.3). From this it was determined that
there was a discontinuity in the growth rate at about 1972-73,
such that from this time onwards there was a much higher rate of
gr owth. Modified exponential growth curves (which describe
growth in which increments decrease by a c onstant proportion) wer e then fitted to the el ectricity consumption data for the
59
years 1953-1972 and 1973-1978 (Figure 2 in Appendix II of the
1979 Report). A per capita analysis of these two periods (Figure 4.4) revealed that the growth rate for the first period was 3.95
per cent and for the second period was 5.85 per cent.
4.49 The HEC put forward three reasons for the 1972-73
change in growth rate, although the HEC conceded that it did not fully understand the reasons for the increased growth:
(i) reduction in the real price of electricity relative
to other commodities;
(ii) an increased purchase of electrical goods; and
(iii) an increased propensity to spend on energy.
4.50 The
consumers, as average shown
real by the
cost HEC,
of electricity to retail
dropped from 4.1 cents in
1963-64 to 2.65 cents in 1976-77 so that a negative price
elasticity may have occurred during this period. However, the
influence of points (ii) and (iii) is debatable.
4.51 With regard to the increased purchase of electrical
goods, the HEC stated: 1 The National Accounts show that the
value of electrical goods purchased over the last decade has
been rising faster than the Final Consumption Expenditure. In
other words, consumers are spending a larger proportion of their money on electrical goods 1 ⢠25 There are two aspects to this
statement, first, that people may be buying a greater number of
electrical goods and, secondly, that people may be buying more expensive electrical goods. However, the HEC has not established that there is a direct relationship between spending a greater
proportion of money on electrical goods and an increase in the
growth of electricity consumption. For example, the introduction of colour television in 1975 led to a greater expenditure on
60
electrical goods but, as most
black-and-white television sets, colour televisions replaced this would have led to only a
slight increase in power consumption.
4.52 In its discussion of the 'propensity to spend on
energy' the HEC stated:
'It is perhaps in the area of propensity to
spend on energy that the main underlying
reason for the increase in growth in demand
in recent years is to be found' .26
Yet the HEC provided no data to support this theory. The
National Accounts, used by the HEC, in fact show that between
the years 1969-70 and 1980-81 the proportion of private final
spent on gas, electricity
per cent in 1969-70 to 3.0
this period expenditure on
consumption expenditure in Tasmania and fuel actually dropped from 3. 3
per cent in 1980-81. Throughout
energy fluctuated slightly but, if anything, decreased from
1973-74 onwards (Table 4.5).
61
T a b
le
4.5:
Private
C o n s
umption
E xpenditure:
TA S MANIA
Year
1 969170
1970/7 1 1
97 1 /72
1 972173
1 973/74
1 974/75
1975176
1 976/77
1 97
7 /78
1978179
1979/80
198 0
/8 1
Item
-per
cen
t
Food
19 . 9
19.3
1 8 . 9
18.6
18 . 5
17 . 3 16. 5
16 . 4
16 .7
17 . 4
18.
3 1 8 . 3
C i g a
ret tes
and
Tobacco 3 .1
3.0
2 . 9 2 . 8
2. 7 2 . 6
2.7
2.6
2 .4
2 . 3 2 . 4
2.3
A l c o
hol
i c
dr in
k s 6 . 6
7.0
6 . 8 6
.5
6 .1 6 . 2
6. 0
5 .8
6 .1
5. 9
5.8
5. 6
Clothing
etc
.
1 0 . 5 1 0 . 3
9.9
9. 7
1 0.0
10 . 2
9 . 2
9.0
9 .1 8
.7
8 . 2
7. 9
Hea
l th
5 . 3
5.7
5 . 8 6
.2
5 .8
6 .0
5. 9
5.7
5. 5 6 . 1
5.9
6. 0
Dwe
l ling
rent
1 0 . 7 1
0.9
11.1
1 0 . 9
1 1.1
11.
6 1 2 . 3
13.0
1 3 .1
13.1
13.1
13.
2
Gas ,
el e
ct ri
c ity,
fuel
3 . 3 3
.4
3 . 4 3 . 4
3 . 0
2 . 9 3 . 1
3 . 0
3 .1 3 . 3 3 .1
3 . 0
Househo l d d
ura
b les
7 . 6
7. 3 7 . 8
7. 3 8 . 2 9 . 2
1 0 .1
9. 8 9 . 1
8. 2
7. 3
7.1
m
Books,
papers
,
etc
.
1. 0
2. 1
1. 9 2 . 1
2 . 0
1.7
1. 9
1.9
2.1 2.1
2 . 2
2. 2
"'
All
oth
e r goods 4 . 1
4.3
4 . 2 4 .1 4 .6 4 . 6 4 . 4
4. 4
4. 3
4. 5
4.6 4.7
Trave l a
nd
communication
1 5 . 0
15 . 3 1 5 . 6
15 . 8 1 5 . 4
15.
6
16. 0
1 6 . 2 1
5.5
1 5 .4
1 6 .4
1 6 . 6
A l l
oth
er
serv
i ces
1 1.
5
11.
2 1
1. 5
12.
4 1 2 . 8 1 2
.5
1 2 . 6 1
2.8
1 2 . 9
12.
8
13.0
13.
0
T
OT AL
$mi
ll i on * 5 1 2
56 1 6 1 5 6 7 7
80 6
9 93
116
0
1 3 42 1 4
99
16 7 4 1 8 27
2018
* p e r c e
nt
v al u
es
m ay n
ot
tota
l
10 0
d ue t o r o u
ndi
ng
of
fi gu r
es .
Sou r
ce :
National
Accou n
ts
T ab l e
No .7
9
Figure 4.3: Arithlog Plot of the Basic Average Load 11953-19771
The curved line is the modified exponential growth curve for the period 1953-1972
L ' l ' ' I . ___ .,.. _ _ ___;,_ __ _
'
Source: Figure 4. 3 is taken from page 11, Appendix
1979 HE C Report on the Gordon River Power Development,
63
II to th e
Stage 2.
kWPER CAPI TA
Figure 4.4 Per Capita Consumption - General Load
:: I - ·-·-- - + --- - ---+--------t-- - -----+- --------j
0 · 35 - -- - ----- - -- -·f--·---·- - --- -+---- --- ·---
,.,_i __ _
0 · 30 - \ -- -·-- ·- ·- - --- - ·------. - -
0
0 ·· 2205 - " __ J ____ -- --------' - f\ROWTH -AATE
i- - - ---+=--== '.':: c : __ -------- - ----+-----t----··--·-----J · 125 ! 1953 1955 195T 1959 19 6 1 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 Source: Figure 4. 4 is taken fr om page 12, Appendix II to the
1979 HEC Report on the Gordon River Power De v elopment, Stage 2.
6 4
4.53 The HEC stated: 'the early pattern of growth by itself
can no longer be considered a reliable guide to future loadâ¢.27 However, having set out the historical trends, the HEC obtained its forecast of demand by extrapolating the per capita rate of
consumption of electricity in the following way:
(i) assume that the trend in growth of the basic average
load experienced in the period 1973-1978 would
continue until 1984;
( ii) assume that, over a transition period of three
from 1984, the per capita consumption growth
would return to the previous historical rate per cent per annum and continue at that figure.
'The projected Basic Average Load of (i)
above was adjusted for losses, Commission
loads and weekends/holidays to give the
Projected General Load until 1984. Beyond
that date the growth in per capita
consumption from ( ii) above was combined with the forecast population figures to give
the remainder of the General Load Projection I 28
of
years rate 3.95
4.54 The Commission, when questioned on using 1984 as the
year in which the trend would revert to the normal, replied:
4.55
'It is quite an arbitrary selection of time
We also were not prepared to put a sharp
discontinuity in our growth curve. That could not be explained so we chose a period which
we thought was reasonable to blend the growth back to the long term trend. â¢29
The final HEC forecast of demand given was as follows:
1990 - 515 MW av., 1995 - 637 MVl av. and 2000 - 781 MW av. To
these figures a three per
subtracted to give a band of:
cent variation was added and
65
1990 - 499.5 to 530.5
1995 - 618.0 to 656.0
2000- 757.5 to 804.5.30
4.56 To these figures the HEC added a list of
possible modifications which demand. The modifications
could either increase or decrease included the real price o f
electricity, thermal insulation, dom e stic solar space heating, solar water heating, industrial solar energy, appliance
efficiency, heat pumps and oil prices. When the estimated values for these modifications were taken into account the HEC demand band became: 1990 - 463.5 to 595.5
1995 - 553.0 to 735.0
2000 - 648.5 to 898.5.31
Recent growth in the general load
4.57 Three years has now elapsed since the HEC's 1979
f or ecast of demand was made. Therefore, the predicted general
load can be compared with the actual load to assess the accuracy of the original predictions.
4.58 For the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 the HEC predicted
that the general load would be 305 MW, 322 MW and 339 MW
respectively.32 In its submission to the Committee the HEC
provided a review of its 1979 forecast. In doing this, the HEC
introduced two new concepts: (i) that the general load
calculated at the generator terminals is best considered without Arthurs Lake Pump (7.5 MW av.) as it is not a customer load but
a station auxiliary which is constant in the long term; and (ii)
that 'when a few indi v idual years are considered it i s neces s ar y
t o correct for temperature variations because temperature makes
a significant difference to electricity consumption' ,33 The
method used by the HEC to correct for temperatur e variations,
described in Appe ndix I of the HEC submission is complex and, as
no figures are given , cannot be verified .
66
4.59 In its submission the HEC stated that the actual
general load was 293 MW av. for 1979, 307 MW av. for 1980 and
324 MW av. for 1981 (excluding the 7.5 MW av. for Arthurs Lake).
This represents a growth rate of 4.8 per cent between 1979 and
1980 and 5.5 per cent between 1980 and 1981. However, after
correcting for temperature variations, the demand figures given by the HEC were 297 MW av., 318 MW av. and 332 MW av.,
respectively. The corresponding growth rates are 7.1 per cent (1979-80) and 4.4 per cent (1980-81). The deviations of
temperature-corrected load from forecast load were therefore zero, four and zero MW, respectively.34
4.60 The HEC concluded that:
'it can be seen that had average temperatures prevailed during this period the General Load would have been either in excess of
or equal to the forecast load'. 5
4.61 The statistical summary of the 1980-81 HEC Annual
Review actually shows that sales in the general load rose from
2419.960 million kWh units in 1980 to 2475.6 million kWh units in 1981, an increase of 2.3 per cent.36 The corresponding
increase between 1979 and 1980 was 5.5 per cent. Temperature
correction factors were not employed in the calculation of
figures presented in any of the recent Annual Reviews. Sales in
the major industrial load dropped between 1980 and 1981 by 0. 9
per cent and, as the MIL accounted for 65.6 per cent of the
total load, the ov e rall increase was only 0.16 per cent. The
total amount of electricity unaccounted for by sales increased from 7.73 per cent in 1980 to 9.56 per cent in 1981.
4.62 The South West Tasmania Committee (NSW) pointed out,
with respect to the total load:
67
4.63
'In its most recent Annual Review (HEC l98la) the HEC has said that the annual growth of
electricity use is 2%. This statement must be treated with considerable skepticism. The
figures cited show that the system average
load rose from 888 to 980 MW which is a rise
of about 2%. However, the electricity sold
rose from 820 MW to 821 MW - a rise of only
0.16%'.37
The South West Tasmania Committee (NSW) concluded:
'Where the missing 19 MW, worth $6 million,
went to is a bit of a mystery but could be
due to increased system losses and/or some
accounting discrepancies If sales are
only rising at 0.16% per year, the load ought
to be rising at the same rate. Either that or
there is considerable scope for an increase
in technical and fiscal efficiency. â¢38
4.64 The statistical summary of the 1981-82 HEC Annual
Review39 shows that in 1982 sales in the general load totalled
2654,572 million kWh, an increase of 7,2 per cent, and in the
MIL totalled 4741.917 million kWh, an increase of 0.6 per cent; the total load increase was therefore 2.9 per cent.
Other forecasts of demand
4.65 Although a large number of submissions commented on the
HEC demand forecasts, only three submissions provided
independent forecasts of the general load. These were: the South West Tasmania Committee (NSW), the Tasmanian Wilderness Society (Canberra Branch) and Drs Saddler and Donnelly. In addition, two reports written prior the general load and
to this inquiry included an analysis of
its future growth. These were: the
Tasmanian Directorate of Energy Report to the Co-ordination
Committee on Future Power Development, and the Harwood and
Hartley Report 'An Energy Efficient Future for Tasmania'.
68
South West Tasmania Committee (NSW)
4.66 The South West Tasmania Committee (NSW) 40 repeated the
modified exponential growth curve analysis used by the HEC for the 1953-1978 electricity consumption data.4l It debated,
however, that there had been a departure from the long-term
trends in 1972-73 on the basis that none of the years deviated
by anything more than random fluctuations. The SWTC(NSW) claimed that there has been a constant growth rate of 3.89 per cent
since 1953. It extrapolated from their equation (10910 BAL =
3.293 - l. 525 (0.9787) t, where t is the number of years elapsed
s ince 1953) to the year 2000 to obtain a figure of 54 MW av.
This equation can be used to derive figures for 1990
(403.1 MW av.) and 1995 (473.8 MW av.).
4.67 The SWTC(NSW) also carried out an analysis on a per
capita basis, as recommended by the HEC. The regression equation derived from the 1953 to 1978 data again confirmed that there
was no statistical reason to separate the years 1973-1978 from the pr evious years. This e quation (log10 BAL -0.6227 +
O.Ol736x, where x is the number of years elapsed since 1953) can
also be used to project demand and, in combination with the
population estimates given by the HEC, yields the following:
1990- 461.4 MW av., 1995- 576.2 MW av., 2000- 715.7 MW av.
4.68 It should be noted that the SWTC(NSW) has used basic
average load data, as recommended by the HEC. To make the above
figures comparable with estimates f or the general l oad they must be corrected by the factor of 0.93.
Tasmanian Wilderness Society (Canberra Branch)
4.69 The TWS (Canberra)42 criticised the model used by th e
HEC (their modified exponential growth curve) to forecast
general l oad demand. Th ey stated:
69
4.70
'The report does not provide any
rationale for the choice of such a model.
None of the parameters hav e any economic or
engineering interpretation. Hence the model itself is devoid of any significant insight
as to why people use electricity and whether
these habits can be affected. Specifically, it denies that such matters as population,
income, household purchases of consumer
durables as well as electricity and other
prices affect electricity demand One of
the stated attributes of the model, was that
it "describes a growth in which increments
decrease by a constant proportion when a is
negative and b is less than l â¢.. "(page 43).
While the model does produce declining growth rates it is not clear how ever why this should
be a desirable attribute or whether the
imposed rate of decline is appropriate. It is
even l e ss clear as to why it s hould be
sui t a ble for f orecasting Further, · other
equations can prov ide equally higher (or
bette r) correlation coefficients, especially when applied to a series with relatively
little variation between s uccessive
observation s and about a stable trend line.
Without such information, and comparisons, it is not possible to show that the demand model
is either plau s ible, or the best
statistically, let alone whether it is
meaningful or useful when projecting future demand.43
It b e liev ed that a mo re reliable model would tak e into
account at least future changes in the population, income levels and price of e lectricity. Such forecasts, it suggested, could be derived from aggregate models (such a s Saddl e r and Donnelly ) or
disaggregate models (such as the Direct orate o f En e r gy or
Harwood and Hartley).
4.71 'l'he TWS reassesse d the Directorate of Energy's
di s aggr e gated projecti o n s by reducing figure s believ ed to have b ee n ov erestimated . It d e riv ed a final fi g ur e of 428 MW av . for
1990 which, wh e n compar e d with the 1979 figure of 305 MW av.,
70
gives a growth rate of 3.1 per cent.44 At this rate of growth,
demand in 1995 would be about 497 MW av. and in the year 2000
would be about 579 MW av.
Saddler and Donnelly
4. 72 Drs Saddler and Donnelly in their submission to the
Committee pointed out the advantages of using an econometric
study to forecast the demand of the general load.45 They
explained that an econometric approach assumes that the overall demand for a commodity (in this case electricity) depends on the
price of that commodity (electricity price), the income of
consumers and the price of other substitute commodities.
4.73 Their analysis of retail electricity sales for the
years 1960-61 to 1979-80 yielded an econometric equation which related per capita retail electricity sales, electricity price, heating oil price and average weekly earnings in Tasmania. To
project this equation into the future the authors assumed that the three variables would grow at constant rates. Combinations of specific growth rates for the three variables formed growth
scenarios (Table 4.5). Each scenario resulted in a different
projected growth rate for the general load. These growth rates
were: 'most likely' 2 per cent; 'cheap electricity' 3.1
per cent; 'high growth'
per cent; 'high oil price'
'average historical' 5.1 per cent. 46
4.2 per cent; 'high income' 3.6
1. 8 per cent;
per cent; and
'HEC' 4.2 per cent;
'extrapolation' 4.7
4.74 Only two scenarios produced higher projections than the
HEC forecast ('average historical' and 'extrapolation') and four
of the remaining five scenarios produced projections that were significantly lower than both the historical growth rates and
the HEC projection.47
71
4. 7 5 The Saddler and Donnelly 'most likely' growth rate of
two per cent resulted in the following demand estimates (when
the 1979-80 figures are taken as 5732.5 kWh per capita,
corrected by 12 per cent for HEC use and losses, and the
population levels are those given by the HEC): 1990-91 - 403 MW
av., 1995-96- 455 MW av. and 2000-01- 620 MW av.
4.76 This method of estimating future electricity
requirements has several advantages over less sophisticated methods. First, the equation used for the projections is derived through an analysis of the most important factors which have
influenced electricity consumption in the past. Secondly, when making assumptions about the way in which these factors will
influence consumption in the future a whole range of values for each assumption can be used. It thus may be argued that Saddler
and Donnelly's 'most likely' scenario is in fact not the most
likely nor the most desirable future for Tasmania. However, the authors stated:
'In selecting possible combinations of growth rates, we have noted the assumptions used by
the Department of National Development and Energy in its recently published forecasting study. It used an oil price growth rate of 2%
p.a. as most likely, with a "severe
disruption" case of 5% p.a. The Department
used income growth rates in the range 2.5 to
4.5% p.a. aggregate (not per capita). Our
choice of 2% p. a. per capita is consistent
with this and with the relatively less
favourable outlook for economic growth in
Tasmania compared with Australia as a whole. With regard to electricity prices, our use of 0 and 2% p.a. increase covers the range
between the probably optimistic assessment of electricity supply authorities, that real
electricity prices will be held constant over the longer term, to the view that recent
price increase s presage a continuing
trend.â¢48
72
Table 4.6: Growth Rates Used for Projections (per cent per annum)
Most likely Cheap electricity High growth High income
High oil price HEC Average historical Extrapolation
2.0% 3.1% 4.2% 3.6% 1. 8%
4.2% 5.1% 5.9%
Source: Ev idence p.l64.
Directorate of Energy
4.77 In May 1980 the Tasmanian Directorate of Energy
commented at length on the HEC' s 1979 Report and the following
criticisms were made:
'It is not readily appa rent that separation
of demand data for the pe riod 1953-1978 into
two distinc t trend lines, 1953-1972 and
1973-1978, forms a statistically more
reliable basis for demand projection than
does the complete data set. Analysis carried out by the Directorate of Energy indicate
that a projection based on the complete data
set would be as statistically valid as one
based on the two sets. â¢49
'An appar ent inconsistency exists in the
methodology employed by the Commi ssion in its derivation of its projection. Whereas the
Commission has analysed historical demand in terms of growth per capita consumption, it
has projected growth in aggregate demand to
1984 in term s of an annual rate of incr ease
of 5.85 per cent, irrespective of population
growth over that period. â¢50
4.78 The Directorate produced its own estimates of demand by
disaggregating the general load into its various components and assessing each for its likely future r ate of growth . Included in
the ana l ysis of each component was a discussion of its potential for mod ification through conservation measures .
73
4.79 The Directorate concluded that 'the Commission's
projections in respect of the general load are reasonable'lS but produced estimates that were considerably lower than those of the HEC (Table 4.7).
Table 4.7: General Load- Projected Demand (MW av.l
Hou§.iog Estimate u..B2
High 436
* 427
Medium 425
* 416
Low 414
* 405
* Projected demand a ssuming con s ervation (Adjusted for distribution losses)
553 522
533 503
512 483
2000
772 625
679 589
637 552
Source: Directorate of Energy Report to the Co-ordination
Committee on Future Power Development, May 1980, p.219.
Harwood and Hartley
4.80 In 1980 the Tasmanian Conservation Trust published the
work of two authors, Chris Harwood and Michael Hartley, entitled 'An Energy Efficient Future for Tasmaniaâ¢.52
4.81 In this work the authors studi e d the components of the
general load in great detail and e v aluated, using a number o f
methods, the effects that a conservati on programme would hav e on them.
74
4.82 On the basis of
conservation programme, 1995 the general load
the full implementation of their energy Harwood and Hartley predicted that in
would be only 289 MW av.53 This is
16 MW av. less than the average number of megawatts consumed for
1979.
Summary of demand forecasts
4. 83 A summary of all demand projections presented (Table
4. 8) reveals a wide range in estimates. In 1990 the discrepancy
between the lowest estimate (Harwood and Hartley) and the
highest estimate (HEC upper band projection) was 306.5 MW av.
The discrepancies for 1995 and the year 2000 are 316.3 MW av.
and 436.2 MW av., respectively. At each of the three time
periods the HEC forecast is greatest.
Table 4.8 - Summary of Demand Forecasts
u..w 1995 2000
HEC projection 515 637 781
band (463.5-595.5) (553.0-735.0) (648.5-898.5)
SWTC (NSW) 374.9 440.6 509.6
aggregate* 429.1 535.9 665.6
per capita* 429.1 53 5. 9 665.6
TWS (Canberra) 428 497 57 9
Saddler & Donnelly# 403 455 620
Directorate of Energy 425 533 679
with conse rvation 416 503 589
band 405-436 483-553 552-722
Harwood & Hartley 289
* Corrected for conversion from BAL to GL.
# Calculated from 1979-80 figure of 5732.4 kWh per ca pita and a
2% growth rate ('most likely') plus 12% for HEC use and losses.
HEC population figures used for conversion from per capita to
population projection.
75
McLachlan Group forecast54
4.84 that:
McLachlan Group in its report to the Committee stated
'It is our view that the forecast band of HEC
and many of the submissions is far too
narrow.'
NcLachlan Group adopted a forecast band width, similar to that used by the New Zealand Government, of five per cent in 1990,
ten per cent in 1995 and 20 per cent in the year 2000. McLachlan
Group also stated that there was a probability of one in four
that the actual demand would be outside this band.
4. 85 McLachlan Group reviewed the demand projections of the
HEC, the Directorate of Energy and the South West Tasmania
Committee (NSW). It did not include the projections of Saddler and Donnelly, Harwood and Hartley nor the Directorate of Energy projection with conservation and band widths.
4.86 McLachlan Group's forecast of demand was made
subjectively by considering the projections made by the HEC, the Directorate of Energy and the SWTC(NSW). McLachlan Group stated: 'we believe that HEC figures would be towards the higher side of a wider band and thus our projection is:
505 MW for 1990, 590 MW for 1995 and 742 MW
for the year 2000'.
The McLachlan Group band, based on the percentage variations
given above, are:
1990- 480 to 530 MW av.,
1995- 531 to 649 MW av.,
2000 - 594 to 890 MW av.
76
Factors which may Modify Demand
Co-generation
4.87 Co-generation is the simultaneous production of process heat and electricity from a single energy source. The energy
efficiency of co-generation is high, 75-80 per cent, compared to conventional thermal electricity generating systems which have an average efficiency of about 35 per cent. After discounting
for the value of the process steam, the fuel consumed in the
production of co-generated electricity is less than half that needed in conventional thermal power stations.55
4. 88 Co-generation is not a new concept and the technology
is well established. In Australia about eight per cent of the
nation's electrical output is privately generated and most of this is through industrial co-generation.56
4.89
4.90
Two types of co-generation systems are currently used:
'- Topping cycles, in which the electricity
is produced first and the thermal exhaust
from the prime mover is used as industrial
process heat.
Bottoming cycles, in which is produced for process use
heat is then recovered as an
for generating electricity. â¢57
thermal and the
energy
energy waste source
As outlined by the Tasmanian Department of Industrial
Development:
'The type of system chosen will depend on the
balance of electrical and th e rmal energy
required and the level of waste heat
available. In practice the more usual
arrangement has been the t o pping cycle
employing a back-pressure steam turbine as
the prime mover. This system necessitates the installation of high press ure steam
generators. Therefore, pre-existing low
77
4.91
pressure steam generation equipment reduce co-generation potential e conomic life of the plant. â¢58
tends to
for the
Co-generation is particularly suitable for industries which produce process heat from boilers primary fuels such as fuel oil, distillate, coal
use in
fired by
and wood
wastes. The pulp and paper industry is well suited to
co-generation.
4.92 Co-generation has been used in Tasmania for over 40
years and at present three companies produce some of their
electricity by the process,59 The Associated Pulp and Paper
Mills (APPM) plants at Burnie and Wesley Vale have co-generation equipment to the in s talled capacities of 12 MW av. (Burnie) and
4 MW av. (Wesley Vale). In 1981 the average outputs of these
plants were 3.2 MW av. and 1.3 MW av. respectively.
4.93 The potential expansion of co-generation in these three
plants was reviewed by the Tasmanian Department of Industrial Development in its submission to the Committee. The Department stated that at APPM, Burnie it appears feasible to increase the amount of co-generated electricity to 5. 7 MW av. without undue difficulty or
re-arrangement; to
at
about Wesley 7.5 MW Vale
av.
'On
with some
the criterion
plant that
co-generation should not cause an
consumption of petroleum products no and at Electrolyti c Zinc Company (EZ
overall increase in the
potential exists Co.), Risdon there is no
potential further co-generation with
installati on . 62 APPH stated in evidence to the respect to their mill at Burnie:
the existing
Committee, with
'If ... capital was available for suff ici e nt
generating capacity to be installed so that
both intermediate pressure and low pressure steam could first pass through back press ure turbines to generate electrical power, the
average generation would be about 9 megawatts â¢â¢â¢ r62
78
4.94 The extent to which other industries could adopt
co-generation was the subject of considerable debate in both
submissions to the Committee and external documents. Views range from the belief that co-generation is the panacea for Tasmania's energy problems63 to the belief that there is little potential
for the economic expansion of co-generation in the State's
industry.64
4.95 The Tasmanian Department of Industrial De velopment
(DID) assessed in detail the co-generation potential of existing Tasmanian industries in its submission to the Committee, 65 The Department carried out its analysis on the assumption that
co-generation should not result in a net increase in the
consumption of petrol eum products and th e industries were
grouped with regard to the principal fuel used, steam pr ess ure
and perceived potential, or lack of it, for co-generation.
4.96 A s ummary table was provided by DID of 'The technical
potential for further co-generation over and above the existing actual and existing potential figures. â¢66
Company
Tioxide EZ Risdon ANM Temco
1'QTAL_ -----------
Source: Evidence, p.2568.
Technical Potential
5 - 7 MW av.
2 - 10 MW av.
8 - 11 MW av .
6 Mvl av.
21- 34 NW av.
4.97 However, in the discussion pr ior t o this summary a
number of groups of industrie s which produce low pressure steam
were dismissed with th e sta tern en t that ' a t p r ese nt
th e refore there generating potential companies
plant installed for co- ge neration were rejected i n
and of electricityâ¢.6 7 this wa y . A less
79
In
there is no
exists no
total, 10
conservative
approach would have included these companies, with the proviso that generating plant would need to be installed. The DID
estimate of 21-34 MW av. is not set within any time frame; thus
it is implied that this amount of co-generated power would be
almost immediately available.
4.98 Although the HEC stated in its submission to the
Committee that 'co-generation was taken into account in
determining the amount to be included in the Major Industrial
provision in our forecast â¢68, it had not previously provided an estimate of the amount of co-generation it saw as eventuating. These figures were: 1985 - 18.5 MW av., 1990 - 20.5 MW av. and
1995 - 56.2 MW av.69 The HEC also stated 'unofficial advice from the Energy Policy Unit is that the technical potential for new
plant in existing industries over the next decade is 21-34 MW
average' .70
4.99 As pulp and paper mills use large volumes of process
steam and have access to wood wastes it has been frequently
suggested that their potential for co-generation is high.
Comparisons with other countries, such as the United States of America, Canada and Sweden, have been used to illustrate that
co-generation would, in some instances, even produce more
electricity than would be needed by the mill.7l However, the HEC and the Department of Industrial Development pointed out that in Tasmania thermo-mechanical pulping is most frequently used whereas chemical pulping is used in most other countries. 72 In
contrast to chemical pulping, thermo-mechanical pulping results in only limited co-generation potential.
4.100 APPM currently co-generates about ten per cent of the
electricity used at each of its Burnie and Wesley Vale mills. If co-generation were increased to 9 MW av. at the Burnie mill this would r e present about 28 per cent of the mill's requirements.73
80
4.101 Australian Newsprint Mills (ANM) submitted that with a number of technical changes and expansion of plant ' â¢â¢â¢ it would be possible to co-generate a total of 21 MW peak (say 19 MW av.)
of the 145 MW av. total electricity requirement for a four
machine mill'.74 Co-generated electricity would therefore be 13 per cent of the total required. The Chief Engineer at ANM, Mr
B.P. McLaughlin, in an address to the Mechanical College
(February 1982) concluded that 'the potential for co-generation of electricity in the pulp and paper industry in Tasmania would cover only QD& of its electricity requireme nts - that i s ,
around 30 MW average'. 75 However, in a letter to the Honourabl e
K.E. Newman, M.P. (2 May 1979) McLaughlin had stated:
' .â¢â¢ because of the need for process steam at
our Boyer Mill, we could generate two thirds
of our el e ctricity requirements as a
by-product of steam raising. In oth er words, in round figures, we could generate fort y
megawatts and purchase twenty megawatts
rather than the si x t y megawatts we purchase
at present. â¢76
4.102 If co-generation potential exists in Tasmani a why has
it not already been developed? The HEC submitted that 'there are no technical barriers to co-generation in Tasmania and no
penal ties regarding connection to the pow e r supply system'. 77 The Department of Industrial Development submitted that where
co-generation is technically feasible the con s trai nts to
implementation are principally economi c . 78 That i s , that the
resultant price of co-generated electricity is greate r than the price at which it can be purchased from the supply authority .
This is not surprising as e lectricity in Tasmani a is chea p,
particularly for those compa n ies holdi ng discounted bulk
contracts with the HEC.
81
4.103 However,
submissions and it has been pointed out in a number of
related reports that the barriers to
not economic but co-generation administrative in
and Tasmania are
political.79 The principal objection are to
co-generation by supply authorities appears to be based on the argument that malfunctions in the consumer's generating
equipment may create disturbances in the authority's system but this was refuted by a number of sources.BO
4.104 A further controversy is centred on the amount to be
paid by a supply authority for surplus co-generated electricity. Supply authorities generally believe that this amount should be less than or equal to the cost of normal supply whereas
advocates of co-generation believe that these pay-back tariffs should reflect the cost which co-generation avoids.Bl
4.105 The previous Tasmanian Government, realising that
energy management was required in the industrial sector, carried out a study on the potential for co-generation and intended to
pursue initiatives in an attempt to overcome the barriers to its implementation that the Government had identified.82
4.106 The policy of the present Government has not yet been
made available. However, a recent media release stated:
'On the industrial side the Premier announced that energy management services are being
provided by the Hydro-Electric Commission's Energy Management Centre and furthermore a report addressing the matter of co-generation in industry is expected to be presented to
the Government in the near future. â¢83
4.107 Clearly disagreement exists in all aspects of
co-generation. However, it has also been made clear to the
Committee that co-generation is a.n important aspect of energy use in Tasmania.
82
Energy conservation
4.108 Until recently the use of electricity in Tasmania was
actively promoted by the HEC. Although the need for a more
conservative approach to its use has now been recognised, there is a wide disparity of opinion as to the potential magnitude,
efficacy and economic feasibility of an electricity conservation programme.
4.109 In Appendix II of the 1979 HEC Report several aspects
of energy conservation in 'Possible Departures from these possible departures
the general Established load were considered Trendsâ¢.84 Included
as
in
were thermal insulation, domestic
solar space heating, solar water heating, appliance efficiency and heat pumps. The estimated amounts of electricity saved by
these means were 21 MW av. in 1990 (four per cent of deviation
from the projected demand), 46 MW av. in 1995 (seven per cent
deviation) and 85 MW av. in the year 2000 (11 per cent
dev iation). These estimates were not included in the HEC
projection for the general load but were used to assist in
establishing the lower limit of the demand band. However, in the HEC's submission to the Committee it was pointed out that the
effects of conservation were built into its future
projections. 85 But this assertion implies that the same
proportion of electricity will be conserved in the future as has been conserved in the past. This can be interpreted to mean that
little or no allowance has been made by the HEC for an energy
conservation programme.
4.110 In discussing energy conservation in the industrial
sector, the HEC stated: in this instance conservation, or
more properly the more efficient use of electricity, does not
usually result in any electricity becoming available for other uses. Rather, conservation enables the major industrial customer t o produce more products for the same contract entitlement of
electricityâ¢.86 This argument, however, ignores the
83
possibility that electricity can be 'purchased' through greater efficiencies which leaves available for other purposes the
electricity an industry would have otherwise taken.
4.111 Harwood and Hartley, in their presentation of 'An
Energy Efficient Future for Tasmania' ,87 came to conclusions substantially different from those of the HEC through the
rejection of the premise that past trends could be projected
into the future. They began instead with an examination of the
demand for electricity at its various points of end use. The
general load was considered in terms of space heating, water
heating, residential appliances, commercial-institutional, lighting and unread meters. Industrial electricity use included consideration of both general load industries and the major
industrial load companies. Harwood and Hartley's analysis of future demand considered the likely impact of sociological and technological factors and assessed the potential for increased efficiencies in each of these sectors.
4.112 The level of demand projected by Harwood and Hartley
for the year 1995 was 1105 MW av., which consisted of 816 MW av.
for industrial use and 298 MW for commercial use. This estimate
was 283 MW av. less than that made by the HEC for 1995 and it
was through this difference that Harwood and Hartley argued that there was no need for further generating plant at least to the
year 2000.88
4.113 In its report of May 1980 to the Co-ordination
Committee on Future Power Development, the Directorate of
Energy critically reviewed Harwood and Hartley's proposals and concluded that they did not represent adequate prescriptions for immediate policy action. 89 The Directorate justified this
criticism with the comment that the assumptions, qualifications and judgements made in 'An Energy Efficient Future for Tasmania' were essentially subjective.
84
4.114 The Directorate carried out its own analysis of the
potential savings that could be made in various sect ors of the
general load and provided estimates for the years 1985, 1990 and 2000 of 2.1 per cent, 5.6 per cent and 13.3 per cent savings,
respectively.90 However, in the Directorate's projection of demand for the general load these potential savings were not
taken into account. In its lengthy discussion of the major
industrial load the Directorate did not consider energy
conservation so that the total load proj e ction mad e no allowance for potential electricity savings. The Directorate nevertheless recommended that it be given the task of preparing a detailed
energy conservation programme.
4.115 A number of submissions made to the Committee supported
the approach taken by Harwood and Hartley. The South West
Tasmania Committee (NSW) in fact stated that the Harwood and
Hartley programme was ' ve ry modest' and that, due t o a high
degree of wastage in Ta sm ania, the potential for electricity
savings in s ome areas was very large.91 The Tasmanian Wilderne s s Society (Hobart Branch) in evidence t o t h e Committee stated: 'A
15 per cent energy saving programme for Tasmani a 's grio when the Pi eman scheme is complet e d will provide 150 megawatts' .92
4.116 The Comm o nwealth Department of National Development and Energy (DNDE) in its submission to th e Committee assessed in
some detail the potential for s avings in t he rr:a in electrici t y
consuming sectors of Tasma nia and estirrated that:
in the indust r y/comme rc e s ector sa,;ir.gs of c:;bo ut
10.6 per cen t could be r:·.ade
represents 7. 9 per ce nt of
gen e r a ted in 1980-81; and
85
by
tcta l 1985, wr.icf.
el ectricity
in the residential sector savings of 9. 0 per cent
could be made by 1985 which represents 1.9
per cent of the total electricity generated in
1980-81.93
In summary, the Department stated:
1
The total potential electricity savings for Tasmania in the two sectors is thus
conservatively estimated at 780 GWh by 1990. It is equivalent to one third of the forecast
increase in Tasmanian electricity demand in the period 1979-80 to 1989-90. 1 94
4.117 The Department of Industrial Development, in its
submission to the Committee, repudiated the DNDE analysis and maintained that the lack of detailed local knowledge has
led to errors in conclusions 1 .95 The Department of
detailed analysis and Industrial Development carried out its own concluded 1 that there is a potential for 85 GWh p. a. in the
industrial/ commercial sector and 22 GWh p. a. in the domestic
sector. This total of 107 GWh p.a. is equivalent to about 12 MWa
whereas the DNDE estimate of 780 GWh p. a. amounts to nearly 90
MWa. 1
4.118 Both the Department
Tasmanian of National Development and
Energy97 and the Wilderness Society (Canberra
Branch)98, among a number of others, submitted that the
potential for electricity conservation, whatever magnitude it was determined to be, could not be realised without the removal
of a number of non-technical barriers. DNDE summarised these
barriers as follows:
lack of awareness and information about the benefits and methods of reducing
energy consumption;
the costs of
stock, lack
control of
tenants);
charging existing capital of finance, inadequate
energy expenditure (eg
86
4.119
an apparent preference by management in industry towards increasing output
rather than reducing costs;
social factors, such as habit,
and
fashion, consume r status, aesthetics expectations; and
institutional and such as existing
administrative arrangements, alternatives. â¢99
structural factors, laws and regulations, and constitutional
and lack of
Further to this, it was generally pointed out in those
submissions advocating a comprehensive energy conservation programme that the implementation of such a programme relied
entirely on a rev ised Gove rnment policy and initiatives. To this end Harwood and Hartley provided a timetable setting out when
major administrative actions were requirea.lDO A numbe r of
submissions also maintained that electricity c ould be provided through energy conservation at much lower cost than if the
electricity was generated through the construction of a new
power scheme.lDl
4.120 In April 1982 the then Labor Government of Tasmania
issued an 'Energy Policy statement' which outlined programmes for domestic energy conservation, commercial a nd public
buildings energy conservation, industryl02, although estimates available through these programmes
and energy conservation in
of t h e potential sav ings
wer e not made. The present
Government has not issued an e nergy policy statement as yet. A
recent media release, however, stated that th e 'Gov e rnment will not be proceeding with the proposal t o introduce building
regulations governing the ins ulation of new buildings (as) these regulations were incon si s tent with the Go vernment's policy of cutting red tape and deregulation. In s tea d, the Government would be seek ing to encourage insulation throu gh o th e r mechanisms such
as med ia campaigns and the production of literature which
87
demonstrated the benefits of insulation in terms of reduced
heating costs and higher comfort levels. â¢103 The Tasmanian
Government will co-ordinate this promotion through the
Hydro-Electric Commission Energy Management Centre.
4.121 It was pointed out to the Committee in a number of
submissions that a comprehensive energy conservation programme would provide increased employment opportunities in a number of sectors. Harwood and Hartley analysed employment arising from their programme and concluded:
'Assuming that the alternative investment
program that we advocate is adopted, there
would be just as much direct employment
provided over the period 1980-1995 as that
which would have been provided by the entire
integrated development of th e Gordon,
Franklin and King Rivers. â¢104
Forecast of Demand
4.122 Earlier in this chapter, the Committee exarr,ined future
demand for the major industrial load and for the general l oad
separately. It also examined energy conservation and
co-generation as factors which can moderate growth in demand.
4.123 The difficulties facing forecaster s in making accur at e
pr oject ions of future d ema nd for electricity in Tasmania became ve r y obvious to the Committee and ar e exemplified in the wide
divergence of estimates in
demand studies undertaken
demand
by
organisations and by individuals.
con tained in
both official
the and
var i ou s other
4.124 A major difficulty is the size of the systerr .. In a
small electricity supply system, such as that in Tasmania, not
o nly is demand morE: unpredictable but relc:tively sr:.alJ
unforeseen additions or reduction s in demand can have an i r.1pac t on t he system. Any forecast of demand needs to tak£: account o f
thi s factor.
88
4.125 Growth in demand for the major industrial load i s
sensitive to fluctuations in international economic conditions as well as to the state of international markets for the
individual industries operating in Tasmania. Even disregarding the current economic recession, it is virtually impossible to
make correct predictions about the international economic
climate in 10, 15 or 20 years time. This adds to the dif f iculty
of forecasting demand for power over that period of time.
4.126 Most statistical and econometric studies of the general load depend largely on the assumptions made or the values
assigned to the variables used in them. Those assumptions and
values are
s i gn ificant
conditions,
necessarily changes in
may well turn
subjective and, in the event of
the pr evailing economic or social
out to be wrong. This will in turn
affect the accuracy of the forecast of demand.
4.127 In its 1979 Report the HEC made pr ojecti ons for demand
for each year up to the year 2000 (see Ta b l e 4 ) . Th ese
projections have been reiterated in subsequent documents. In its recently published Annual Review for 1981-82, the HEC drew
attention to the generally depressed economic situation but
added:
'However these short term economic fa ctor s
hav e given no reason for the Commission to
alter its long term load projection. â¢105
4.128 Recognising that various fa ctor s ll'.ay rr.odify growt h in
demand, the HEC placed its demand projections within a forecast band the upper limit of which was 2 . 06 per cent abov e the
projection and the lower limit 4.80 per c en t belov; the
p r o ject i o n. Provision wa s al so n ade for the forecas t bar.d t o be
ex tended to 2. 96 per ce nt below and 6. 89 per c e nt atJove the
dem and projection if extremes ir. the HEC' s ;r,odifyir.g factors
89
were reached. Even with the extended forecast band, the HEC did not allow itself much margin for error should unexpected
variations in demand occur.
4.129 The HEC' s forecast should be considered in the context
of its forecasting record and the uncertain future of the
Australian and overseas economies. The South West Tasmania
Committee (NSW) drew attention to the past forecasting
performance of the HEC in its submission to the Committee. It
stated:
'On the basis of historical precedent alone, the HEC figures on possible future demand
growth ought to be questioned. In the
accompanying graph (Fig.lO) we have shown the recent growth in the utilization of the
system, compared with the figures predicted by the HEC in 1971 in its report on the
Pieman scheme (HEC, 1971). Figures taken from HEC-supplied data show that growth in the
period 1971-81 was overestimated by 300 MW or 90% (av erage loading) and by 423 MW or 94%
(peak loading). The growth figures (in MW and MW av) predicted and actual are:
MW in MW in Total Annual
1981 1970 Growth Growth
M
(Pred. 1648 779 889 7.27
Peak (
(Act. 1225 779 446 4.21
(Pred. 1208 572 636 7.02
Average (
(Act. 908 572 336 4.28
We would like to note here that such figures, as tak e n
from HEC publications, are not entirely reliable becau s e the quoted figures for a particular year seems to change
from issue to issue in the Annual Review. â¢106
These figures are also shown clearly in the following graph.
90
Figure 4.5: Comparison of Predicted Tasmanian Electricity Load with Actual Load
,-.
1500
10 00
" of) " 6
500
----- HFC Pre
--- Real i ty
PE AK
PREDICTION vs REALITY
1970 1975
Source: Evidence, page 2167.
91
I
198 ()
4.130 The Committee is of the opinion that the HEC' s record
in forecasting demand combined with the uncertain economic
outlook do not give credence to the HEC's narrow forecast band. The band does not take sufficient account of unforeseen
variations in demand which might arise from situations beyond the control of the HEC or the Tasmanian Government.
4.131 McLachlan Group drew upon the experience of the New
Zealand energy forecasters in formulating its forecast of
demand. Although about three times the size of the Tasmanian
electricity system, the New Zealand system is sufficiently
similar in nature, with its predominance of hydro-electric
capacity, to be used as a comparison. In New Zealand, the
forecast band is extended to five per cent above and below the
projection in a ten year forecast, ten per cent in a 15 year
forecast and 20 per cent in a 20 year forecast. The New Zealand
authorities also incorporate into their forecasts the
probability that there is a one in five chance that demand will
fall outside the forecast band. Although McLachlan Group
accepted the percentage variations used in New Zealand, it
adjusted the probability factor to one in four to compensate for the fact that the Tasmanian system is only about one-third of
the size of its counterpart in New Zealand.
4.132 The McLachlan Group forecast of demand is compared with
the HEC forecast in Table 4.9. It should be remembered that the
McLachlan Group allowed for a one in four probability of demand falling outside that forecast band.
92
Table 4.9: Comparison of the HEC and McLachlan Group's Forecasts of Demand for Electricity
MW AVERAGE
Year HEC McLachlan Group
.Lmitl I&tlll P;rQjec-
.L.imi..t .liQn .L..il!lll .kim.il .tiQn L.im.i,J;
1990 1191 1216 1262 1095 1153 1211
1995 1342 1388 1443 1134 1260 1386
2000 1506 1582 1648 1186 1482 1778
SQu;rce: McLachlan Group Report of 24 August 1982.
4.133 The final forecast is still largely subjective. For the
general load, the projection of historical population and per capita consumption trends and the use of economic studies are
useful tools to give some indication of future demand. However, their accuracy will depend on the assumptions made and the
values ascribed to the variables used in them. The small size of
the population and the electricity generating system tend t o
compound the difficulties. Any projection s of future demand,
whether formulated by McLachlan Group, the HEC or any oth e r
interested party, cannot be certain of being fulfilled. It is
essential, therefor e , that the upper and lower limits o f the
forecast band be sufficiently wide to c o pe with unex pected
variations in demand.
4.134 Ha v ing considered all these fact o r s , the Committee is
of the opinion that the McLachlan Group forecast of demand is
the most realistic of the forecasts presen ted t o the Comm ittee. It is on the basis of the McLachl a n Gr ou p f or eca s t, a n d its
provisions for unpredictability, that th e Committee c o nsiders the supply options in Part II of this report.
93
4.135 Tables 4.10 and 4.11 show the supply shortfall as
forecast by both the HEC and McLachlan Group in the years 1990, 1995 and 2000 after the completion of the Pieman hydro-electric scheme, the installation of the third machine in the Gordon
Stage One power station and the raising of the Great Lake. The
figures in Table 4.10 exclude power from the thermal station at
Bell Bay and Table 4.11 includes that thermal power.
Table 4.10: Total System Average Capacity Supply Shortfall Excluding Thermal Power From Bell Bay
Year
1990
1995
2000
So!Jrce:
SUPPLY SHORTFALL
(only hydro-electric power considered) MW average
DEMAND FORECAST
HEC McLachlan Group
l&.:i:Ltl_ .LQiltl
.L.i.miJ;_ .t.i.Qn .r....iJnil .Limil .ti.Qn
143 168 214 47 105
294 340 395 86 212
458 534 600 138 434
McL achlan Gr o up Report of 24 August 1982.
94
.lJ..IW.tl kiJ:ni__t
163
338
730
Table 4.11: Total system average capacity supply shortfall including thermal power from Bell Bay
FORECAST
Year
1990
1995
2000
NQll_;_ forecast.
SUPPLY SHORTFALL (total system considered) MW sverage
HEC McLachlan Group
l&'tLtl .I&tl.tl
.L.i1!l.i.t tion Limit .L.i.m..il .ti.Qn
(19) 6 52 (115) (57)
132 178 233 (76) 50
296 372 438 ( 24) 272
indicates figure is a surplus of supply
DEMAND
!.llm.tl Limit
1
176
568
against
source: Group Report of 24 August 1982.
4.136 These tables show that if the lower limit of th e
McLachlan Group's forecast band were achieved, little or no
addi tional capacity would be needed this century . On the other
hand, should the uppe r limits be attained, the potential
hydro-electric capacity remaining in Tasmania would be
insufficient to meet that demand. It is likely that demand will
actually be somewhere the two extr emes but if a high grow th in
demand eventuates a major new generating facility wo uld need to becom e operational in the mid 1990s. However, any supply
strategy should therefore take account of the uncertainties
inherent in forecasting demand in Tasmania.
95
PART II
SUPPLY OPTIONS
CHAPTER FIVE
FEASIBILITY OF SUPPLY OPTIONS
Sources of Electrical Energy
5.1 Electricity can be produced in three different ways:
(i) by generators, (ii) by semi-conductors, and (iii) through
electro-chemical reactions (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1: Sources of Electrical Energy
Energy Source
WATER
Impoundments
Tidal Dams-----
--- Wave Motion__-
GAS SOLAR GEOTHERMAL OCEAN/LAKE THERMAL WIND ---------------------------GAS SOLAR PONDS PETROLEUM SOLAR -------------------------HYDROCARBONS ------------------Conyers ion
Machinery
General Process
WATER TURBINES
STEAM
WIND TURBINES
GAS TURBINES
DIESEL GENERATORS
PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS
FUEL CELLS
-----SEMI
CONDUCTORS
ELECTRO CHEMICAL REACTIONS
Source: taken from information generally a v ailable.
97
5.2 Generators have been used for many decades in a wide
variety of situations. Turbo-generators are more common than diesel generators and are usually driven by water
(hydro-electricity) or steam (thermal electricity). They are less frequently driven by gas, wind or internal combustion
engines.
5.3 A range of primary fuels can be used for the production
of steam in thermal power stations: coal, oil and gas are most
commonly used. To a lesser but increasing extent, uranium, wood and wastes are also used. Recent technological developments have resulted in the use of solar, geothermal, ocean and lake thermal energy sources for the production of steam.
5.4 Although a range of primary fuels can be used to
generate steam, each thermal power station can be operated only on the particular type of fuel for which it has been designed.
5.5 Both semi-conductors and electro-chemical reactions for the generation of electricity are relatively new processes.
Research is continuing for both techniques and so far only
small-scale plants have been built. However, recent developments have indicated that both, and in particular semi-conductors in the form of photovoltaic cells, could be available for
large-scale, economical electricity production within the next 10 to 15 years.l
5. 6 The general process, conversion machinery and primary
energy source chosen for a particular power station will depend on a number of factors, the two most important being (i) the
amount of electricity required, and (ii) the availability and
price of primary energy s ources.
98
5. 7 For large power requirements the conversion
most widely used are coal or oil-fired thermal power
and impoundment or run-of-river hydro-electric power This reflects the relative availability of coal, oil compared with other primary energy sources.
processes stations stations. and water
5.8 Primary energy sources can be divided into two groups
based on whether they are self-renewing. The main non-renewable primary energy sources are petroleum based fuels, coal, gas and uranium whereas the main renewable energy sources are water or solar based.
Feasibility
5.9 For an electricity supply option to be feasible it must
satisfy a number of technological, financial and economic
requirements. When more than one option' is feasible the final
choice may be influenced by the social and environmental factors of each option.
Technological feasibility
5.10 To be technologically feasible a power supply option
must fulfil most, if not all, of the following criteria:
(i) that the time taken to design and construct the supply
option is less than the time interval between the
recognition of the need for more power and the
realisation of that demand;
(ii) that the technology of the conversion process is proven
and reliable;
(iii) that the machinery is commercially available and
logistically possible to install;
99
(iv) that the primary energy source can be stored so that it
is available on demand, or the option can be integrated with other options that can provide power on demand;
and
(v) that the power produced is not greater than the reserve
capacity of the electricity supply system.2
5.11 The importance of these requirements generally
increases as the size of the increment of power required
increases. In other words, as more dependence is placed on one
source of power the reliability of that source needs to be
increased.
5.12 The time taken from the initial planning to the
commissioning of an option, the lead time, may vary considerably both among and within each option. Development schedules can be deliberately slowed down or accelerated and 'off the shelf'
designs may be commissioned in less time than designs which must meet site-specific requirements.
5.13 With the
electrical power is
exception presently of hydro-electricity, most
generated through the use of
non-renewable resources (coal, oil and gas). The energy crisis of the 1970s, precipitated by uncertainties in the availability of petroleum, led to a greater interest in conversion
technologies that use renewable primary energy sources. As a
result of this research the technological status of some options 1s currently changing so that , although not presently 'pr oven
and reliable' and 'commercially available' for large-scale use, they are likely to be feasible within the next 10 to 15 years.
Research has also been directed towards improving th e efficiency of existing conversion processes which use non-renewable fuels. The long-term options available to a supply authority ar e
therefore more diverse than the short-term options.
100
5.14 Some primary energy sources can be easily stored, for
example, water in dams or fuels for thermal power stations.
Others, such as wind and solar energy, cannot be stored. As yet,
no method for storing electricity in large amounts has been
devised. In any electricity supply system a certain amount of
electricity is required at all times (the base load). However,
hourly, daily and seasonal fluctuations in the consumption of electricity produce peaks in demand. This means that at least
part of the supply system must be able to respond quickly to
changes in demand, that is, it must use storable energy.
However, most storable energy sources are non-renewable while most non-storable energy sources are renewable. The two
exceptions to this general rule are water and wood. The ability to store water, a renewable resource, in large impoundments
makes it a particularly valuable source of energy.
5.15 It is preferable to have in an electricity supply
system a mixture of components so that renewable energy sources can be used when available, and storable, non-renewable energy sources can be used when the former are not available.
5.16 Some conversion machinery can be started and stopped
more easily than others. Therefore, those components which can be brought on line quickly are better used for peak requirements while those components which cannot are more efficiently
operated continuously for base load requirements.
5.17 Hydro-electric turbines can be brought on line rapidly
whereas thermal power stations generally take several hours to start up. Therefore, the latter are generally used for base load while the former can be used for either base or peak loads,
although run-of-river power stations do not have large storage capacities and are usually used for base load requirements.
101
5.18 The fifth criterion for technical feasibility, that the
power produced by the new component is not greater than the
reserve capacity of all other components, is important not to
the operation of the system but to system maintenance. When a
component is shut down, or a breakdown occurs, the amount of
electricity normally contributed by that component must be made up by the rest of the system. If this amount is too large it
cannot be accommodated without overloading the system.
Financial feasibility
5.19 To be feasible financially a power supply option must
satisfy two basic criteria:
(i) that the total capital cost is not in excess of the
finance available; and
(ii) that the revenues available from the sale of
5.20
electricity are operating costs capital invested.
sufficient both to cover the direct
and to provide an adequate return on
The capital cost of conversion machinery varies both
among and within options. Economies of scale are often achieved;
the size of the plant is therefore important. The capital costs
of options currently undergoing technological improvements are difficult to estimate, but it is possible that several options
which are uneconomic at present will become economic within the next 10 to 15 years.3
5.21 power
The
supply cost of electricity generated option is a function of the
by any particular
total cost of the
option, calculated over its entire construction and operating life, divided by the revenue received from the output of that
option throughout its operating life.
102
5.22 The price paid by consumers for electricity depends on
whether a marginal pricing system or an average pricing system is used. In marginal pricing systems the cost per unit of
electricity generated from the additional component is charged whereas in average pricing systems the cost is averaged for all
units of electricity generated from the entire system.
5.23 Determining the maximum price consumers are willing to
pay involves value judgements and is complicated by the presence or absence of electrical energy substitutes.
Economic, social and environmental factors
5.24 and
An electrical power supply option
financially feasible, yet may not
may
be
be technically acceptable for
economic, social, environmental or political reasons.
5.25 Although a supply authority ma y be able to finance a
power development project, a number of other economic factors
must be considered, such as the effect that financing one public works project may have on other projects and the flow-on effects of funding particular projects.
5.26 Important social considerations incl ude the employment potential of each option, in terms of both the quality and
quantity of jobs engendered; and the social problems associated with the collection of primary energy s o urce s and the disposal
of waste products.
5. 27 The environmental impact of electricity generation is
not only specific to each type of option, but t o the particular
site chosen for the power station and associated works. The
Committee has received submissions4 which argue that the
environmental implications o f a power supply opt i on should weigh equally with economic implications i n the deci s i o n- making
process . In some cases the 'cost ' of protecting the environment
can be measured in monetary terms but in other cases it cannot.
103
Options available to Tasmania
5.28 In order to determine
potentially sui table for use
the in
electricity Tasmania, supply options the Committee
initially considered the technological feasibility of all
available options (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Technological Feasibility of Electricity Supply Options
Source of Electricity
WATER TURBINES
Impoundments(4)1 Run-of-r iverl Pumped storage2
Tidal Dams3
Wave motion3
STEAM TURlllllli.S
Coall
Gasl
Wastes3
Range of Unit Size (1)
(MWl
10-500 p
l-100 p
l-100 p
60-800 p
10 R
200-800 p
200-800 p
200-800 p
10-200 p
50-200 p
104
( 2)
SR
SR
SR
SR
sc
NU
NU
NR
NU
NR
(3) Suitability
R* Suitable
R Suitable
R* Suitable
R Insufficient
tidal range in
Tasmanian waters
R Not commercially
available
N* Suitable
N* Suitable
N* Gas resources
not available
R* Suitable
R* Insufficient
wastes avail-able for large plant
Uranium3 600-1200 p NR N* Plant size
incompatible with present system
Solar3, 8 1-100 R NU R Not commercially
available
Geothermal3,5 5-100 R SR N/R No sites avail-
able in Tasmania
Ocean/Lake 10-1000 R SR R No sites avail-
thermal3,9 able in Tasmania
NU:ID 0 0.1-2 R sc R Probably
suitable in long
term
GAS 'IlJRIUNES
Gasl 200-500 p NR N* Gas resources
unavailable
Solar ponds7 5-50 R SR R* No sites
suitable in Tasmania
DIESE!l l-10 p NU N* High consumption
GENERATQRSl of expensive
non-renewable resources - low efficiency
CELL l-100 R sc R Probably
ARRAYS ,6 suitable in long
term
EUEL CELLS3 50 R NR N* Not commercially
available
INTER- 150-300 p SR Subject to
CQNNEC'nQN3, 11 negotiation with
Victoria
(1) STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY P proven and reliable
R technology proven for small or experimental output,
currently undergoing research
105
(2) SITE AND RESOURCE AVAILABILITY SR site specific, sites or resources restricted in
Tasmania
sc site specific, sites or resources common in
Tasmania
NR - not site specific, resources restricted in Tasmania NU - not site specific, resources unrestricted in Tasmania
(3) PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE - RENEWABILITY AND STORAGE CAPACITY R renewable
N non-renewable
* energy can be stored
(4) SOURCES OF INFORMATION
5.29
1. Information generally available. 2. Evidence p.822 and pp.23ll-2313.
3. HEC Report 1979, Appendix III.
4. Evidence, pp.2017-2144.
5. Layton, D.W. and Morris, W.F. 1981, Geothermal Power; Chern. Eng. Prog. 77 (4) 62-67.
6. Maycock, P.D. and Stirewait, E.N., 1981, Solar cell
systems that work, IEEE Spectrum, 78(9) 48-53.
7. French, R.L., 1981, Solar ponds: using salt water to
produce power. Ind. Res. and Dev. 23 (12); 100-104.
8. Baum, R.M., 1982, Solar electric power plant due to
start up. Chern. & Eng. News, 60(11) 27-29.
9. Krenz, J.H., 1980, Energy from Opulence to
Sufficiency, Praeger Pub. N.Y.
10. Evidence, pp.l933-1998 and pp.3337-3395.
11. Zeidler Committee Report.
A number of were found
technologically feasible, options with respect to
to
the
be not
criteria
previously discussed, for development at any time in Tasmania:
106
( i) there were no sites suitable for
geothermal, ocean or lake thermal schemes, or solar steam turbines;
tidal dams,
solar ponds
(ii) wave motion schemes and fuel cells were not
commercially available and were not likely to be so for some time; and
(iii) there were
available in insufficient Tasmania for primary energy sources
gas steam turbines, waste
steam turbines and gas turbines.
5.30 A number of options were considered to be not feasible
for development in the next decade but may be sui table for use
after this:
(i) photovoltaic cell arrays and wind turbines were found
not to be in wide commercial use but evidence presented to the Commit tee indica ted that technological advances could make these two options feasible within the next
15 to 20 years; and
(ii) a nuclear power station, having a necessarily large
output level, was concluded to be incompatible with the expected size of the Tasmanian generating grid in the
next decade but may be compatible after this.
5.31 The options considered by the Committee to be
technologically feasible for development in the next decade
were:
(i) impoundment, run-of-river and pumped storage
hydro-electric schemes;
107
(ii) thermal power stations fired by coal, oil or wood; and
(iii) interconnection with Victoria.
5.33 Thus three major options (large hydro-electric schemes, thermal stations and interconnection) and two minor options
(small hydro-electric schemes and small thermal stations) would be available for development in the next decade. Three further options (photov ol taic cells, aerogenerators and nuclear power) are likely to be available for development in the next 10-15
years.
5.34 Descriptions of the options considered to be
technologically feasible for development in Tasmania in the next 20 years are provided in Chapter Six.
108
CHAPTER SIX
OPTIONS
Hydro-Electric Schemes
Introduction
6 .l About one half of the remaining hydro-electric
potential of Tasmania's waterways is located in the region of
the Lower Gordon, King and Franklin Rivers.l In its 1979 Report the HEC argued that the deve lopment of the hydro-electric
potential of these rive rs should be made on a regional basis as
any decision to devel op one rive r would affec t the potential for
the development of the other two. In line with this belief the
HEC presented two al terna ti ve proposals which used the three
river s in differ e nt wa ys . These proposals were termed the
Integrated Development and the Separate Development.2
6.2 The Integrated Development would consist of two
schemes: the Gordon-below-Franklin, which would produce 171.7 MW av., and the Franklin with King diversion, whi c h would produce 167.7 MW av. An additional smaller scheme at the Albert Rapids
would r esult in a total output of 365.3 MW av. from the
Integrated De ve lopment propo sal.
6. 3 The Gordon- be l ow -Fr a nklin scheme wculd hold the
combined flows of the Lower Gordon and Franklin Rivers at a
point just below the junction o f t he two ri vers . This
impoundment would cov e r an area of 133 square kilometres and
would have a capacity of 3100 milli on cubic metres. The Franklin scheme with King River diversion would involve the construction
109
of a dam and power station on the upper reaches of the Franklin
River, two kilometres downstream from its junction with the
Andrew River, and the diversion of the dammed King River to flow into the Franklin catchment. The impoundments created by these two dams would be 110.5 square kilometres and 47 square
kilometres, respectively, and would have capacities of 4139 and 837 million cubic metres. (For comparative purposes, Sydney
Harbour has a volume of about 500 million cubic metres.3) The
Albert Rapids scheme would be a run-of-river power station,
having a storage capacity of only 0.96 million cubic metres.
6.4 In the separate development of the Lower Gordon,
Franklin and King Rivers two impoundments would also be created, but instead of diverting the King into the Franklin River, the
Franklin would be diverted into the King River (the Huxley
Scheme, 128 MW av.) and the Gordon River would be dammed above
its junction with the Olga River (the Gordon-above-Olga scheme, 119 MW av.). A third, smaller scheme (the Sailor Jack scheme, 82 MW av.) would have a dam and power station on the lower reaches
of the King River.
6.5 The first stage of the Separate Development would be
the Gordon-above-Olga scheme. The impoundment would cover an area of 81.9 square kilometres and would have a capacity of 2262 million cubic metres. The Huxley scheme impoundment would
inundate 110.0 square kilometres and would have a capacity of
4165 million cubic metres.
6.6 The HEC has consistently regarded the Integrated
Development to be superior to the Separate Development as it
would produce cheaper electricity and as the Separate
Development would not meet the full range of the forecast load.
Recently the HEC changed its position slightly, with respect to the Integrated Development, to state: 'It is stressed that none of the schemes subsequent to Gordon-below-Franklin have yet been shown to be technically feasible they are not options
110
available for consideration at this time. â¢4 However, if the
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme were to be constructed, approval of the second phase of the Integrated Scheme would be greatly
facilitated by the facts that access roads to the new dam sites
would then already exist and that the wilderness value of the
area would have been reduced.
The Gordon-below-Franklin scheme
6.7 The Gordon-below-Franklin scheme (Figure 6.1} would
consist of one dam situated on the Gordon River one kilometre
downstream from its junction with the Franklin River. Inundation would occur for 37 kilometres along the Gordon River, almost to the Gordon-Serpentine River junction, a.nd 33 kilometres along the Franklin River Valley, to Mt Propsting. All associated
tributaries, including the Olga, Smith, Orange, Maxwell, Albert, Denison and Jane Rivers, would be flooded for some portion of
their length.
6.8 The Franklin power station, one kilometre downstream
from the dam, would have an installed generating capacity of 296 MW, divided equally among four turbo-alternator sets, and an
average energy output of 172 MW. A 220 kV transmission line of
about 104 kilometres in length would be required for connection to the Farrel Control Centre, north of Rosebery.
6.9 To gain access to the construction sites the HEC
proposed, in 1979, to construct a single road south from
the Lyell Highway for about 70 kilometres, 33 kilometres of
which would be new road. Fourteen kilometres of site access
roads, including a road to the proposed quarry site and a bridge
over the Gordon River at the power station, and temporary and
permanent construction camp facilities would have t o be built.
111
6.10 However, the HEC recently presented an alternative
proposal which would allow access to the darn site from both
northern and western parts of the State (Figure 6.2). Northern access would be from the Lyell Highway via the presently
abandoned Kelly Basin tramway to Eagle Creek and western access would be via barge transport up the Gordon River from Macquarie Ha r bour to a landing jetty at Eagle Creek. From this point of
convergence a road would be built alongside the Gordon River for about 12 kilometres to the darn and power station sites.
Considerable debate has arisen from this proposal as it would
require the revocation of a large section of the Gordon River
Sce nic Re serve.S
6.11 The HEC in its 1979 Report estimated that for the
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme the time required from
authorisation to commissioning would be ten years. At this time, it was stated by the HEC that the construction programme had
been scheduled to a minimum period in order to minimise
capitalised interest charges. In the 'Financial Analysis' made by the HEC in March 1982, and in the Cameron, Preece
International Report this period was given as nine and a half
years. No explanation of the reduction in construction time was provided. It has been suggested that the HEC's recent proposal
for an alternative access route would reduce the scheme's lead
time by about two years.6 As minimising construction time was an important factor in 1979 it is difficult to understand why the
access route was not considered more thoroughly by the HEC at
that time.
6.12 In 1979 the HEC estimated that the Gordon-below-
Franklin scheme would cost $237 million, excluding interest
during construction. The cost per kilowatt of Long Term Average Output (LTAO) was calculated to be $1,381, the cost per kilowatt hour 1.09 cents, and the annual revenue required $16.4 million, each including five per cent inter est on capital durin g
construction and zero inflation for operating charges.
112
6.13 1982
The 'Financial Analysis' provided by the HEC in March
updated the 1979
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme. construction and plant costs,
cost Owing
the
estimates for
to increases in
revised estimates
the
civil were:
capital cost $372.27 million excluding interest and $453 million including interest; cost per kilowatt of LTAEO $2068 excluding interest and $2516 including interest; cost per kilowatt hour
1. 64 cents; and the annual revenue requirement $25.8 million
(including interest). The inclusion of transmission line costs increased these values to : capital cost $387.065 million
($469.852 million with interest); cost per LTAEO $2264 ($2748 with interest); annual revenue requirement $26.885 million; and cost per kilowatt hour l. 79 cents (although on page 8 of the
'Financial Analysis' this figure is given as 1.81 cents).
6.14 The HEC currently employs about 700 people on the
Pieman project. According to the 1979 HEC Report, if no further hydro-electric schemes commenced, these jobs plus about 500
administrative positions would be lost by 1987. If the
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme continued as scheduled, but no other scheme commenced, the construction workforce would
increase to a peak of about 1200 people in 1985, and decline
from then onwards to about 30 in 1991.
Gordon-above-Olga scheme
6.15 In 1979 the HEC presented the Gordon-above-Olga scheme, the first part of the Separate De v elopment, as an alternative to the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme. In this propo sal (Figure 6.3) the dam and power station would be situated on the Gordon River
about two kilometres above its junction with the Olga River.
Inundation would occur along the Gordon River for about 25
kilometres, extending into the Denison, Maxwell and Orange River valleys. The Franklin River would remain untouched.
113
6.16 installed The Gordon-above-Olga power generating capacity of 212
station would have an
MW, divided among three
energy output of 119 MW.
envisaged by the HEC,
turbo-alternator sets, and an average Access although terrain.
from the the Serpentine Darn was
route would have been
Two alternative routes for
through extremely rugged the transmission line were
proposed, one along the road and the other by way of the
impoundment.
6.17 The HEC, in its 1979 Report, gave the cost of the
Gordon-above-Olga scheme as $183 million capital cost (excluding interest), $1542 per kilowatt of LTAEO and 1.22 cents per
kilowatt hour (including interest).
6.18 The 1979 Report concluded that, although the Gordon-
above-Olga scheme was environmentally less damaging, it was more expensive and produced less power than the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme. The HEC therefore recommended the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme.
6.19 In its submission to the Committee the HEC stated:
'The energy output of
Franklin scheme would
average.
the Gordon below
be about 180 MW
This is almost exactly the same as the
combined output of the alternative Gordon
above Olga scheme, together with the notional King (Newall) scheme. However, this latter
combination would cost 40%, or $180 million
more (at January 1982 prices) for the same
energy output.
The Gordon below Franklin scheme also holds significant advantages as far as tourism and recreation are concerned.
Thus it is clear that
between construction Franklin scheme and
power station. â¢7
the proper choice lies
of the Gordon below
a coal fired thermal
114
6. 20 After the completion of the Gordon-below-Franklin
scheme only one large hydro-electric scheme would remain to be developed in Tasmania the second part of the Integrated
Development.
6.21 In 1979 the HEC estimated that the second stage of the
Integrated Development, the Franklin scheme with King diversion, would have a capital cost of $221 million (excluding interest), which is equivalent to $1320 per kilowatt of LTAEO and which
would result in a cost per kilowatt hour of l. 00 cents and an
annual revenue requirement of $15 million (including interest). The HEC has not revised these costs publicly, but if the
increases calculated for the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme were applicable to the Franklin/King diversion scheme then the
capital cost in January 1982 dollars would be about $347 million (excluding interest and transmission costs).
6.22 The lead time for the Franklin/King diversion scheme
would be eleven and a half years. In the Integrated Scheme
development programme envisaged by the HEC, construction of the second phase was to commence at a time such that the
Gordon-below-Franklin work force would be transferred gradually to the Franklin and King diversion schemes, thus maintaining
high levels of HEC employment for a further six to eight years.
Other hydro-electric schemes
6.23 Forty-three per cent of the State's undeveloped
hydro-electric resources are in areas outside the Gordon,
Franklin and King River valleys. To develop this potential ten schemes were described by the HEC in 1979 (Figure 6.4). Seven of these schemes were in areas outside the South West Conservation Area. The average output of these schemes ranged from 55 MW to
10 MW and totalled 284.9 MW av., which .cepresents about 480 MW
of installed capacity. The indicative gross capital cost of the schemes varied from $1190 to $3390 per kilowatt average.
115
6.24 After describing each of these schemes the HEC
concluded:
6.25
6.26
'The Commission expects that the increasing value of renewable hydro-electric energy will ultimately lead to the progressive
development of these medium and small
incremental resources in the next century.
Whilst some are relatively small
individually, in aggregate they amount to a
substantial increase in energy resource to
the State of about 285 MW average output.
There is little doubt that future generations will realize the benefits to be gained from
their development in preference to fossil and other fuels.' 8
In the 1980-81 Annnual Review of the HEC it was stated:
'A decision
development on important and future planning
by Parliament on
the Gordon River is
pressing matter as
is concerned.
future a most
far as
In the absence of that decision, field
investigations continued on the Huon, King
and Anthony-Henty river catchments to further evaluate the feasibility of these schemes.
Preliminary reconnaissance Arthur River area to
schemes. â¢9
was done
identify in the
possible
More recent information confirms that the HEC ha s
carried out feasibility studies, at a cost of nearly $750 000,
for a possible scheme on the Henty and Anthony Rivers.lO
6.27 The time required to construct any of these small
hydro-electric schemes would vary depending on the size of th e scheme, its location and its accessibility. In general, the lead time for a small scheme would be substantially less than a large
scheme.
116
6.28 The number of
could be expected to be
people employed would also v ary, but
proportionally less than with a large
scheme. However, most of the HEC administrative positions would be retained.
Pumped storage
6.29 Excess electricity may be available in a generating
system in either of two ways. First, as some components of a
supply system are not easily turned on and off, such as
coal-fired thermal stations, it may be more economic to produce an excess of electric ity for short periods than to consume fuel
inefficiently in shutting down and restarting a power station. Secondly, generating systems which are unpredictable in their short-term output such as solar or wind powered systems, may
produce electricity at periods when it is not required. Pumped storage plant enables the use of excess electricity to return
water to an impoundme nt after its flow through hydro-electric
turbines. In thi s way electricity can be 'stored' for future
use. About 80 per cent of the electricity used to pump the water
can be retrievea.ll
6.30 Pumped storage is currently used in the Snowy Mountains
scheme and the Shoalhaven scheme in New South At th e
Wivenhoe hydro-electric station on the Brisbane River pumped s torage will be used to provide peak electricity for Queensland.
During an average 24 hour day the units will operate for five
hours as generators and for seven hours as pumps to r etu rn the
water from the lower t o the upper re servoir. Fo r the rerr.aininc;
time the units will be on standby for emergency use . The output
i s expect e d t o be 2,500 MW hours per day .l 3
6.31 The South West Tasmania Comrr,ittee (NSI'J) save ev icen c e
to the Committee that the Ta smanian grid was ideally suited t o
pumped storage as several of th e hy dr o- electric s ch eme s, th e
117
Derwent, the Mersey-Forth and the Pieman, operate through a
series of staircase lakes and as wind conditions had been shown to be highly suitable for the use of aerogenerators.l4
6.32 The HEC has not commented on the suitability of the
Tasmanian grid to the application of pumped storage.
118
Figure 6.1: Integrated Development of Lower Gordon Franklin and King Rivers
; ,,
Source: HEC 1979 Report, p.l2.
119
Cradle Mt. Lake St. Clair
National Park
""'"'---.__
Figure 6.2: HEC's Latest Proposals For a Single Access Road to the Site of the Gordon-below-Franklin Power Scheme
N
(
The map shows the HEC ' s latest proposals for a single access road to the site of t he Go rdon-below-Franklin p ower scheme . The old Crotty Road begi ns f rom the North Owen Peak near Linda on the Lyell Highway and goes to Mount Propsting . The proposed access road could be built south from the abandoned Kelly Basin t r amway at the Crotty Road
junc tion nea r Mt . Propsting , t o Eagle Creek where a l anding sta ge
is proposed , and extend south along t he west e r n side of the Elli ot
Range in the State Reserve to t he dam site near Butler Island .
Source: Th e Examiner, Thursday, 12 Au g ust 1982 .
120
Figure 6.3 : Separate Development of Lower Gordon.
I
Franklin and King Rivers
\.
; :!)
FRANKLIN DIVERSION)
D D EX ISTING
STORAGES
PROPOSED ST OR AGE S
GORDON OLGA SCHEME _
SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT OF
lOWER GORDON FRANKliN & KING RIVERS
So urce: HEC 1979, Re port, p. 2 8 .
121
--.....
'i \...,
')""? '-_,
' \
- ;,._ ....... 'fuiW Ptr. ,_ _ _s.}
' .J'
Figure 6.4: Undeveloped Hydro-Electric Resources excluding Gordon. Franklin and King Rivers
LAUNCESTON
HOBART
SCHEMES:
1. Huon River at Blackfish Creek. 6. Arthur River below Frankland River. 2. Jane River at Punt Hill. 7. Que River incl. Hatfield and Leven Diversions.
3. Davey River Diversion. 8. Wilson-Huskisson Rivers.
4. Upper Gordon River. 9. Anthony River incl. Henty Diversion.
5. Arthur River below Rapid River. 10. Upper Meander River.
Source: HEC 1979 Report, Appendix IV, p. 5.
122
Thermal Power
Introduction
6.33 Thermal power stations provide the major portion of
Australia's electricity requirements. On the mainland thermal stations range in capacity from 200 MW to 4000 MW and are
usually fuelled by coal, oil or gas. There are considerable
economies of scale associated with large thermal power stations and conversion efficiencies increase with increasing turbine size of up to 500 or 600 MW installed capacity. However, the
maximum unit size acceptable to the Tasmanian generating system is 200 MW av. so that advantage cannot be taken of these
benefits.l5
6.34 The HEC currently operates a 2 x 200 MW oil-fired
thermal station at Bell Bay. As fuel oil is now comparatively
expensive this power station has not been used to a large
extent, although its use has increased over the last few years.
In 1979 the HEC proposed that the Bell Bay Power Station be
converted from oil to coal-fired and, although a decision
against this conversion has recently been made for economic
reasons,l6 detailed preliminary studies were carried out by the HEC.
A 2 x 200 MW thermal power station
6.35 One of the options for supplying electricity to
Tasmania considered by the HEC in 1979 was a 2 x 200 MW
coal-fired thermal power station.
6.36 The HEC maintained that a thermal development programme could meet the forecast load to the year 2000, as the two units
could be installed at times to suit the load growth, although
towards the end of the century fourth and fifth machine s at the
Gordon station would need to be installe d t o provide power for
peak periods.
123
6.37 The lead time required for a thermal power station was
not explicitly stated by the HEC in its 1979 Report but some
idea of the time needed for construction can be gained from the
statements:
and
'The commissioning dates required to meet the load forecast are: No.1 200 MW coal-fired
unit - 1990, No.2 200 coal-fired unit -
1994 â¢17
'construction of the first 200 MW unit is not
required to start before 1985. â¢18
6.38 In evidence to the Committee, Professor J. Burton
stated that he believed a 200 MW thermal station could be built
in three years.l9 However, Mr A. Burdon of
National Development and Energy in evidence disagreed with this estimate and stated:
the Department of to the Committee
'From the time of go-ahead I would estimate
the construction time for a coal-fired
station on a greenfield site, which is a new
site, to be in the region of eight years. â¢20
6. 39 To this a further two years was added for planning,
design, calling of tenders and awarding of contracts, although it was pointed out that the total time could be reduced by up to
two years by streamlining tender procedures and by the purchase of a 'package unitâ¢.2l
6.40 The location of the power station was considered by the
HEC to be primarily dependent on the source of coal if
mainland coal were to be used the most economical site would be
in the region of the Tamar estuary, but if Tasmanian coal were
used the power station would most economically be sited close to
124
the mine. Secondary considerations included wind patterns,
inversion effects, the disposal of ash and the dissipation of
waste heat.
6.41 For the purposes of cost evaluation and the assessment
of environmental impact, the HEC discussed a thermal station
fired by New South Wales coal and hypothetically sited at Bell
Bay, adjacent to the existing power station. The total capital
cost for a 2 x 200 MW station was estimated to be $289.92
million; of this total the No.1 unit cost $183.99 million and
the No.2 unit cost $98.93 million. The fixed annual charges,
including interest, depreciation and operation and maintenance costs, totalled $21.902 million, made up of $14.071 million for the No.1 unit and $7.831 million for the No.2 unit. This
estimate was equivalent to 1.04 cent s per kilowatt hour. Fuel
costs were based on a coal price of $33 per tonne for imported
New South Wales coal having a heat value of 27.91 l'i!J / kg. At an
overall power station efficiency of 31.5 per cent, and an
average output of 60 per cent this equivalent to 1.35 cents
per kilowatt hour, which gave a total energy cost of 2.39 cents
per kilowatt hour.22
6.42 In the March 1982 'Financial Analysis' the HEC revised
these figures to give the followin g : capital cost of No.1 unit
$245.4 million ($261.52 million with interest ) ; capital cost of No.2 unit $134.9 million ($142.78 millionwith interest); cost per kilowatt of LTAEO for No.1 unit $2045 ($2 179 with interest) ; cost per kilowatt of LTAEO for No.2 unit $1124 ($1190 with
interest); cost per unit of energy f o r No.1 unit 4.49 cents;
cost p er unit of energy for No.2 unit 3.65 cents; and combined 2
x 200 MW station cost per unit of energy 4.07 cents.23
6.43 The 'Financial Analysis' also discussed tbe employment
generated by a th ermal development programme:
125
'A change to a coal-fired thermal
construction programme would result in the field construction workforce dropping to
about 100 in about 10 years time with a fall
of about 600 within the next two years â¢â¢.
Additional loss of employment in Head Office, base workshops and testing centres etc. would amount to 290 in the next two years and 500
overall. â¢24
Coal supply and cost
6.44 When the thermal option was assessed by the HEC in 1979
it was generally believed that the proven reserves of Tasmanian coal were insufficient to fire a 2 x 200 MW station for the 30
years of its operating life. At this time the HEC calculated
that if Tasmanian coal were used a 2 x 200 MW power station
would consume about 1.1 million tonnes per annum .. Due to the
higher quality of New South Wales coal, it was estimated that
only 860,000 tonnes per annum would be required for the same
output.25
6.45 Since this time, three major mineral exploration
companies operating in Tasmania, Shell Australia Limited, Victor Petroleum and Resources Limited and Goliath Cement Holding
Limited, have indicated coal reserves of sufficient size to fuel a 200 MW power station.26 In fact, both Shell and Victor
Petroleum stated in evidence that the economic development of their coal deposits would actually require a substantial local consumer, such as a power station.27
6.46 The quality of Tasmanian coal, however, is not high.
Shell Australia Limited, in its submission to the Committee,
stated:
'All of the coal is low rank, high volatile
bituminous material suitable for use as a
fuel coal. Raw ash levels range from
approximately 20% upwards and corresponding indicated washed coal yields range from very high to sub-economic for a product of
marketable ash specification. â¢28
126
A number of estimates of the price of Tasmanian coal have been
made:
6.47
in 1979 the HEC estimated that Tasmanian coal would
cost $27.60 per tonne delivered to Bell Bay, excluding mine development costs which were estimated to be $65.1 million; 29
in the 1982 'Financial Analysis', it was stated that
'the Commission still has no information that would
lead it to conclude that an adequate supply of
Tasmanian coal is assured' but that 'cost movements
since June 1978 indicate that the cost of Tasmanian
coal will have increased by 51% in the period to
January 1982' (which was therefore $41.68 per tonne); mainland coal was estimated to be $59.00 per tonne
delivered to Bell Bay;30
Mr Lohrey, in evidence to the Committee, stated that in
1978 the Cornwall Coal Company was selling washed coal at about $15 per tonne and in 1981 it was about $35 per
tonne;31 and
Cameron, Preece International estimated in March 1982 that coal from the Mt Nicholas mine would be $42 per
tonne delivered.32
It is generally accepted that mainland coal exists in
more than sufficient quantities for export to Tasmania and that it is of a much higher grade than Tasmanian coal. However,
transport costs increase the price of mainland coal and this may outweigh the benefits gained by its higher calorific value. Cost estimates for mainland coal have also varied considerably:
127
in the 1979 Report the HEC used $33 per tonne for New
South Wales coal landed at Bell Bay33 and updated this
to $59 per tonne in the March 1982 'Financial
Analysis';34
Shell Australia Limited stated in evidence that New
South Wales coal varied considerably in price as some mines produce coking coal and some produce steaming
coal, the latter being within the range of $47 per
tonne and coking coals being about 20 per cent higher
than this;35 and
Cameron, Preece International in their review of the
1982 HEC 'Financial Analysis' stated that the price per tonne FOB for mainland coal varied between $68 and
$4s.36
Other fuels
6.48 In 1979 the HEC considered a number of other fuels for
use in a thermal power station: oil, gas, wood and wood wastes.
On the basis of the high cost and the fact that Tasmania has no
indigenous reserves of crude oil or gas, these two fuels were
rejected. However, the HEC stated:
6.49
'wood, wood chips
possible fuels
station. â¢37
and for wood a
waste thermal are all
power
The HEC estimated that a million tonnes of green waste
or chip would be required annually to produce an average
electrical output of 80 MW. It also estimated that about 2.2
million tonnes of eucalypt forest waste were available per year so that a total annual average output of 180 MW could be
generated.38
128
6.50 As forest waste resources are dispersed throughout the
State, the HEC proposed that six small wood-fired thermal
stations ranging from 30 to 120 MW would be required. It
estimated that the unit cost of electricity from these stations would range from 4.2 to 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour depending on the type of wood waste used. These figures were based on
estimates of $15 per tonne for bush wastes, $24 per tonne for
wood chips and $9 per tonne for process wastes. Transport for
bush wastes was estimated to be an additional $8 per tonne,
based on an average transport distance of 100 kilometres.39
6.51 The total capital cost for four power stations, having
a combined installed capacity of 270 MW (162 MW av.) was
estimated to be $307 million and the total annual charges was
estimated to be $70.78 million.40 No estimates of flow-on
benefits from intra-state spending were made by the HEC for this option.
6.52 The South West Tasmania Committee (NSW), in
submission to the Committee, agreed with the HEC estimates the amount of wood wastes potentially available but did
agree with the HEC cost estimates for a number of reasons:
'For instance, the estimate of $9 per tonne
of wood waste is suspect, as many companies
currently pay to have such waste removed. If
only more easily obtained wastes were
collected, costs would be reduced
significantly and if the collection of wastes were carried out on a large scale, some extra
economies might be possible. It would be
desirable to investigate the Mt Gambier
wood-powered electricity station for a more reliable assessment of costs associated with this scheme. There is no reason (and certainly no reason
has been put forward) for using separate
forest and process waste electricity stations although it might be more economical to have
separate stations in the north and south of
the state. Instead of the four stations
129
its
of
not
proposed by the HEC, there would then only be two, with resultant economies of construction and operation.
Other objections raised by the HEC are
irrelevant. There is no need, for instance,
to use salt water for the debarking of wood
and hence there is no need to construct
treatment plants to remove the salt.
We believe that the possibilities of using
timber crops specifically designed for input to a thermal station ought to be considered.
There is no reason why the type of timber
currently most suited for chipping would also be the most suitable for generation purposes. It is quite possible that faster growing and
poorer "quality" timber crops could be grown for this purpose. 1 41
6.53 Mr Robert Graham, former Minister for. the Environment
and for Local Government, in evidence to the Committee, pointed out that there were about 3.2 million tonnes of wood waste
available in Tasmania that were usually burnt in the bush.
Graham stated:
6.54
1
I am not sure that wood-fired thermal power
stations are an economical option in terms of a large single station, but it is possible to
build wood-fired thermal power stations that would be cost competitive. They would not be
as cheap as hydro-electricity but they would certainly be competitive with coal. You could have, say, 40 megawatt to 50 megawatt power
stations. That would give an enormous boost
to the forest industries â¢â¢. 1 42
There are a number of benefits associated with several small wood-fired thermal power stations: first, the location of power stations in appropriate regional centres would provide direct and flow-on benefits to those regions through both the
construction and operation phases of the development; secondly, the ash content of wood is about one-fourtieth of the ash
content of coal so that only minor disposal facilities are
required;43 and thirdly, the forest industry in Tasmania would benefit directly from the increased use of its resources.
130
Magneto hydro dynamics (MHO)
6.55 At present thermal power stations fired by coal, oil or
gas are restricted to an upper limit for fuel conversion
efficiency of about 35 per cent. Magneto hydro dynamics (MHO) 44 is a relatively new technology which is capable of increasing
this limit to 45 per cent initially and, with second generation
plant, to 55 per cent. This means that considerable savings can
be made in fuel consumption or, conversely, that much more
electricity can be produced from the same amount of fuel.
6.56 In his submission to the Committee, Professor H.K.
Messerle, Head of the School of Electrical Engineering,
University of Sydney, explained:
'Electrical energy can be extracted from a
hot gas blast by applying a magnetic field.
One simply forces a jet stream through a pipe
or channel and applies a magnetic field
across it. Then one fits electrodes at right
angles to the field into the pipe walls. If
the gas jet is hot enough it becomes an
electrical conductor and the magnetic field causes a current to flow into the electrodes.
The method thus converts the gas flow energy
in the pipe directly into electricity not
requiring any moving machinery. The method is therefore simple and offers a highly
efficient conversion of the original energy r45
6.57 MHO is not currently commercially
experimental stations are operating in Russia
However, Messerle predicted that by the end
available but
and America. of the 1990s
probably every coal-fired power station will have an MHO
component in it.
131
6.58 Messerle pointed out that improved conversion
efficiencies through the use of MHO would result in a number of
benefits other than savings of fuel: less cooling water would be required, atmospheric pollution would be less, and the resultant high temperature heat could be used in other processes.
6.59 The development of MHO power generation would, in
Messerle's opinion, confer a number of important benefits on the Australian economy and, in view of these benefits, Messerle
requested 'that the Committee recommend to the Government that new initiatives be taken towards the immediate full scale
development of MHO power stations in Australiaâ¢.46
Interconnection with Victoria
Introduction
6.60 Interconnection with Victoria is the connection of the
Tasmanian and Victorian electricity systems by a cable to enable electricity to be transferred from either system to the other on a dedicated or opportunity basis.
6.61 The New South Wales and Victorian electricity systems
are already connected through their joint use of the Snowy
Mountains hydro-electric scheme. Apart from sharing the
electricity generated by enabled both New South
that scheme, Wales and
this interconnection has Victoria to transfer
electricity to the other State in recent years.
6.62 There are also many examples of interconnection
overseas, sometimes transcending national boundaries. Some of these interconnections use submarine cables, such as the cable under the Skagerrak, the one across the English Channel and the
one between the North and South Islands of New Zealand.
132
6.63 The main reasons for interconnecting systems have been
to make use of seasonal or daily load diversity, a central
generating facility or the surplus capacity in another s ystem.
6.64 In its 1979 Report, the HEC mentioned that it had
examined interconnection with Victoria a number of times during the preceding 15 years as part of its continuing review of
potential electricity supply options.47 In each case, the HEC had rejected the use of interconnection in favour of another
hydro-electric scheme on economic grounds.
6.65 The Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generation
and the Sharing of Power Resources in South-East Australia was appointed on 7
interconnection April of the
1980 New
to inquire into the possible
South Wales, Victor ian, South
Australian and Tasmanian electricity systems. The Committee consisted of the Ch a irman, Sir David Zeidler, and
representatives of the Commonwealth and the four States invol ved in the inquiry. These representatives were senior officers of
the respective electricity authorities of those States and of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority (representing the Commonwealth).
6.66 The Zeidler Committee, as that Committee has become
known, submitted its report to the Government in October 1981.
It recommended, among other things, that :
no action be taken at present to
establish a limited interconnection with
Tasmania from the mainland but it recommends that Tasmania be invited to participate in
the review of transmission devel opm ents
contemplated in Recommendation 2 ab ove with the object of keeping under consideration
those developments which may l ead to
ext e nsion of the interconnecti on to Tasmania at some future time. â¢48
133
6.67 The evaluation of interconnection made by the HEC and
the Zeidler Committee will be discussed in this chapter and in
Chapter Seven.
HEC proposal
6.68 The HEC assumed a route from Apollo Bay in Victoria to
Stanley in North West Tasmania via King Island, a distance of
258 kilometres. It also assumed the use of a fully insulated 300
MW two-cable connection at a plus or minus voltage of 300 kV.
The second cable would be necessary because a breakdown could
make the cable inoperable for several months while repairs wer e
being mad e unless a special cable barge were available. The
transfer of electricity would be by direct current with
transformers at each end for conversion from or to alternating
current for overhead transmission.
6.69 The HEC put forward two modes of operation for
interconnection with Victoria. These were:
6.70
I ( i) Supply of 300 MW of energy from
Victoria at a 95 % capacity factor.
After allowing for losse s this is
equivalent to an increment of 268 MW to
the system energy ,
( ii) Supply of 300 MW of energy from
Victoria at off peak time at a capacity
factor of 50 %. This provides an
increment of 141 MW to the system
energy. â¢49
Both of these modes of operation appear to be notional
and not related to the projections of demand made by the HEC.
6.71 In case (i), the HE C assumed a dedicated base load
transfer of power to Tasmania of 268 MW av. after allowing for
losses . It then added an extra increment for peak load
provision. If interconnection were to be an alternative t o the
134
Gordon-below-Franklin Scheme in 1990, then only 168 MW av.,
would be required according to the HEC' s own demand projection. If, however, it were to be a successor to the Gordon-below
Franklin scheme designed to come into operation in 1995, only
172 MW av., plus an incremat for peak power, would be required
at that time, again based on HEC demand figures.
6.72 Similarly, in case (ii), the HEC does not equate supply
with its own demand projections. If the increment of power
provided by the cable were only 141 MW av., it would not only
fall below the HEC's own demand forecast requirement, but
additional peak capacity might have to be installed.
6. 73 The HEC stated that with increases in average demand
there is a corresponding increase in peak demand which, in the
case of a new hydro-electric scheme, '.i.s usually about 1. 7 times the annual average output of the scheme' .so The operational
characteristics of a hydro-electric scheme, with the ability to respond immediately to fluctuations in demand, are ideal for
meeting peak loads. Thermal power, which would be the source of electricity transferred from Victoria by cable, is suited to
base load supply and it is not equipped to handle sudden changes in peak load. The factor of 1.7 times therefore seems high for a
non-hydro-electric station. It should be noted that the HEC
referred specifically to a hydro-electric scheme and not to all forms of power generation. In addition, of the 22 hydro-electric stations in operation in 1980-81, six had peak loads exceeding 1.5 times average loads and only two reached 1.7 times the
average load, neither of which was a new station.
6.74 The HEC went on to say:
'For case (i), provided that the
interruptions to the supply, which cause the capacity factor to reduce to 95%, are
randomly distributed and do not coincide with the time of peak demand, a contribution of
300 MW at the time of peak demand on the
135
system can be assumed. Even with this
assumption a further 304 HW of peak capacity
is required. â¢51
6.75 Similarly, for case (ii), the HEC allowed an extra 264
MW for peak capacity.
6.76 Irrespective of the applicability of the factor of 1.7
times to thermal power, there is no obvious relationship between the two additional requirements for peak power stated by the HEC with the respective base loads. For example, it is not explained how the peak load of 304 MW is related to either 300 MW
installed capacity or 268 MW firm capacity in case (i).
6.77 The provision of peak capacity is an important element
in considering modes of operation. The HEC stated that it had
'negligible surplus peak capacity'. It also reported that the
total system nominal peak capacity was 1750 MW, but after
allowance of 343 MW for necessary routine maintenance and spare plant, it had an effective peak capacity of 1407 MW. Actual peak loads for the system in 1979-80 and 1980-81 were 1151 MW and
1225.4 MW respectively. This left 256 MW and 181.6 MW
respectively surplus capacity.
6. 78 The nominal peak load of a station is generally less
than what can be generated at peak capacity. Allowance is made
in calculating the nominal peak load for varying conditions
including the effects of prolonged drought. In 1980-81 the
aggregate of individual hydro-electric station peak loads was 145 MW more than their aggregated nominal peak loads. Gordon
Stage One generated a peak load of 69 MW in 1980-81 and 72 MW in
1979-80 above its nominal peak capacity of 230 MW. Although the norminal peak capacity of the system is less than the sum of th e
peak capacities of the stations, there is probably extra peak
capacity in the system above the nominal peak capacity. In
addition, the greater the proportion of thermal power in the
system, the better the total system can withstand a prolonge d
drought.
136
6.79 The HEC estimated the capital cost of a 300 link
consisting of two fully insulated 1000 ampere cables, converter stations and appropriate system connections at $150 million in 1979. It also stated that:
'For the purpose of comparing the cost of
power from Victoria with the cost of the
alternative sources of energy, an approximate value of 2.7 cents/kW.h can be used' .52
This energy cost included provision for the installa tion of
additional peak generation plants in Ta sma nia of 304 MW for its
case (i) a nd 268 MW for its case (ii).
Zeidler Committee proposal
6.80 The Zeidler Committee was primarily concerned with
examining the possibility of establishing an integrated
electricity grid among the four States of South East Australia. Its perspective was therefore different from that of the HEC in
its 1979 Report and of this Committee, both of which have been
concerned difference only must
with Tasmania' s be kept in mind
Zeidler Committee's Report.
futur e power system. This
during an examination of the
6.81 It was within this integrated system framework that the
Zeidler Committee considered tbe establishment of a high
capacity 600 MW interconnecti on between Victoria and Tasmania. To assess its economic viability , the Zeidler Committee compared
this interconnecti on with a similar capacity Tasmanian
hydro-electric dev elopment and thermal gene ration u sing black coal imported from New South Wales.
137
6.82 The cable route chosen by the Zeidler Committee would
cover a distance of 220 kilometres with probable jointing on
King Island. The interconnection would consist of a 600 MW plus or minus 300 kV direct current bi-polar cable with one spare
cable.
6.83 The
consequential South Wales, rate or $510
capital cost transmission of this interconnection, reinforcement in Victoria
including and New
would be $550 million at a ten per cent discount
capitalised million at a five per cent discount rate. The net
cost of energy delivered over the life of the
scheme, which was assumed to be 25 years, would be $930 million
at a ten per cent discount rate or $960 million at a five per
cent discount rate.
6.84 The Zeidler Committee indicated that there could be
benefits to the integrated network of systems if the Tasmanian system could operate Mountains scheme; that in a
is,
s imilar
to act
way
as a
to that of
substantial that the
the snowy peak load
Tasmanian supplier. It system, with was its
acknowledged, however, high load factor, would be unsuited to that
type of operation without substantial peak load capacity being added to the system. It concluded that:
6.85
modification of existing or proposed
developments to provide a similar role to
that of the Snowy Scheme would be neither
simple or inexpensive. This cost would be
additional to the costs of interconnection
and reinforcement of internal transmission systems. '53
A lower capacity interconnection for exchange of energy
on an opportunity basis was also examined in a preliminary way
by the Zeidler Committee. This invol v ed interconnection by a
single 300 MW plus or minus 300 kV direct current bi-polar cable routed via King Island. The basis of this mode of
interconnection was the transfer of off-peak electricity to
138
Tasmania for 'storage' and return to Victoria at peak times.
This would not obviate the need to install further generating
plant in Tasmania and these arrangements, which underwent
preliminary economic analysis based on data supplied by the
relevant State electricity authorities, were unlikely to be
economically viable. The Zeidler Committee assumed, however, that the oil-fired Bell Bay thermal station would be converted to coal. With the Bell Bay station now likely to remain
oil-fired, the capital investment saved in not proceeding with the conversion might, if invested in interconnection, assist the comparative economic position of a lower capacity link.
Intensive studies would, however, need to be done to verify that proposition.
6.86 As the
interconnection, preliminary economic analyses more detailed examination of
operational arrangements were not pursued Committee.
McLachlan Group proposal
did not favour
other potential by the Zeidler
6.87 McLachlan Group assumed a base load transfer of 300 MW
to Tasmania in its report to the Committee. As demand, at least
initially, would not reach that level of additional supply,
there would be capacity to transfer peak power to Victoria on an opportunity basis.
6. 88 With exponential increases in demand eventually taking
up the 'surplus' imported base load pow e r, additional peak load capacity would need to be installed in Tasmania. McLachlan Group suggested that this could be met from the in s tallation of fourth and fifth generators in the Gordon Stage One scheme. The HEC
stated in its 1979 Report that it had made provision for these
generators to be installed by the year 2000 if thermal stations
were built in Tasmania.
139
6.89 The HEC made no mention of the effects on the Gordon
River of the surge likely to be produced by the five generators
at the Gordon Stage One scheme operating at peak capacity. The
Zeidler Committee suggested that a holding dam might have to be built downstream to regulate the flow of water to prevent sudden surges adversely affecting the river downstream.
Victorian power supply
6.90 Unlike
interconnection other electricity supply options for Ta smania, with Victoria would be depe ndent on a
satisfactory agreement being reached between the Tasmanian and Victorian Governments on the transfer of power between the two States. There would also be the possi bilily of e ither New Sou th
Wales or South Australia, or both of them, participating in the
use of Bass Strait interconnection at some stage, depending on the capacity of the interconnection and its mode of operation.
6.91 Each State electricity authority has, in the pa s t,
operated its systems independently of the r est, with the
exception of the sharing arrangements among the Commonwealth, Victorian and New South Wales Governments for power from the
Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme and the agreement reached between the Commonwealth and New South Wa l es Go ve rnments for power from New South Wales stations for the Austral ian Capital Territory. Howev er , the interconnection establi shed between Victoria and New South Wal e s to share the Snowy Mountains powe r
has made possible general transfers of power between the tw o
States . Operational experience has been ga ined gradually in t he transfer of electricity to meet shortfalls in supply in one
State or the other or to achieve econ om i es in the generation of
power through l oad diversity . This experience has demonstrated the be nefits of inte rconnecti on and has given th e respecti ve
electricity authorities greater confidence in its operation .
140
6. 92 Further interconnection, with either Tasmania or South
Australia, would still be made b y Victoria on economic grounds provided that sufficient power were available for transfer to
another State. In both the 1979 HEC Report and in the Report of
the ZeicUer Committee, it was stated that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria would not have enough generating capacity in the early 1990s for surplus electricity to be transferred to
Tasmania on a dedicated basis. The HEC indicated, however, that by 1995, the Victor ian system might have installed sufficient
capacity to export power.
6.93 Since both reports have been published, Alcoa has
announced the deferral of its new aluminium s me lter at Portland and the State Electricity Commission of Victoria has deferred the commencement of construction of the Driffield coal-fired thermal station in the Latrobe Valley.
6.94 The current economic r ecession has caused the defe rr a l
or abandonment of many resource-based projects. As mentioned earlier in the report, Australia's economic future is uncertain, and this will affect industrial use of electricity throughout
Australia, Th e outlook for Victoria's electricity supply in t he 1990s may therefore have changed.
6.95 The installed capacity of the Victorian system in June
1981 was 5860 MW with an additional e ntitl em ent of 1085 MW from
the Snowy Mountains Scheme. Each of th e eight units under
construction at Loy Yang A and B and the planned Driffi e ld power
station will be 500 MW.
6.96 with
It is envisaged, th er e fo r e , that
Victoria were to proceed instead of
if interconnection the Gordon-below-
Franklin scheme, e ither existing surplus electricity in t he
Victorian system or a relatively small part of a new generating
station would be used to supply electricity to Tasmania on a
dedicated basis. Th e agreement wo uld have to include a
141
satisfactory price for the block of electricity. Although
McLachlan Group used 3.5 cents a unit at present day values in
its economic appraisal of the
indicated that 2.5 cents a unit,
between the Victorian Government
interconnection option, it similar to that agreed to
and Alcoa for the Portland
aluminium smelter, might be achieved.
6.97 Interconnection with Victoria would enable electricity to be transferred to either State. Although Tasmania would not be in a position to supply base load electricity for Victoria,
it might be able to supply peak load power. The HEC indicated in
its 1979 Report that Victoria might not need additional peak
load capacity until after 1995, and that additional generating capacity would need to be installed
supply it. There would be, however,
in Tasmania in
some potential order for to
the
transfer of peak load power to
This would help to offset
Victoria on an opportunity basis. the costs of installing the
interconnection and dedicated base load transfer from Victoria.
Nuclear Power
6.98 Only one submission to the Committee considered in
detail the possibility of a nuclear power station for Tasmania's short term needs. Senator Peter Rae, in his submission and in
evidence to the Committee, advocated a nuclear power station and proposed that the most suitable location for it would be on
Clarke Island in Bass Strait, as the island is remote, but not
inaccessible, appropropriate geologically stable for the discharge of
and
cooling environmentally water.54 At this
location power could be transferred to both Victoria and
Tasmania by way of an undersea cable. Senator Rae qualified this recommendation with the statement:
'I wish to emphasise that I am not suggesting
nuclear energy as a conclusion but it is one
answer, safe and far more environmentally
preferable to either thermal power, or to the
142
despoilation of the South West wilderness and it is a matter in which there could be argued
to be a legitimate Commonwealth interest in
participation.â¢55
6.99 However, a number of factors prevent the consideration
of a nuclear power station as a viable option to fulfil demand
in the early 1990s: first, the optimal unit size for the
Tasmanian generating system is 200 MW but economies of scale
prevent nuclear power stations from being economic at outputs less than 600 M'l-7 (although the sharing of a power station with
Victoria may overcome this problem); secondly, the lead time for a nuclear reactor would be about 14 years; and thirdly, despite
having vast reserves of uranium, Australia does not have a
commercial fuel enrichment plant so that the supply of fuel
would be dependent on overseas markets. 56 In addition to this
there is substantial public opposition to the adoption of
nuclear power in Australia.
6.100 However, as stated by the HEC:
'In the longer term, if Australia does
develop a significant nuclear. energy
industry, some of these difficulties will be overcome; and if the Tasmanian generating
system continues to expand as projected, it
will reach a size sui table for inclusion of
nuclear plants. â¢57
Solar Powei
6.101 Solar energy can be used in two ways to produce
electricity: indirectly, through the heating of water for use in a thermal power station and, directly, through photo-electric materials. The former method has limited application, as it is
restricted to areas of high insolation and often the water
temperature must reach boiling
be boosted by a supplementary heat
point. The latter method has
source to
widespread
application and is particularly useful in remote areas where a high degree of reliability is required.
143
6.102 In 1979 the HEC rejected photo-electric systems solely on the basis of cost.58 However, technological developments
since this time have reduced costs to the extent that it is
likely that within the next 15 years this type of electrical
generation process will be economic.59
6. 1 03 The s ubmission to the Committee by Mr A. Blakers, a
doctoral student in the Solar Photovoltaic Laboratory at the
Sc hool of Electrical Engineering, University of New South Wales,
discussed solar photovoltaic electricity generation in detail. As described by Blakers:
6.104
' when a certain class of materials, called
semiconductors, is exposed to light a voltage may, under certain conditions, be generated within. A semiconducting material can be
processed to allow extraction of electricity when illuminated. the most common
semiconductor used in the solar voltaic
industry is crystalline silicon. Reasons for this include its good photo voltaic
properties, its abundance and the fact that
the semiconductor industry is based on
silicon. â¢60
Photovol taic cells are typically thin discs or
rectangles of crystalline silicon, about 10 centimetres across. They are connected in series and sealed in a module to minimise
corrosion of metallic contacts. A number of modules are mounted together to form a panel and a number of panels are grouped to
form an array if the installation is large. 61 The array field
required to generate the equivalent of the Gordon-below-Franklin would be a maximum area of about 20 square kilometres, although in practice a number of smaller areas would be used and groups
of arrays installed as dictated by demand.62
6.105 number
Electricity generation by photovoltaic cells has a
of advantages over other electricity generation
processes:
144
6.106
'energy from the sun is available on a
massive scale, is inexhaustible, is free of
artificial interruption of supply, is highly predictable in the long term, and its
collection entails virtually no environmental impact. Photovoltaic (P. V.) solar energy has all of these attractions and is possibly the
most reliable of all energy generation
systems in use today by virtue of the fact
that it has no moving parts. Solar
voltaic electricity is perhaps the simplest and most aesthetic of all renewable energy
sources. â¢63
A number of important features of photovol taic
electricity generation stem from the modular form of the system. As described by Blakers, these advantages include:
'(1) Energy demand has to be forecast only a
year or so in advance of each modular
installation, in contrast to non-modular systems, where the demand has to be
forecast up to 15 or more years in
advance. The penal ties involved with
incorrect demand forecasting are
removed.
(2) Because modular systems may be installed to exactly match demand, there is no
idle capacity in contrast to non-modular systems, which typically take 5 years
from first energy production to full
capacity. They are ideal to cover low
demand growth rates.
(3) Requirements for capital are very steady for modular systems, unlike non-modular systems, which may have large
fluctuations in requirements for
capital.
(4) Long term construction of modular energy systems leads to very stable manpower
requirements, both for total numbers of employed people and for numbers of each
type of workers (e.g. electricians,
engine drivers etc.).
145
( 5) Modular
rapidly leading charges.
systems than to major
can be installed more
non-modular systems, reductions in interest
(6) Excluding factors related to the
weather, modular systems are extremely reliable. Because there are hundreds or thousands of independent units in a
modular system, the breakdown of any one unit has little effect on electrical
output. The number of units that will be
temporarily out of service can be
predicted with a high degree of
accuracy, and this can be taken into
account when designing the peak capacity of the system. This contrasts with
non-modular system, where the breakdown of a major generation unit can lead to
electricity shortages. â¢64
6.107 The price of photovol taic cells has fallen steadily
over the last six years, although recently there has been a
slowdown in the rate of decrease, attributed by Blakers to 'a
hiatus between old solar cell technologies and the introduction of new lower cost technologies'. 65 It was further stated by
Blakers that breakthroughs, there is a distinct possibility
particularly in the area of
of technical
thin film
technologies where a large increase in solar cell efficiency
could lead to rapid reductions in photovoltaic module prices. Blakers estimated, by obtaining information from 14 of the
largest companies manufacturing photovoltaic optimistically photovol taic modules would be
possibility by the mid 1990s.66
Wind power
cells, that
an economic
6.108 In its 1979 Report the HEC reviewed the current status
of wind power technology, the problems associated with using
wind as an energy source, the wind energy resources of Tasmania, the cost of generating electricity with wind generators and the compatibility of wind generators with the existing
146
hydro-electric system. However, rapid technical advances in wind generator performance have occurred since 1979 so that much of the information presented by the HEC is now outdated.67
6.109 The Australasian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA)
presented a comprehensive submission to the Committee on the
potential for large-scale wind power in Tasmania. In summary
AusWEA stated:
'Recent measurements by CSIRO of wind speeds in coastal northwest Tasmania indicate that the region has a high wind energy potential.
There have been rap1d advances overseas in
the past four years in the hardware of wind
energy conversion. Large (megawatt rated)
wind driven generators (or "aerogenerators") are operating in the USA and Denmark, are
under construction in Sweden, West Germany
and the USA, and are being planned in
England, Scotland, Canada and the Soviet
Union.
In Australia, a CSIRO-ANU group has made
advances in under standing the operation and planning of electricity grids containing
large-scale wind power and, in particular,
has shown that the economic value of wind
power in a grid is substantially larger than
previously believed.
The construction of wind farms, i.e. clusters of large aerogenerators, has already started overseas, and it is expected that there will
be several hundred megawatts of installed
wind capacity in the world by 1985-88. As the
scale of mass production increases, the co s t
of wind power will drop, and it is possible
that by 1990-92 large-scale wind power could be economically competitive with some stages of the proposed southwest Tasmania
hydro-electric projects.
Because of the short construction time for
aerogenerators, it is possible that
sufficient wind power capacity could be
installed in northwest Tasmania to produce
the same annual average power as the proposed hydro-electric projects in sout hwest
147
6.110
Tasmania, on the same time schedule, even if
wind power plant were not ordered for another 4-5 years.
However, both the environmental impact and
economic risk (associated with future
electricity demand falling below projected levels) of large-scale wind power in
northwest Tasmania would be much less than
those of hydro-electric power in southwest
Tasmania. Wind plus hydro-electric power
power is an excellent combination from the
viewpoint of operating an electricity grid, because of the fast response of hydro plant
to variations in wind power. The combination would also give a greater reliability of
energy supply from year to year than a grid
which is totally dependent upon rainfall'.68
Dr H.R. Outhred of the University of N.S.W. School of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science recommended in his submission to the Committee that, as Tasmania possesses
significant wind energy resources, privately owned
network-connected wind generators should be encouraged where costs of generation are less than the marginal cost of supply
and where there is adequate local load. AusWEA and Outhred both noted that precedent for wind generator development exists in Denmark where over 500 privately owned wind generators are
already connected.69
6.111 Dr Outhred further pointed out that:
'The domestic market created in Denmark by
government initiative has encouraged the
development of a thriving local industry with a number of companies competing to provide
cost effective small wind generators (500 kW or less) at under A$100 per installed rated
kilowatt. Export markets have already been
created and larger wind generators (up to 250 kW) are becoming available from Danish
manufacturers. â¢70
148
6.112 Outhred also recommended that a small scale wind
conversion industry be established in Tasmania, assistance, as no such industry exists in
with government the Southern
Hemisphere and competition from Northern Hemisphere industries would be small due to freight costs,71
149
CHAPTER SEVEN
OPTION COMPARISONS
Introduction
7 .l In Chapter Four the Committee adopted a forecast of
demand which provided for both high and low growth of
electricity consumption in Tasmania. If a high growth of demand eventuates, a new major generating facility would need to become operational in the 1990s.
7.2 In Chapter Five the technological feasilibility of a
number of electricity supply options was examined and it was
concluded that only three major options existed for major
development in the next decade; hydro-electric power schemes, thermal power stations and interconnection with mainland
Australia. It was also concluded that a number of minor options
existed which could be added to the system incrementally to
satisfy the growth in demand. The major and minor options were
described in Chapter Six.
7. 3 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief
review of the evidence presented to the Committee on the
financial feasibility and economic implications of each major supply option.
151
Cost Comparisons
Cost comparison methodology
7.4 Several methods
development alternatives. exist The
for the economic appraisal of
consultants to the Committee,
McLachlan Group, recommended that the comparative management technique of discounted cash flow is the most appropriate method to use. This technique includes estimates of the original
capital required, interest payable on the capital used,
operating cost, maintenance cost and capital i tern replacement. Inflation is not included in the cash flow to be discounted.
Discounting at a given rate
present value of each option,
which if invested today at the
results in an estimate of the
that is, the 'amount of money
discount rate for the period of
time of the life of the project would be required to provide
funds for the cash flow being discounted' .1 At a given discount
rate the present value which is smallest represents the least
cost scheme. The unit cost of energy is obtained by dividing the
annual revenue requirement by the annual average amount of
energy generated.
Discount and interest rates
7.5 interest In using the
and discount discounted rates can
values and the resultant present
cash flow technique both
be applied value
Considerable Comrni t tee as
divergence of opinion has will been for
over a range of
vary accordingly. presented to the
to the appropriate values both interest and
discount rates.
7.6 Since 1945 real interest rates paid by the HEC have
generally been less than three per cent2, although recently this rate has been higher. 3 In its 1979 Report the HEC assumed a real
interest rate of five per cent. 4 The Tasmanian
152
Department of Industrial Development stated in its submission to the Committee that a conservative estimate for interest would be four per cent.5
7. 7 The consultants to the Committee, McLachlan Group, in
its economic appraisal of the three options, hydro-electric
schemes, thermal power stations and interconnection with the mainland, used for comparative purposes real interest rates of five per cent and zero. The effect of different interest rates
can be seen in the results of McLachlan Group's analyses.6
7.8 The Hydro-Electric Commission Act 1944 requires the
to estimate capital costs, annual revenue requirements and energy costs for its projects but does not require
presentation of a discounted cash flow. This means
method used by the HEC takes virtually no account
changing values of money with time. The HEC stated
submission to the Committee:
'In general the Commission has examined the
cost of the various alternative courses of
action to derive the cost to its customers.
In accordance with good practice and expert
advice the calculations have been done in
fixed value currency ignoring all future
inflation and adopting a 5% rate of
interest. â¢7
that of
in
HEC
unit the the the its
7.9 A number of submissions argued that the five per cent
discount rate sometimes used in the public sector was too low
and that a rate of 10 per cent, as normally used in the private
sector, was more realistic.
7.10 Mr A. Blakers, a doctoral student at the Uni versity of
New South Wales, in his submission to the Committee and in
evidence discussed in detail
discount rate values:
153
the implication s of various
7.11
7.12
'A private company would not charge itself a real rate of return of 5 per cent because it
would go bankrupt. First of all it has to
borrow the money to build the power station -and the going rate now is, probably 5 per
cent in real terms, that is with inflation
subtracted out. Then it has to make a profit
and pay dividends to its shareholders and pay taxes and also it must cover itself for
economic risk. All of these factors mean that it must aim for a higher rate of return than
5 per cent, probably nearer 10 per cent or
even more â¢â¢â¢â¢ So the difference between what a private company would consider the value of
that electricity to be and what the
Government is selling that electricity for, could be considered to be a hidden subsidy,
and a very, very large hidden subsidy. â¢9
Blakers further stated:
'A high discount rate favours low capital
cost, high running cost options such as coal. A low discount rate favours hydro-electricity which is a high capital cost, low running
cost option. â¢10
In contrast to this Dr A.J. Kellow, in his submission
to the Committee, stated:
'The selection of the rate at which future
costs are discounted depends upon society's time preference: a lower rate of discount
reflects greater concern about the future.
The Australian Treasury favours a rate of 10
per cent for public projects, and this rate
is also used in evaluating electric power
proposals elsewhere in Australia and New
zealand. While a discount rate of this
magnitude is common in private investment
evaluations, there is a strong argument to be made that society should be more concerned
with the future of present and unborn
generations than are private individuals, and that a lower discount rate is therefore
appropriate. As a general rule, however,
results which are sensitive to small changes
154
7.13
in the discount rate should be regarded with
caution. â¢ll
The use of very low discount rates for long-term public projects may, however, impose an unwanted financial burden on future generations.
7.14 McLachlan Group, in its report to the Committee on
supply options, reviewed information on discount rates from a number of sources and pointed out that there was a lack of
uniformity in the rate for and method of assessing the cost of
funds invested in government bodies in Australia although the Federal Treasury recommends the use of 10 per cent.l2 In its
economic appraisal of the three major options, McLachlan Group used both five and ten per cent discount rates but did not
provide a recommendation as to which value was the more
appropriate.
Coal escalator, capacity factor and conversion effic iency
7.15 Estimates of the cost of electricity generated by a
thermal power station are particularly sensitive to increases in the price of fuel above the general rate of inflation, termed
fuel cost escalation. In its 1979 Report the HEC assumed a fuel
cost escalation rate of zero per cent.l3 This figure was also
used in the 1982 'Financial Analysisâ¢.l4
7.16 Dr A.J. Kellow, in his submission to the Committee,
pointed out that fuel cost escalations are unlikely to occur if
long-term contracts for fuel are entered into, as is usually the case for bulk purchases, or if a 'captive' coal supply, such as
a privately owned coal mine, is obta ined.l5
7.17 Kellow also discussed two important thermal perf o rmance criteria, capacity factor and conversion efficiency. He stated:
155
'The capacity factor a thermal station can
run at in the long term and the efficiency
with which it can convert the heat energy in
coal into electrical energy depend very
strongly upon matching boiler design to the
characteristics of the coal to fuel the
boiler. With a modern pulverized coal boiler a capacity factor of about 75 per cent and a
conversion efficiency of 37 per cent
(generated energy) are normally achieved if design is closely matched to coal
characteristics (St. Baker 1981). Allowing for station losses, the effective conversion efficiency (energy sent out) which can be
expected from 200 MW units is 34 per cent.
The Hydro-Electric Commission has been
criticised by its consultants for assuming a capacity factor of only 60 per cent for a
thermal plant (Gibb in Hydro-Electric
Commission 1979; Cameron, Preece 1982) but
has never been seriously questioned over its assumed conversion efficiency of only 31.5
per cent. It has never considered variations in design (and therefore costs) for plant to
handle different coals and it seems clear
from its rather pessimistic performance
expectations that it is unaware of the
importance of matching boiler and fuel in
order to attain maximum performance and
instead has simply based its cost estimates
on plant which could handle a variety of
coals, with a consequent reduction in
performance.
These two factors have inflated both the
capital and fuel cost components of its unit
cost estimates for a thermal development. The capacity factor assumed makes no difference to the present analysis, however, as the
comparison here is between like programmes -and the Commission has stated that each is
capable of meeting the projected load growth to 2000 AD. It does make a considerable
difference to the unit cost estimates for
power from a thermal station, and Appendix A
discusses the effect of different performance assumptions and system effects on unit costs.
The use of a conversion efficiency of 34 per
cent does make a significant difference to
the analysis by reducing the annual fuel bill
for a thermal station and has been assumed in
this analysis. â¢16
156
7.18 This discussion indicates that there are a number of
parameters associated with a thermal option the value of which may vary so that the final estimate will be a product of the
particular values chosen.
HEC cost comparisons
7.19 In its 1979 Report the HEC provided estimates of
indicative comparative costs of generating electricity and in its March 1982 'Financial Analysis' the HEC provided revised
cost estimates of the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme and a
notional coal-fired thermal station (Table 7.1). The annual
capital requirements for the alternative hydro-electric and thermal development programmes were also provided in the
'Financial Analysis' {Tables 7.2 and 7.3) and f rom these tables it can be seen that a hydro-electric development program would
be $931.85 million more expensive than a thermal development
program. These figures do not take into account varying dollar values and cannot be compared directly with present day costs, nor do they take into account operation costs. The tables
therefore cannot be considered to be in any way cash flow
analyses. In fact, the HEC appears not to have published any
discounted cash flow for either development programme. Repeated requests by the Committee for this informati on have been
disregarded.
157
>-' Vl co
IeQle
1.1:
Qo§t
1982
(0%
General
Inflation;
O%
Fuel
Inflation;
5%
Interest
Rate)
Qoal
-N.S.H.
Nominal Long Term
Initial
Capital
Cost
Initial
Capital
Cost
Annual
Com
para-
Commiss. Average
excluding
interest
including
interest
Revenue
tive
Cost
Date
of
Energy
during
construction
during
construction
Require-
per
Unit
S c heme
Increment
ment
of
Energy
(30
June)
Total
Cost/kW
Total
Cost/kW
LTAEo2)
LTAEO
(Cents
(MW
av.)
($
mills)
$
($
mills)
$
( $
mills)
per
kW.h)
tlydro
Gordon below
Franklin
1991
180.0
372.27
2068
452.891
2516
25.788
1
.64
(transmission
costs
excluded) Gordon below
Franklin
1991
171.o3)
387.065
2264
469.852
2748
26.885
1.'79
(transmission
costs
included) Thermal
No.1 -
200
MW
coal
1990
120.0
245.40
2045
261.52
2179
47.215
4.49
fired
thermal
No.2 -
200
MW
coal
1995
120.0
134.90
1124
142.78
1190
38.375
3.65
fired
thermal
Combined 2 x
200
-
240.0
380.30
1585
404.305)
1685
85.590
4.07
thermal Notes:
1)
Comparative
cost
data
in
January
1982
values
5%
per
annum
interest
rate.
No
adjustment
made
for
relative
price
changes
of
cost
components
2)
L.T.A.E.O.
means Long Term
Average
Energy
Output.
3)
5%
transmission
line
losses
assumed
to
be
incurred
in
delivering
energy
from
the
hydro
station
to
the
major
load
centres.
4)
Thermal
stations
located
at
Bell
Bay
which
is
a
major
load
centre.
No
transmission
line
losses
or
additional
lines
assumed.
5)
Costs
include
$29
million
incurred
in
restructuring
the
H.E.C.
design
and
construction
force
consequent
up on
a
sud
den
unplanned
change
from a
hydro
development
programme
to
a
thermal
development
programme
carr
ied
out
by
contract
.
1.2;
AnnYgl
1982-2QQQ
(i
mill1Qns)
January
1982
Currency
Values;
5%
per
annum
interest;
no
inflation
HigrQ
Financial
Pieman
Great
Lake
Conversion
Translines
Proposed
Other
Hydro
Total
Year
River
Power
Raising
and
of
Bell
Bay
Substations,
Gordon below
Schemes
to
Capital
Ending Development
3rd
Machine
to
Coal
Sys.Extensions
Franklin
meet Load
Require-
30
June
Gordon 1
Firing
& Sundry
Works Growth
after
ments
1991.
1982
73.43
5.49
21.68
2.25
102.85
3
63.
2 6
1.
90
1.
86
34.77
7.37
109.16
4
53.74
0.69
8.67
29.68
29.15
121.93
5
36.40
1.37
25.07
23.88
42.98
129.70
6
27.59
3.4(l
34.83
26 .oo
61.87
153.69
>-'
7
5.80
15.14
36.70
26.00
52.16
135.80
U l
8
0.85
7.09
11.38
26.00
53.92
9.53
108.77
\0
9
0.55
1.04
26.00
64.72
25.21
117.52
1990
0.42
26.00
79.08
28.46
133.96
1
2&_.00
53.27
73.31
152.58
2
26.00
7.69
92.86
126.55
3
26.00
4.44
125.09 155.53
4
26.00
-6.00
137.55
157.55
5
26.00
125.39
151.39
6
26.00
132.77 158.77
7
26.00
94.98
120.98
8
26.00
43.51 69.51
9
26.00
19.10
45.10
2000
26.00
-7.60
18.40
261.07
36.05
119.55
500.01
452.90
900.16
2269.74
Source;
HEC
March 1982
Financial
Analysis-
Table
7.
1--' m 0
Financial
Pi e man
River
Year Power Ending Devel o pment 30
June
1982
73.43
3
63.26
4
53.74
5
3 6.4
0
6
27.59
7
8
0.85
9
1990
1
2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
2000
261
.07
Table
Annual
Capital
Requirement
1982-2000
($
millions)
January
1982
Currency
Values;
5%
per
annum
interest;
no
inflation
Thermal Development
Programme
Great
Lake
Conversion
of
Translines,
No
1 -
No
2 -
Raising
and
Bell
Bay
to
Substations
200
MW
200
MW
3rd
machine
Coal
Firing
Sys
Extension
Coal Coal
Gordon 1 and
Sundry
Thermal Thermal
Works
5.49
21 .65
1.90
1.
86
0.69
8.67
29.58
1.37
25.07
22.95
3.40
34.83
24.35
2.46
15 I
14
11.91
7.09
11.38
20.85
31 .37
1.04
22.33
110.63
0.42
24.20
66.76
25.18
32.10
26.00
6.90
3.59
26107
16106
26.00
26.00
34.58
26100
27.52
26100
3.60
26.00
1.30
26.00
36.05
119.55
482.95
S o ur
c e:
HEC
M a rch
19 82
Finan
c ial
A n alysis-
Table
8.
Other
Schemes
Total
to
meet Load
Capital
Growth
after
Require-
1995
ments 100.57 101
I
72
92.68 92.63 92.64 134.55 91.38 57.28 36.49 44.53
177
61.35
2.14
44113
172 26172 144
26144
26.04
1337189
7.20 In both 1979 and 1982 the HEC argued that the
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme would be cheaper in terms of unit cost of energy than a thermal power station. However,
comparisons between supply options in terms of cents per
kilowatt hour is only one aspect of financial considerations
necessary for project evaluation and may in fact be misleading for a number of reasons. First, the comparison made by the HEC,
although using a five per cent interest rate which may
accurately reflect the current borrowing rate, did not properly recognise the opportunity cost of capital for public projects. Secondly, the actual cost of generation from a specific power
station is only relevant if sales are to be made based on that
cost. A more useful comparison would be the average cost of
generation from the total system with the alternative increments added to it. Thirdly, the roles of a hydro-electric station and
a thermal station are different and they would be managed in
different ways. In a well managed m,ixed system thermal stations are used to ensure that maximum possible benefits are gained
from the hydro-electric system. Thermal stations contribute not only an increment to total capacity in their own right, but also
enable the long-term average capacity of the hydro-electric
station to be enhanced. The extent to which the Tasmanian system would be 'firmed up' by the addition of a thermal station can
only be computed by a detailed mathematical modelling exercise. Fourthly, the value of 1. 64 cents per kilowatt hour for power
from the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme is a minimum value based on full use of the power station after commissioning. If demand
did not eventuate, this value could be expected to increase as
interest would still ne e d to be paid. The value of 4.07 cents
for electricity from a 2 x 200 MW thermal power station is
closer to a maximum value as fuel costs would be saved if demand
were less than the full capacity of the station.
161
Cameron, Preece International review
7.21 In February 1982 the consultants, Cameron, Preece
International, were requested by the Government of Tasmania to review the HEC's updated financial analysis of the Gordon River Power Development Stage Two. In this review Cameron, Preece
International found that: ,_
The factors by which the June 1978 cost
estimates are being adjusted to January 1982 cost estimates are acceptable.
The estimates for the civil works for
the Gordon below Franklin Scheme are
soundly constructed but it be
prudent to allow additional amounts to
cover certain cost items and a higher
total contingency allowance than has
been provided. The civil works cost
estimate, prior to allowances for
contingencies and general overheads, may be underestimated, at January 1982
figures, by up to 11 percent on the
preliminary quantities given. A
contingency allowance appropriate to the level of investigation and design to
date and the preliminary quantities
suggest that an upper limit of between
plus 20 and plus 30 percent be allowed
on Gross Civil Costs, excluding interest during construction.
The estimate for the cost of a 200 MW
coal fired thermal generating station
are considered appropriate but the
allowances for contingency and
engineering and administration are high. The capital cost of the thermal option
may well be overestimated by 20 percent, at January 1982 figures, but this would
not have a significant effect on the
unit cost of energy from this source.
Based on the estimates as updated the
unit cost of providing energy from the
200 MW coal fired thermal system is 4.0
cents per kilowatt hour and the unit
cost from the Gordon below Franklin is
1. 82 cents per kilowatt hour in January
1982 dollars. (Thermal unit rate based
on the use of Tasmanian coal.)
162
Based on a sensitivity analysis of the
effect of civil costs for the hydro
option being say 25 percent higher than
estimated, the unit cost of energy from
the Gordon below Franklin rises to 1.95
cents per kilowatt hour in January 1982
dollars.
The assessment of alternative forms of
energy is correct and only hydro and
coal fired thermal options are currently viable. The only change seen to this
situation before the year 2000 would be
if natural gas discoveries close to the
north coast could be utilised.
Interconnection with Victoria should be kept under review for a future two way
transfer of power. â¢17
Other cost comparisons
7.22 Many submissions to the Committee criticised the
methods used by the HEC to estimate energy costs for the various supply options and the assumptions made to arrive at these
figures. In particular, the South Tasmania Committee (NSW)
in its submission stated:
'The HEC has devoted considerable space in
its report to questions relating to the
relative financial costs of a thermal and a
hydro scheme. This is only one side of the
coin, for it is necessary also to consider
the relative financial benefits of each
The matter of financial arrangements made
needs more examination than this because,
since the interest cost of hydro schemes is
very large, the way in which such a scheme is
paid for has serious financial and social
implications for Tasmania.
The HEC chose to use four methods for making
comparisons between a thermal scheme and a
hydro scheme. These were :
a. Rate of capital expenditure b. Annual revenue requirement c. Unit cost of energy
d. Present value of expenditure
16 3
Each of these methods, as they have been used
by the HEC, have inadequacies that render
them unsuitable in determining the relative merits of alternatives. Methods b. and c. in
any case, are only different ways of saying
the same thing. â¢18
7.23 The South West Tasmania Committee (NSW) then provided a
detailed discussion of the inadequacies which it claimed
invalidated the HEC's cost comparisons and then presented
alternative simplified estimates, based only on capital and
operating costs. These results revealed that 'the present value of a 2-uni t thermal scheme is higher by $197 million than the
Integrated Development. â¢19
7.24 A number of other submissions to the Committee provided
alternative comparative cost estimates for hypothe tical
hydro-electric and thermal development programs.
7.25 Mr Shann Turnbull, in a report commissioned by the
Business Association for Economical Pow e r and pr e sented t o the Committee as a submission, calculated that a coal-fired th e rmal option would produce power at a lower cost than a hydro-electric option when the construction costs of the hydro-electric option were equal to or greater than slightly more than three times the
construction costs of a thermal station. 20 Turnbull maintained that typically this ratio held and to illustrate this c ited
costs from the Pieman scheme and the Muja C 2 x 200 MW power
station in Western Australia . 21
7.26 Mr A. Blakers, in his submis s ion t o the Committee ,
compared the generation costs of hydro-electric, thermal, wind and photovoltaic power schemes. The analyses carried out by
Blakers compared the electricity generati on costs of each opti o n at vary ing discount rates ove r a range of pow e r demand gr owth
rates. In evidence to the Committee Blakers explaine d:
164
7.27
7.28
'As you will see in my submission I have been
so bold as actually to put numbers on the
generation costs of wind, solar, thermal and hydro-electric options, assuming a variety of discount rates and power demand growth rates. I have done this by taking HEC figures for
everything except these two parameters and
reworking their costs, based on the figures
given in the HEC Report. If the power demand
growth rate and the discount rate agree with
the HEC's choice, then I agree with its
generating costs. However, if I take a
different set I get a very different
generation cost .
. . . If you choose a discount rate of about 5
per cent per year and a high growth rate of
about 2.6 per cent- which is more or less
the HEC growth rate you get a price of
about 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour in 1981
dollars. However, if you choose a discount
rate of 10 per cent and a power demand growth
rate of, say, 1.5 per cent you are up to
about 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour- quite a
large escalation. r23
Blakers further pointed out that:
'although hydro-electricity is clearly
cheaper than thermal on HEC capital
construction cost figures at discount rates of 5 per cent, at 10 per cent it is very
different. In fact stage two thermal of the
proposed twin unit would produce cheaper
electricity than the dam. The average cost of the stage one and stage two thermal would
probably be comparable with the cost of the
integrated development. â¢24
It was concluded by Blakers that:
'At discount rates of around 10 per
is unlikely that hydro-electricity cheaper than thermal or wind
electricity.' 25
165
cent, it
will be
generated
7.29 that
Dr A. Kellow argued in his submission to the Committee
virtually all previous estimates of unit cost of
electricity were incomplete in that they had ignored the
fundamental rule of cost-effectiveness studies that like must be compared with like. Further to this, Kellow stated that
7.30
'the only true basis for comparison should be the present value of the cost streams of
development programmes with equivalent
benefits discounted at a rate which reflects society's time preference. â¢26
Using HEC figures, but assuming a 34 per cent thermal
conversion efficiency and a coal price of $40 per tonne, Kellow
compared the present value of an 'all hydro' program with that
of an 'all thermal' program at discount rates of five and ten
per cent. Four scenarios were considered: no construction cost or fuel cost escalation; two per cent per annum fuel cost
e scalation; two per cent per annum construction cost escalation;
and two per cent per annum fuel and construction costs
escalation. The financial benefit favoured the 'all hydro'
program in only two of the eight cases examined (two per cent
fu e l cost escalation at five per cent discount rate, with and
without construction cost escalation). In the other six cases
the thermal option was less expensive than the hydro-electric option.27
7.31 Kellow's analysis, however, did not include interest
costs which, while presumably favouring the thermal option
further, means that these calculations do not constitute a
c omplete cost/ benefit analysis.
7.32 A numb e r of submissions to the Committee commented on
the accuracy of the HEC in its past cost estimates and, in
particula r, pointed to the cost escalations, in real terms, of
the Pi em an scheme which was estimated in 1971 to cost $134
million (including interest and inflation) and will now cost in excess of $700 million.28
166
McLachlan Group cost comparisons
7.33 McLachlan Group in its consideration of electricity
supply alternatives carried out an economic appraisal of each of the three major options - hydro-electricity, thermal power and interconnection with mainland Australia.29 Using a discounted cash flow technique and data obtained from HEC publications,
McLachlan Group calculated present value, annual revenue
requirements to equal the present value and cost of electricity produced for seven cases:
l. Hydro-electric - Gordon-below-Franklin.
2. Hydro-electric - beyond Gordon-below-Franklin Anthony-Henty, King Diversion, Albert Rapids. Huon,
3. 2 x 200 NW thermal coal-fired power station using NSW
coal with 30 year life and nil per cent load factor.
4. Thermal coal-fired as for 3. above but with 30 per cent
load factor.
5. Thermal coal-fired as for 3. above but with 60 per cent
load factor.
7.34
6. Thermal coal-fired as for 3. abov e but with 75 per cent
load factor.
7. Cable to Victoria, 300 MW capacity, cost of electricity
excluded.
Two values were considered for s everal va riables used
in the analyses: inte rest rates at nil and fi ve per cent;
funding at 18 per cent and 100 per cent equity ; discount rate at
five and ten per cent; and nil and two per cent escalator on
167
coal price. Inflation was not considered in the analysis as this contradicts the purpose of a discounted cash flow. The cost of
coal was assumed to be $59 per tonne (the figure used by the HEC
in its 1982 'Financial Analysis').
7.35 Combinations of these variables produced eight figures
for each of the present value, annual revenue requirements and electricity cost for each case studied. From these results
McLachlan Group made the following conclusions:
'1. The Gordon below Franklin is a good
hydro-electric scheme economically. It can provide 172 MW (av) extra electric
power to the Tasmanian grid, if used
near its capacity, more economically
than other hydro or coal fired thermal
options.
2. The actual price for power from
Gordon-below-Franklin varies very
significantly dependent on what values are taken for real interest to be paid
on funds borrowed and return required on funds invested.
It varies from below the current
Tasmanian price average of 1. 914 cents
per kW hour at 1.625 cents per kW hour
to above at 3.12 cents per kW hour,
dependent on these factors.
3. Hydro schemes proposed to follow Gordon
below Franklin would add a further 194
MW (ave) to the Tasmanian grid at a cost
about 70 percent dearer than that
obtained from Gordon below Franklin.
4. Coal fired thermal power stations do not
compare economically with the hydro
options. Power from coal fired thermal
for all but very low utilisation values
is significantly more expensive than
Gordon below Franklin. At most
utilisation values coal fired thermal
power would be 3 or more times the cost
of the Gordon be l ow Franklin power.
5 . A cable link to Victoria would provide
300 MW of power capacity as follows:
168
First 172 MW for about 50 per cent
more than Gordon below Franklin
when Gordon below Franklin is fully utilised. Remainder above this 172 MW at competitive or better than
the hydro schemes proposed beyond Gordon below Franklin.
6. For the 172 MW provided by the cable to
match a fully utilised Gordon below
Franklin, a $20 million subsidy per
annum would be required.
This is equivalent to an ll percent rise
in average electricity prices in
Tasmania. This would still leave
Tasmanian electricity price average at about one half or less of the average of
the mainland states.
If two-thirds of the $20 million
difference was taken by the industrial
sector and one-third by the residential and commercial, i.e. about on a usage
basis, this would mean $44 per annum on
the average householder's bill (assuming 150,000 householders).
7. We have assumed power bought from the
mainland at 3. 50 cents per kW hour. If
this could be purchased at 2.50 cents
per kW hour then over its 300 MW
capacity, the cable can produce the
first 172 MW of power at the same price
as Gordon below Franklin. McLachlan
Group have used $300 million as the cost
of a cable project in January 1982
dollars to provide 300 MW (ave) to
Tasmania and to be able to sell surplus
hydro capacity to the mainland. No
detail castings for this proposals are
available but the figure we have used is
significantly higher than other
commentators. Therefore we believe that it is a conservative figure for
comparative purposes.
8. We must stress that we do
what price a contract for
firm power could be made.
a very attractive contract
169
not know at
30 0 MW (ave)
This be
to a rr.ainland
supplier as he could plan to provide it
at a very high capacity factor and thus
very competitive prices.
We understand that a number of major
industrial customers could be receiving power at January 1982 prices, at a rate
probably less than this 2.50 cents per
kW hour. If a contract for 300 MW (ave)
from the mainland could be obtained by
Tasmania at this price then the cable
proposition is as cheap as the Gordon
below Franklin when fully utilised and cheaper for any demand less than full
utilisation. 9. A cable tying Tasmania's grid into the
mainland grids would result in system
use economies to Tasmania and the
mainland states systems for which we
have made no allowance, but which, in
negotiation, would no doubt close the
$20 million gap of a 3.50 cents mainland
electricity price and full utilised
Gordon below Franklin.
10. A cable providing 300 MW (ave) would be
constructed for a construction cost
saving over the next 15 years of in
excess of $500 million compared to the
hydro proposals including Gordon below Franklin. These funds should be
available to provide employment in
Tasmania for Tasmanians.
11. If demand does not appear to take up the
capacity supplied by Gordon below
Franklin then the cost has to be borne
by the customers. At 10 percent discount rate and 5 percent real interest the
annual revenue requirement for Gordon
below Franklin is $37 million. This
spread over 900 MW (ave) base demand
would add 0. 4 7 cents or 24 percent to
current Tasmanian average prices.
12. Similarly, a cable not utilised would
have an annual revenue r equi r emen t of
$28 million which would add 0.36 cents
or 18 percent to current Tasmanian
average prices. However, a cable would
always be used. Refer conclusion 16.
Therefore, with a cable operated as
referred to in this report this
situation could not arise.
170
13. A cable even if unused, with a capacity
of 300 MW (ave), would be a less
expensive risk than the Gordon below
Franklin unused with a capacity of 172
MW (ave) by about $9 million per annum
or 6 percent saving on current Tasmanian average electricity prices. However
because a cable would be used the real
saving to the Tasmanian community would be $37 million per year assuming 5
percent real interest on funds borrowed 10 percent real return on funds
borrowed.
14. Page 7 of this report shows a supply
shortfall of the hydro only system
forecast to be in 1990 47-214 MW (ave)
in 1995 86-395 MW (ave)
in 2000 138-730 MW (ave)
If the lower end of this range is the
demand which occurs, then Gordon below
Franklin would be required only for 47
MW in 1990, 86 MW in 1995 and 138 MW in
2000. At these utilisations the price of Gordon below Franklin power is
considerably in excess of that for the
fully utilised case. In 1990, power would be 3-1/2
expensive as the fully utilised 1995, twice as expensive and
1-1/4 times as expensive.
times as
case; in
in 2000,
In these
circumstances, power by the be cheaper than power from
below Franklin scheme.
cable would the Gordon
15. No utilisation of the hydro schemes
beyond Gordon below Franklin would have a similar effect on the actual price of
power produced but starting at a much
more expensive base. Any non-utilisation of these hydro schemes would make them
progressively more expensive than power from the cable.
16. A non-utilised cable would not occur
under the arrangements proposed here as a firm contract would be entered into by
Tasmania with the mainland for 300 MW
(ave) power. If demand for Tasmanian
171
power did not occur, then surplus hydro
would be available to sell back to the
mainland. This would very markedly
reduce the $20 million per annum
advantage of a fully utilised Gordon
below Franklin and in fact probably
remove it altogether.
The extreme case would be where the 300
MW (ave) contracted from the mainland
was returned to the mainland from the
hydro scheme hopefully a large
portion at peak power rates to make net
cost of the cable power zero or even
make a surplus on the arrangement.
17. Gordon below Franklin power, if demand
is below 100 MW (ave ) would be more
expensive than cable power from the
mainland, paying 3. 5 cents per kW hour
to the supplying authority.
18. H.E.C.'s figures suggest that demand
will be greater than the 172 MW capacity
of the Gordon below Franklin before it
opens in 1991. The McLachlan Group low
band suggests this would not even occur
by year 2000. There must be flexibility
in supply to economically provide the
high side of demand if it occurs or
store or sell to someone else surplus if
the demand does not occur after
provision for it has been made. The
cable as conceived and proposed here
fulfils this dual requirement
admirably.'
Other Economic Considerations
Flexibility and risk
7.36 There is generally risk attached to the outlay of large
sums of capital on major public works projects or commercial
ventures. For a public pr oject, the risk is that the capital
invested in it is not fully utilised s hould the project fail to
realise its goals. For exampl e , only part of th e capacity of a
new power station might be needed , the project might be
uneconomic, or the public might not der ive th e e xpected benefits from it, and so on.
172
7.3-/ As capital is a scarce commodity, there are usually
competing demands for it. If that capital is not fully
productive because the project is underutilised, then the public interest is poorly served. An alternative project, deferred or abandoned because funds were diverted elsewhere might, in fact, have been of more benefit to the community. It is therefore in
the public interest to minimise the risk attached to any public project.
7.38 For an electricity authority considering the
construction of further increments of power for its system, the optimum conditions for determining the capacity, timing and form of electricity generation would be long-term economic stability with a pattern of steady growth in electricity consumption.
7.39 Currently Australia is in a period of economic
recession and is not likely to experience a period of steady
economic growth for some years.
7.40 risks
This uncertainty in the attached to development economic outlook projects and
increases in times
the of
uncertainty investment decisions are usually directed towards flexibility to minimise economic risks. An electricity authority can achieve this by keeping capital expenditure as low as
possible and proceeding with new projects which have relatively short lead times and which add small increments of capacity to
the existing electricity system. These features enable
investment decisions to be deferred until as close as possible
to the time when additional capacity is required and,
consequently, the risk of having significant oversupply of
capacity has markedly diminished. Sometimes an electricity
authority has to forego economies of scale in maintaining
flexibility in its supply programme but this may be more
desirable than running the risk of having public moneys tied up
in unproductive generating capacity.
173
Effects of HEC funding
7.41 Since 1969 the proportion of internal funds provided by
the HEC has remained below 25 per cent (Table 7.4). For 1982 it
is expected to be about 17.5 per cent. There are four sources of
funds otherwise available to the HEC: Tasmanian Treasury general purpose loans, semi-government loans, infrastructural borrowings and open-market borrowings. Prior to a recent decision, funding was also available from the Loan Council.
174
,__. -J u '
Year
Capital
ended
Exp
enditure
30
June
$m
1969 38 .
37
1970
45.83
1971
36 . 8 1
1972 35
.4 3
1973
28.7
1 97
4
33.62
1975
42.18
1976
47.42
1977
58 .5 9
1978 57.21
1979 6 4. 5 1
1980
78.53
1981
93 .50
1982
119.7
0
(Budgeted)
Table
7.4;
Hydro-Electric
Commission
of
Tasmania
Statement
of
total
capital
expenditure
and
sources
of
finance
External
Borrowings
Internal
Total
Treasury
Commonwealth Semi-Government
Finance
Loans
(Tas)
Bridging
Loans
Finance
$m
%
$m
%
$m $m
$ m
8.77
23
29.6
77
20.7
3.2
5.7
8.83
19
37.0
81
23.1
9.7
4.2
4.81
13
32.0
87
24.5
3 . 2
4.3
2 .13
6
33.3
94
26.0
2.5
4.8
0.7
2
28 .0
98
22.4
-
5.6
5 .62
17
28.
0
83
23.0
-
5.0
10.
28
24
31.9
76
23.2
-
8.7
6.7
14
40.7
86
29.7
-
11.0
13.5
23
45.1 77
31.0
-
14.1
11.4
20
4 5 .8
80
23.0
-
22.8
7.9
12
56 .6
88
16.7
-
2 4.9
15.6
20
62.9
80
12.7
-
29.1
14.0
15
7 8 .5
85
11.3
-
42.7
21 .o
17.5
98.7
82 .5
25.6
-
32.6
HEC
Annual
Reports
Infrastructure Borrowing
$m
15.0 21.1 25.5 40.5
7.42 During the last two decades the HEC construction
programme absorbed a large proportion of the Commonwealth loan moneys available to Tasmania. In 1968-69 Tasmania spent 51.6 per cent of Commonwealth loans on hydro-electric developments.30 In 1981-82 total general purpose loans to Tasmania were $91.6
million of which 28 per cent was allocated to the HEC, largely
for expenditure on the Pieman scheme.3l
7.43 In 1981-82 100 per cent of semi-government borrowings
($32.6 million) and 95.3 per cent of the $42.6 million allocated to Tasmania under the infrastructure borrowing program went to the HEC. In that year the HEC's total capital expenditure took
52 per cent of the State's total Government Works Program and,
while the HEC received an overall increasing in funding of 28
per cent, a number of other important public areas sustained
large decreases in their allocations.32
7.44 A large number of submissions to the Committee
comme nted on these high levels of HEC funding and the apparent
detrimental effect that this had had on other public sectors in
Tasmania.33 In particular, the Honourable Douglas Lowe, former Premier of Tasmania, gave lengthy evidence on
subject:
'When the semi-governmental borrowing
authority for large instrumentalities is
allotted each year many of the large local
government authorities and I mention the
four city councils and four of the large
municipal councils have all from time to
time made application for a share of that
semi-governmental borrowing authority for large instrumentalities, bearing in mind that until the end of last financial year they
could all borrow up to $l.2m. I think that
amount has been increased to $1.5m as a
result of the rece nt Premiers Conference.
Many of these large government authorities
have had borrowing programs in excess of $2m that were required in order for them to keep
on schedule with their own services programs and developmental works. Frequently because
176
MHA,
this
of the demand of the Hydro-Electric
Commission for what I think I referred to in
my submission as a lion's share of the
semi-governmental borrowing program we have had to ask these local government authorities to co-operate in toning down their demands in order that they could stay within the $1.2m
limit that then applied. Of course they will
be somewhat relieved at the increase in the
amount that occurred this year. â¢34
7.45 When requested to explain more specifically what public
areas had been affected by a restricted availability of funds, Mr Lowe replied:
'I think so far as councils are concerned you
would look at some of the sewerage programs
that they would have wanted to proceed with
and some of the backlog of road services. I
am speaking generally but to my recollection those were the priorities that were always
listed. There has been a running down of the
standard of urban roads in key
municipalities, for example, as a result of
the rapid growth of those municipalities and the need to upgrade pavement and other
services. That work has been held back quite
significantly because of the lack of total
resource on the part of those local
government authorities. â¢35
7.46 Mr Andrew Lohrey, a former Minister f or Energy and
Resources, the Environment, National Parks and Wildlife, Mines, Forestry and at various times Minister
Hydro-Electric Commission also commented effects of high levels of HEC funding:
responsible at length
'In the past Tasmania has been able to afford
to pay the high cost of hydro schemes only
because we have cut back expenditure in other areas such as railways. In the future it is
doubtful if the State could pay out of loan
moneys the large amounts needed annually for a major hydro scheme without lar ge input s of
infra-structure financing. If this has to be
the case, then funds for housing, tour ism,
fisheries, agriculture, for e stry developments etc. will suffer. Tasmania may be able to
177
for on
the
the
afford a major hydro scheme in the future,
but it will be able to afford little else. â¢36
7.47 However, these statements conflict with statements made by the Department of Industrial Development in its submission to the Committee:
' ..⢠in this year, 79 per cent of funds are
being raised under Semi-Government and
Infrastructure borrowing programmes and from internal funds, expenditure sources for which there is limited, if any, competition from
other Government expenditure areas.
While it is acknowledged that some element of competition does exist in the allocation of
State loan funds, when seen in perspective of the total works funding programme for the
HEC, this competition is by no means as
severe as the Wilderness Society would have us believe.
A further point of relevance here is that
there is a limit on the amount of loan funds
that can be allocated to non-revenue earning capital works (schools, roads, hospitals,
etc ..â¢. ). This limit is the pocket of the
taxpayer. â¢37
Flow-on effects of intra-state spending
7.48 The proportion of intra-state expenditure was
considered by the HEC to be an important aspect of the economic
implications of the supply options due to the flow-on benefits arising from spending within the State.
7.49 In the 1979 Report the HEC stated that the intra-state
capital expenditure for a thermal development program would be $15 million less than intra-state capital expenditure for th e
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme.38 In the March 1982 HEC 'Financial Analysis' figures Gordon-below-Franklin were also
construction given to
program
show that the
would result in a
much larger proportion of intra-state expenditure (69.3 per
178
cent) than would a thermal development program (44.2 per
cent) .39 However, in the latter report the annual average
construction phase expenditure for the Gordon-below-Franklin was given as $19.8 million and the thermal development was given as $10.29 million, a difference of only $9.5 million, which is
considerably less than the figure of $15 million given in 1979.
7.50 The HEC has not included interest repayments in these
figures. As the Loan Council recently allowed electricity supply authorities access to open-market borrowings, but denied access to less expensive Loan Council funds, and as hydro-electric
schemes are capital intensive, the ratios of intra-state/
interstate expenditure for the two options could well be altered to the extent of favouring thermal with the inclusion of
interest.
7.51 The proportion of intra-state expenditure resulting
from interconnection with mainland Australia was considered briefly by the HEC in 1979 and concluded to be minima1.40
However, the basis for the HEC's conclusion was not given and it
is probable that the possibility of manufacturing the cable in
Tasmania was not considered by the HEC.
Employment
7.52 Over the last several decades the HEC has been an
important source of employment in Tasmania, both directly
through construction projects and indirectly through the supply of cheap bulk electricity. As stated by the HEC in its
submission to the Committee:
'During the 1c.st five years the total number
of people directly employed by the
Hydro-Electric Commission has varied in the range of 4350 to about 4 800. Of these about
35%, at present some 1700, are employed on
construction activites.
17 9
7.53
When flow-on effects are taken into account the Commission's activities generate total employment in the range of about 7450 to
8300.
The total number of jobs attributable to the
Commission's present construction activities is about 4000.41 'The Commission supplies 19 industries with electricity under major industrial contracts. Without the benefits of a reliable and
economic supply of electricity many of these industries may not have been established in
Tasmania.
Together these major industrial customers
directly employ over 13 000 people. When the flow-on effects are taken into
account the total employment attributable to the Commission's major industrial customers is in excess of 35 000 Tasmanians.â¢42
In its 1979 Report the HEC stated that the level of
employment generated by the construction activities of the
Commission was a reflection of the proportion of intra-state
capital expenditure. In this report estimates were the levels of construction employment associated
alternative options of hydro-electric and thermal
provided of with the
development
and it was shown graphically that the workforce required for the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme would increase in such a manner as to match almost completely the decrease in manpower required for the Pieman development, thus providing a continuity of
employment in both field and administrative sectors of the
HEC. 43
7.54 In contrast, the construction workforce required for a
thermal development programme was estimated to be less. In addition, the shorter lead time for
si gnif i can tly the thermal
programme meant that employment levels on the Pieman would drop to almost 200, from a level of 1100 in 1980, before worker s
would be required. It was expected that there would also be a
180
corresponding diminution in the administrative and support staff of the HEC should a thermal development programme be
undertaken.44
7.55 Interconnection with mainland Australia was expected to provide negligible employment opportunities within Tasmania although, as with capital expenditure, it is likely that the HEC did not include the possibility of producing the cable within
Tasmania in this estimate.
7.56 In the HEC 1982 'Financial Analysis' the employment
advantages of constructing the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme rather than a thermal development using imported coal were again emphasised.45 However, the graphs used by the HEC to illustrate this difference also included e s timates of employment for
'notional further hydro de v elopment' (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). No explanati o n was provided as to what these notional developments we re, yet the number of people employ ed by them was shown to be
considerably greater than the number employed on the
Go rdon-below-Franklin scheme.
181
rr
:i' z
<(
"
Jul,.-1982
Figure 7.1: Notional Programme for Hydro Development
GORDON
BELL BAY'
l -l Tf:!_ERMAL
I
July 1Q8e
l__
'..t·
GORDON BEl OW
NOTIONAL FURTHER HYDRO DEVELOPMENT
- """
rigure 7,2: Thermal Development Using Imported Coal
l, "'c .) loU, CHINE
/ GORDON SWJE I
BElL 8A'f' i
.. , ....
Source: HEC March 1982 'Financial Analysis', p. 17.
182
7.57 A number of submissions to the Committee debated the
HEC estimates of the potential employment generated by each
option.
7.58 The South West Tasmania Committee (NSW) pointed out in
its submission to the Committee that the HEC had compared only
construction employment levels. 46 When the SWTC (NSW) graphed the levels of construction and operation workforce for
hydro-electric and thermal power, using figures presented by the HEC in its 1979 Report, a very different picture emerged (Figure
7.3). The SWTC (NSW) recommended that, although long-term
employment was greater for a thermal development programme, an even greater return in employment for money spent would be
achieved through the implementation of an energy conservation programme.47
183
Figure 7.3; Distribution in Time of for Thermal and Hydro Schemes
....
u
"' 0 .... :.:: c: 0 3: z 0 <&! .... 0.. 0 oil z 9. ,_ I L 1980
Source; Evidence, p. 777.
INHG!?AHO DE'IHOPMENT
2- UNIT THER MAL
184
f
l
f
3.59 Mr Stewart West, M.P. argued in his submission that
there were errors in the HEC estimates of employment associated with the hydro-electric option. West also pointed out that power generation was not the only means of employment generation in
the South West and that a dam could destroy potential permanent employment opportunities in the wilderness areas.48
7.60 Mr A. Blakers submitted that it was 'likely that
thermal, wind and solar options would result in greater
employment stability than a hydro option'. 49 He suggested that both photovoltaic and aerogenerator industries could be
established in Tasmania which would not only provide direct and indirect employment opportunities but which could ultimately result in two new export industries for the State.50
7.61 In evidence to the Committee Mr Robert Graham, former
Tasmanian Minister for the Environment and for Local Gove rnment, argued that during the last decade electricity consumption in the manufacturing sector had increased while the number of jobs had decreased. Graham stated:
7.62
' â¢.. job losses have been parallelled by a
massive increase in the consumption of
electricity. There is no evidence to support the argument that by producing more
electricity you will produce more jobs. â¢51
Further argument was provided by the former Tasmanian Premier, the Honourable D.A. Lowe, MHA, who stated, while
addressing the subject of the effects of HEC funding:
'it is my judgement that continued priority
being given to the HEC is reacting
detrimentally on local employment
opportunities, which would be available for these larger Local Gov e rnment authorities if they were able to proceed with their optimum
development of services for the needs of
their communities.â¢52
185
7.63 Unemployment in Tasmania is currently higher than in
any other Australian state. In September 1982 in excess of
18 900 people, about ten per cent of the State's workforce, were
unemployed.S3 Thus the employment potential of each option is of particular importance at the moment. However, levels of
employment, or unemployment, are inextricably linked with a
State's economy so that choosing an option purely on the basis
of the short-term employment opportunities it may generate, may not in fact be the optimum decision when other economic factors are taken into account.
Conclusions
7.64 A distinction must be made between the financial
feasibility of a supply option and the economic impact
associated with the choice of that option. The option presenting the least cost in terms of price per unit of electricity may not
in fact be the most desirable choice when the wider economic
implications of that choice are considered.
7. 65 In purely financial terms the cost of electricity from
a particular supply option will be dependent on a number of
factors, the most important of which are:
(i) the total
operation payments;
capital required for of the development,
the construction and including interest
(ii) the discount rate applied to the cash flow and the
power demand growth rate.
7.66 As it is virtually impossible for any person or
organisation, other than the HEC, to estimate construction costs for the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme the HEC figures must be
used for any comparative analysis of the financial feasibility and economic impact of supply options. If, as has been
186
suggested, the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme costs have been underestimated this bias will
estimates.
be retained in all other
7.67 As hydro-electric schemes are capital intensive, cost
estimates of them are highly sensitive to the interest rate
chosen. Over the last two decades real interest rates have
remained low and relatively stable. However, recent changes in the world economy and in the way in which the HEC is required to
obtain loans mean that interest payments are likely to be
considerably higher for the HEC in the future. McLachlan Group's discounted cash flow analysis for the Gordon-below-Franklin showed that the actual price for power from Gordon-below
Franklin varied very significantly depending on the values taken for real interest to be paid on funds borrowed and return
required on funds invested.
7.68 Cost estimates for a notional coal-fired thermal power
station are particularly sensitive to the choice of coal price, fuel cost escalation rate, plant conversion efficiency and plant capacity factor. Differences between unit costs of thermal power presented in various submissions to the Committee and by
McLachlan Group can largely be attributed to the use of
different figures for these parameters. In particular, the
conflicting results of Kellow and McLachlan Group were largely due to $19 difference in coal tonnage price.
7.69 Low discount rates favour capital intensive projects,
such as hydro-electric schemes, and high discount rates favour projects with high operating costs, such as stations. There appears to be no consensus
appropriate discount rate, recommends ten per cent.
although
187
the
the thermal as to the
power most
Federal Treasury
7.70 The cost per unit of electricity to the consumer is
largely dependent on the extent to which the power development is used. The lower cost of electricity from the Gordon-below
Franklin scheme, as determined by the HEC and the consultants to the Committee, McLachlan Group, is dependent on full utilisation of the power station.
7. 71 McLachlan Group also provided a discounted cash flow
analysis and unit energy costs for a cable link to Victoria and
concluded that a cable could provide 172 MW for about 50 per
cent more than the fully utilised unit cost of Gordon-below
Franklin power. Further power could be provided by the cable at a cost which would be competitive or better than power from
hydro-electric schemes subsequent to Gordon-below-Franklin.
7.72 The cost per unit of electricity generated is, however,
only one aspect of the economic implications of a power
development program and decisions made purely on the basis of
unit cost may be erroneous. A number of other economic factors
should be considered including, in the Tasmanian context, the
effect on other public sector projects of funding capital
intensive hydro-electric schemes, the proportion of intra-state capital expenditure and employment generated by the recommended and alternative projects. The Committee received a considerable amount of conflicting evidence on most aspects of these economic factors so that no one option appeared to be of outstanding
economic benefit than the other two.
188
CHAPTER EIGHT
SUPPLY STRATEGY
8.1 As discussed in Part 1 of this report, the economic
outlook length for Tasmania of the cur rent
is unpredictable, recession. It is
irrespective of the
this unpredictability
which hampers the forecasting of the demand for power.
8.2 It was in the light of this uncertainty that the
Committee adopted a forecast of demand made by McLachlan Group, which embraced both high and low growths of electricity in
Tasmania. The forecast of demand provided for a wide band the
range of which increased in percentage terms the further into
the future it went. The forecast also included the probability
that there would be a one in four chance that demand would fall
outside of the forecast band.
8.3 In Tables 4.10 and 4.11, the shortfalls in supply at
1990, 1995 and 2000, based on the McLachlan Group's forecast of demand, were set out. On the basis of these figures, the
Committee believes that it is reasonable to conclude that
construction of a major option would not have to be commenced
for three years. However, because of uncertainty in the growth
of demand, a review of demand at that time might indicate either
the immediate commencement of a major option or further
deferral.
8.4 The deferral of the commencement of constructi o n of a
major option need not put at risk Tasmania's electricity supply position in the early 1990s. There are other methods of
achieving continuity of a firm supply of electricity without
189
resorting yet to a major scheme. These will be described below. The Committee wishes to emphasise that it is not advocating the
permanent rejection of a major new scheme; it is simply
suggesting that flexibility be retained at a time when it
considers that there is no immediate or urgent need to proceed
with a major option.
8. 5 A major objective of an electricity authority is to
have available sufficient generating capacity to meet both
average and peak demand for power while keeping surplus
generating capacity to a minimum. Shortfalls in the supply of
electricity or the oversupply of generating capacity should, if possible, be avoided.
8.6 The effects of shortfalls in the supply of electricity
are obvious. Not only do they cause inconvenience to all
consumers but industry and commerce are also subject to
substantial economic costs from blackouts or the imposition of power rationing or restrictions. Industry also needs to be
assured of a sufficient power supply for future investment in
the State.
8.7 The oversupply of generating capacity also incurs
economic costs. Interest payments on capital invested in
unproductive capacity have to be met from revenue drawn from
other sources. This has the effect of increasing the price of
electricity. In these circumstances, the public interest might have been better served if the capital were to be spent on other
public works projects.
8.8 The optimum supply programme depends heavily on
accurate forecasts of demand. In times of economic uncertainty, accuracy is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. The
problem is compounded in a small system because relatively small variations in demand can have comparatively serious effects on the system and the supply programme.
190
8.9 It is not difficult to plan a future power supply
programme for which there is a definite demand projection. A
number of supply options of a particular capacity can be
evaluated using various financial, economic, social and
environmental criteria to determine the most efficacious option. However, when the demand forecast band is wide, a different
approach is necessary.
8.10 In times of economic uncertainty, it is advisable for
an electricity authority to keep its options open for as long as possible and to be prepared to respond quickly to changes in its forecast of demand. In this way it will make the most effective
use of scarce and expensive capital resources and yet it will be able to take advantage of opportunities of potential industrial investment when they occur. Power schemes which can be mobilised and constructed quickly are favoured over schemes with lead
times of ten years or more. The later the decision to build a
scheme is made, the
completion. Similarly, more likely it will match demand on
small increments in capacity are more
attractive than large increments, despite the economies of scale which might be experienced from large units, because of the
flexibility they allow. Small units can be more accurately
tailored to meet demand, especially in times of uncertain growth in electricity consumption.
8.11 Much of the debate on the future power supply programme
for Tasmania of two major
scheme and a
has focussed on the comparative financial analysis options - the Gordon-below-Franklin hydro-electric thermal station. Few people have considered the third major option- interconnection with Victoria. of the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme have pointed
Proponents to various
financial analyses which hav e shown that the scheme will produce electricity at a cheaper unit cost than its alternative s at full
utilisation. As discussed in Chapter Se ven, there is no
certainty that the HEC data on which all those analyses were
191
based were correct as exemplified by the substantial cost
overruns experienced by the HEC in the construction of the
Pieman hydro-electric scheme. In addition, major hydro-electric schemes are unlikely to benet it from advances in technology as much as their al terna ti ves should. With magneto hydro dynamics expected to be a commercial proposition in the late 1990s,
coal-fired stations equipped with that technology should be
considerably cheaper to run than at present. In any event, it is
not sufficient, in the opinion of the Committee, to make the
sole criterion the cheapest unit cost of electricity assuming full utilisation.
8.12 Neither the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme nor its two
major alternatives have the attributes or characteristics to fit into a supply strategy in a period of uncertainty. The long lead
times and the relatively large increment in capacity which any one of them would add to the system would not provide the supply
programme with any flexibility. If demand grew more slowly than forecast by the HEC there would be substantial unproductive
capital tied up in a scheme from which there would be no
economic return for some time. Of the three options, the
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme is the least flexible with its high capital cost, long lead time and little scope for technological advances. It is therefore undesirable to embark on a major
option at this stage which has little or no flexibility and
which may thus lock in expensive capital. It would also preclude the adoption of a more flexible supply strategy in the face of
an uncertain future.
8.13 In any event the Committee is not satisfied that
sufficient investigation has alternatives to the
been done by the
Gordon-bel ow- Franklin HEC int o
scheme.
Interconnection with Victoria was treated in a very curs ory way in the HEC's 1979 Report. Apart from discussions with Victoria, substantial engineering f easibility studies into the r oute of a cable, the mode of operation and integration into the Tasmanian
192
system are needed. The coal-fired thermal option was also not
investigated in the same depth as the two major hydro-electric schemes put forward by the HEC. With extra time, these options
can be properly examined.
8.14 Recent evaluation of coal deposits in Tasmania by a
number of companies has indicated a potential source of supply for a coal-fired thermal station. The prospect of having a
source of coal available in Tasmania for a thermal electricity
generating station is more promising now than in 1979 when the HEC released its report. However, further evaluation is
necessary to prove that sufficient reserves of extractable coal for long-term supply are available. In time, a clearer picture
should emerge about the extent of this resource. The
establishment of a coal field to provide coal for a thermal
station on a long-term basis would also assist Tasmania's
serious unemployment problems.
8.15 In considering
only took into account the potential advances
a supply strategy, the Committee not
the width of the forecast band but also
in technology which could enlarge the
range of feasible options or alter the comparative economics of existing options. For example, the Committee took evidence on developments in solar energy, wind energy and magneto hydro
dynamics, a process which could substantially increase the
efficiency of coal-fired electricity generation. The Committee was also aware of research being done into other forms of energy
which, in time, might provide economic alternatives to more
traditional methods of electricity generation.
8.16 Although such technological advances cannot be
considered as firm options at present, they should not be
completely disregarded.
193
8.17 With substantial research being undertaken world-wide
into many forms of electricity generation, both traditional and new, a deferral of a major power option in Tasmania would give
more time for a breakthrough to occur or for experimental
results to become commercial propositions.
8.18 It might become imperative for a major power option to
be commenced before there are developments in any of these
areas. There is no guarantee that the situation will change in
twelve months or in several years time. However, there is the
chance that Tasmania's coal reserves will be proven or that
technological advances will occur which will alter the economics of the existing major power options.
8.19 Earlier in this chapter, the Committee concluded that a
major option does not have to be commenced for three years.
8.20 In formulating a supply strategy, the Committee took
into account the possibility that either high or low growth in
demand might occur rather than the middle projection.
8.21 If low growth occurred, a major option might not be
required until the late 1990s if then. On the other hand, high
growth would require in 1995 substantially more power than what could be provided by the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme.
8.22 The commencement of one or more small hydro-electric
schemes in the mid 1980s would provide extra flexibility because it would supplement the capacity of a major option if growth in
demand was higher than expected and it would enable commencement of a major option to be deferred if it appeared that there would
be low growth in demand.
8.23 During the public hearing on 21 May 1982 the
Commissioner of the HEC told the Committee that the HEC was
investigating some small hydro-electric schemes which could be constructed within five or six years.
194
8.24 In a speech made on 13 October 1982 and reported in the
Tasmanian press, the Commissioner of the HEC said that there
'was remaining hydro energy potential
scheme, the Anthony-Henty, the Albert in the King-Franklin Rapids, the Huon, the
Que-Hatfield-Leven, the Jane, the Upper Franklin, the Davey, the Upper Gordon, the Upper Arthur and the Upper Meander Schemes'
('The Advocate', 14 October 1982). However, he added that
'Investigations to date had largely been of a "preliminary"
nature' and 'it was not possible at this stage to be specific
about the proportion of this potential which would in future be economic to develop'.
8.25 Shortly before this the HEC had reported that it had
done preliminary planning for the 32 MW Anthony-Henty scheme.
8.26 Some of the hydro-electric schemes listed above fall
within the area nominated for the world Heritage List and plans for their construction would also be contentious.
8.27 Detailed cost estimates for small hydro-electric
schemes have not been published. However, any lack of economies of scale would probably be balanced by the flexibility they
allowed in Tasmania's energy supply programme.
8.28 The Committee believes that the construction of one or
more small hydro-electric schemes would not only enable a
decision on a major scheme to be deferred, but would also allow
the HEC to retain much of its permanent staff until new
arrangements could be made for them. The Commissioner of the HEC told the Committee that the Commission could plan the
restructuring of its workforce if it had more time to do so.
8.29 In
preliminary capable of
the meantime, the HEC
planning for a range of
different loads, lead
195
should be undertaking
major times and minor options and operational
characteristics. It would then be prepared to meet whatever
forecast eventuates with a minimum of lead time. These would
include other small hydro-electric schemes, smaller capacity coal-fired and, in particular, wood-fired thermal stations.
8.30 The Committee also believes that there is sufficient
evidence available to justify further wind power studies in
North West Tasmania and the construction and operation of one or two aerogenerators in the megawatt capacity range. These should be connected to the Tasmanian system to gain operational
experience from their use.
8.31 Another important part of a supply strategy should be
demand management.
8.32 In Chapter Four of this report, an overview of the main
assessments of potential energy conservation in Tasmania high lighted the wide divergence of opinion on the effectiveness of energy conservation in reducing demand for electricity. However, the extent to which it does is largely in the hands of the
Tasmanian Government and the HEC. An official concerted effort to give effect to a comprehensive energy conservation policy
will reduce demand for electricity. For such a policy to have
the greatest impact, it needs to include educational and
promotional components as well as regulations and incentives.
8. 33 Encouragement should also be given to the wider use of
solar power in Tasmanian houses and the installation of small
wind generators in rural areas. Although neither is likely to
have a marked effect on demand for electricity in the next 10 or
20 years, expansion of their use will help to reduce reliance on
the central electricity system. Technological advances in both these options are expected to make them better com me rcial
propositions in the future. There is also the potential for
employment in Tasmania if either is manufactured for local or
other markets.
196
8. 34 The implementation of demand management and the
encouragement of alternative sources of power are not regarded as substitutes for new power schemes. They are simply methods of reducing demand so that the construction of new generating
capacity can be deferred for as long as possible.
8.35 Another key element in the supply strategy would be a
systematic and sophisticated monitoring programme to discern changes in key demand trends. In addition, the HEC should
conduct regular surveys of Tasmanian industry and maintain close liaison with other departments and authorities so that an annual assessment of demand can be made, as is done by the New Zealand
energy authorities. It would also be of benefit to the Tasmanian Parliament, which is required to approve all new power schemes, to be informed regularly of updated demand forecasts.
8.36 Within a supply strategy which will enable the system
to be flexible in response to exigencies as well as ensure
continuity of supply, the Committee developed the following
proposals:
( i) the construction of one or more small
hydro-electric schemes which, apart from providing insurance against a shortfall in supply by a
sudden and unexpected increase in demand, would
alleviate some of the employment problems within the HEC if the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme were abandoned;
( ii) the planning of several different minor options
which then, if required, could be commenced
quickly;
(iii) further investigation into the feasibility of
thermal power and the detailed evaluation of
Tasmanian coal reserves;
197
(iv) further investigation into the feasibility of
interconnection with Victoria with regard to the provision of power for Tasmania, the exchange of
power between Tasmania and Victoria on an
opportunity basis and the sharing of reserve
facilities;
(v) active research and development of magneto hydro
dynamics, photovoltaics cells, aerogenerators and other forms of potential electricity generation;
(vi) the implementation of a comprehensive energy
management programme; and
(vii) the systematic monitoring of demand.
198
PART III
OTHER MATTERS
CHAPTER NINE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
GORDON/FRANKLIN AREA
9.1 The archaeological significance of South West Tasmania,
and the Franklin River area in particular, i s an issue which
developed during the Committee's inquiry.
9.2 In Appendix V of the HEC's 1979 Report it was stated:
'In the project area, no aboriginal artifacts or sites have been f ound and all known sites
are limited to the coast. â¢l
The main Report contained only the following words under the
heading Archaeology and History:
'There are no known archaeological si t es or
other evidence of Aboriginal occupancy in the area. The only visible remains of European
operations are several old piners camps and a lime kiln. â¢2
Though archaeologists dispute accurate, there was nevertheless that little
these s tatements comment on the
were matter
for several years, the debate being concentrated on
environmental and economic issues.
9. 3 The discovery of Fraser Cave's archaeological contents
in 1981 brought the potential signif icance into foc us. It became a further reason advanced for the Franklin River not to be
f l ooded. It also emphasised the interest in the area claimed by
the Tasmanian Aboriginal community . The Tasmanian Aborig inal
199
Centre's representatives, in their evidence to the Committee, objected to the interference of archaeologists but insisted that the cave be preserved.
9.4 During
Tasmania, Fraser the Committee's Cave was visited. inspection of South West
A team led by Dr Rhys Jones
of the Department of Prehistory at the Australian National
University and Mr Don Ranson of the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Servi c e was at that time conducting a thorough
examination of the site and exploring other parts of the river
area for further caves. The Committee was impressed with the
discovery and the work being done there, and was told of further
significant discoveries that had just been made.
9.5 Dr Rhys Jones later gave evidence to the Committee that
a test excavation in Fraser Cave revealed:
interleaved hearths, broken animal bones and stone tools and flakes at a density of
more than 100 000 pieces per cubic metre. â¢3
He said that carbon dating showed that the site was occupied
between 20 000 and 15 000 years ago, after which the last ice
age ended and the area was generally left unoccupied by humans. He attributed the following significance to Fraser Cave:
'Fraser Ca ve , Franklin, is unique in
Australia in that here is a large limestone
cave of easy access with a level floor in a
primary state of deposition. The deposit is
immensely rich in stone tool s and animal
bones; and dense hearths show that it was
used as a major camp site. The geomorphology
and preserved pollen can give primary
information as to past climatic conditions in a region of immense geographical
significance. Already from the minor excavation
carried out, Fras er Cave has yielded
than one hundred times the entire
artefacts recovered so far from all
200
work more stone othe r
Tasmanian ice age sites combined. Its rich
animal bone component gives an almost unique picture in Australia of the hunting
strategies of inland Aboriginal hunters
during the ice age. All of the bones so far
studied are of modern species, which leads to the important question of when and how did
the giant marsupials of Tasmania become
extinct, and what was man's role in this
process. With so little of the site
investigated, there will always be the
possibility of fossil human remains
eventually being found.
Clearly at this stage of discovery, only
tentative statements and claims can be made. However in a recent major article in
Canberra Times, January 3rd, 1982, Professor John Mulvaney of the ANU, having no personal connection with the discovery itself, has
said of it that:
"With over 25 years
Australia, I cannot
site excavated with this isolated place"
field experience in envisage a single
such potential as
(p. 7).
The significance of the site must be seen in
the context of the human colonisation of the
western rim of the Pacific. In western
Europe, modern man replaced Neanderthal man about 30-35 000 years ago. In the east, we
see the colonisation of Australia and New
Guinea across the water barriers of Asia some time before 40 000 years ago. At this time,
Bass Strait also existed and its waters
stemmed the southward movement of man. Then
with the onset of the main phase of the last
ice age the expanding ice sheets of the world
resulted in a lowering of the sea level until
about 23 000 years ago, the floor of Bass
Strait was exposed as a dry plain. That man
immediately took this opportunity to expand his range is shown by the near contemporary
basal date of Cave Bay Cave on Hunter Island
off northwest Tasmania. In southwest Tasmania, the inhabitants of
such sites as Fraser Cave, Franklin were then the most southerly human beings on earth.
They alone of our species were as close to
the great Antarctic ice sheet then only a
thousand kilometres further to the south. At
the same time in the northern hemisphere were
201
the Upper Palaeolithic hunters of France, as close to the northern ice sheet, and living
in tundra environmental conditions similar to those of southwestern Tasmania. The cave
paintings of Lascaux were still 6-8000 years in the future. It would take another 10 000
years for equivalent areas of South America
to be occupied by man. It is within such a
context that the cave site on the Franklin
assumes an international importance in our
global view of the geographical expansion of modern man. â¢4
'In Tasmania, since 1975, it has been illegal
knowingly to destroy a prehistoric Aboriginal site. It would indeed be sadly and
desperately ironic if the State itself were
to destroy probably the greatest monument to the very first Tasmanians in pursuit of the
same aims that the colonial instruments of
the British State, 150 years ago, destroyed
the last Tasmanians. â¢5
9.6 In answer to questions from the Committee6, Dr Jones
explained that there would be no chance of finding limestone
caves at a higher level than the water of the proposed dam. He
also opposed the idea that a 'salvage excavation' of the cave
would provide all the information that would ever be found,
because future methodological and t e chnological advances will allow more to be done that could not now be forecast. He said
that eleven caves of varying degrees of significance had now
been discovered and there was a lot of painstaking work which
had to be done in their assessment and that of any others which
have yet to be discovered.
9.7 Professor
Prehistory at the
John Mul vaney, also
Australian National
Committee that he was:
of the Department
University, told
disturbed by the cavalier treatment
received by the cultural h e ritage in this
massive report [of the HEC in 1979]. â¢7
202
of
the
He claimed that:
the archaeological/prehistoric significance of this region has been greatly understated in relation to hydro-electric
scheme impact. There is evidence here of high scientific and cultural value on a world
scale of rating; its intentional destruction would represent vandalism to the
international achaeological and scientific community. '8
Professor Mulvaney stated in his submission:
'As an archaeologist with 26 years field
experience within Australia, I consider that the degree of preservation, the range of
artefactual and biological remains and their correlation with environmental data, makes this site possibly the most important yet
excavated in Australia; its Pleistocene
antiquity adds a chronological dimension
lacking at many mainland sites.
There is no reason
the only site in
salvage operations such sites should
generations, when have improved. â¢9
to believe that this is
though data, future
the area.
could recover be conserved investigative
Even much for techniques
'The region promises to be a veri table
laboratory f o r research into the society of
early Homo sapiens, no less than the upper
Palaeolithic sites in the Vezere valley in
the French Dordogne, has proved for studies
of European cultural origins. Such sites
require preservation for research by future generations.â¢lO
9.8 Professor Mulvaney provided to the Committee copies of
letters sent to the Prime from more than 20 eminent
archaeologists from variou s parts of the world urging
preservation of the area.
203
9.9 Mulvaney emphasised that it would be catastrophic if
the caves were lost and maintained that 'it would be the
greatest desecration of archaeological sites in Australia that, for the Stone Age of the world, it is the equivalent of
destroying the Pyramids' .11 The Committee has not received any evidence to contradict this assertion. Obviously, the value of what has been described as 'a major new resource' has not
previously been taken into account.
9.10 The Committee accepts the evidence of its expert
witnesses that the flooding of Fraser Cave and the other caves
near the Franklin River would be disastrous. It believes that
Australia's world reputation would be badly tarnished if such significant discoveries were to be lost.
9.11 The Committee believes that, apart from any other
reasons for preserving the area the caves are of such importance that the Franklin River be not inundated.
204
CHAPTER TEN
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL INVOLVEMENT
10.1 inquire The Committee's reference includes an obligation to
into and report upon 'Federal responsibility in
assisting Tasmania to preserve its wilderness areas of national and international importance'.
10.2 An obligation to examine Federal responsibility
requires an assessment of the Commonwealth's constitutional and legal obligations and powers.
10.3 On a literal interpretation of the Committee's charter
it might be said that the Committee is limited to such Federal
responsibilities as will assist Tasmania in the preservation of such wilderness areas. If the Tasmanian Government determines that no such preservation should take place, it might be argued
that the Committee can consider the matter no further. However, within the spirit of the Senate resolution and in the light of
the wide range of submissions received, the Committee has
interpreted its terms of reference
literally. It has therefore considered liberally rather than
generally the extent of
the Commonwealth's legal obligations and powers in relation to wilderness areas of national and international importance in south West Tasmania.
10.4 The Committee has not commissioned legal opinion o n th e
subject but has received a number of submissions relating to it. Whilst it is inappropriate for the Committee to attempt to give
a legal determination, the Committee has however reviewed the
submiss ions received on the subject and believes certain
conclusions can reasonably be drawn.
205
10.5 The Committee became aware from press comments on 30
August 1982 of an opinion prepared by the
Department relating to the questions the
chapter.l The Committee sought of the Acting
Attorney-General's subject of this
Attorney-General a
copy of that opinion but the Acting Attorney-General indicated that in his view it would be more appropriate for the Committee
to obtain legal advice elsewhere.2 The Attorney-General further declined to permit his officers to appear before the Committee.3 The opinion under the name of Mr D.J. Rose was however
subsequently incorporated in the Hansard of the House of
Representatives on 19 October 1982 and a copy tabled before the Committee.4 The Committee has therefore taken into account the content of that opinion.
10.6 Submiss.ions on the subject conveniently fall into two
groups. First, it is argued by some that the Commonwealth
Government is presently legally obliged to act to preserve the
wilderness area, Secondly, others, who do not necessarily accept the first proposition, argue that the Commonwealth has power to act to preserve the said wilderness area if it determines to so
act. Opinions diverge as to whether, if the Commonwealth is of
such a mind, new
administratively legislation.
legislation is necessary or whether so act under the Constitution or
The Commonwealth's obligation to intervene
it can
existing
10.7 This argument has been pursued by such as 1-lr Murray
Wilcox, Q.C., President of the Australian Conservation
Foundation, who gave evidence before the CommitteeS and Mr
Stephen Lowe of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society.6 Briefly
stated, the argument is that Australia is obliged under th e
terms of the International Convention for the Protection of the world Cultural and Natural Heritage, r eferred to as the 'Worl d
Heritage Convention', to take legal measures to preserve certain areas of South West Tasmania.
206
10.8 The World Heritage Convention was adopted by the
General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. It was
ratified by Australia on 22 August 1974 (Australia thus becoming a 'State Party' to the Convention) and came into force on
17 November 1975.
10.9 The purpose of the Convention is to preserve that part
of the cultural and natural heritage of the world which is of
outstanding interest for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
Cultural heritage includes 'archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from historical, aesthetic,
ethnological or anthropological points of view'. Natural
heritage includes 'delineated natural areas of outstanding
universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty'.
10.10 It is the obligation of each state Party to i dentify
and delineate the different properties situated on its
territories falling within the definition of cultural or natural heritage.
10.11 Article 11
establishment of a of
'World the Convention Heritage List'. provides f or the
It is the obligation
of each State Party to submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of property within its territory suitable for
inclusion in the said list. The World Heritage Committee
determines whether or not a particular property should be
included.
10.12 On 13 November 1981 the Commonwealth, acting on the
recommendation and with the approval of the Tasmanian
Government, officially nominated the Western Ta sm ania Wilderness National Park for inscription on the World Heritage List.
Consideration of that submission is likely to take place later
this year.
207
10.13
Article 4 of the Convention provides:
'Each State party to this Convention
recognises that the duty of ensuring the
identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future
generations of the cultural and natural
heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and
situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State. It will do all it can to this
end, to the utmost of its own resources and,
where appropriate, with any international
assistance and co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and
technical, which it may be able to obtain.'
Thus it is the obligation of the State Party for the
purposes of the World Heritage Convention to identify the
cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory. This
Committee is of the view that Australia by its action identified portion of South West Tasmania as falling within the definition of natural heritage. The Committee has been advised that the
Australian Government has been now invited to consider whether it should amend its application to include also a claim of
cultural heritage in view of archaeological sites recently
discovered in the area.
10.14 Article 5 places certain obligations upon a State Party
for the 'protection, conservation and presentation of the
cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory'. One such obligation is to take the appropriate legal measures
necessary for the identification, protection and conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of the heritage.
10.15 It is argued that, by its submission Australia has
assumed an international duty under the terms of the Convention for conserving the heritage and taking appropriate legal action for such preservation. The Committee finds the argument
208
persuasive and has, in fact, received no argument to the
contrary. The Committee notes that the opinion of Mr Rose is to
the same effect.
10.16 The Committee presumes that some will argue that the
international obligation takes effect only upon acceptance of the property for the World Heritage List. The Committee has
noted, however, that in the opinion of Mr Rose the obligation is
incurred even before consideration for inscription. When the question was put to him, he stated 'the answer is clearly
"yes"'.7 The Convention obliges the State Party to identify
(Article 3) and imposes the duty of preservation (Article 4)
without mention of the World Heritage List.
10.17 Accepting that Australia has identified 'natural
heritage' and has an obliqation under Article 4 to preserve that heritage, the Committee has had to consider the operative
provision, that is, Article s. The Committee has noted that
Article 5 makes it clear that the obligation of a State is only
'insofar as possible' and 'as appropriate for each country'.
Furthermore, the Committee queries whether an obligation to take 'legal action' includes an obligation to legislate. The latter question might be of academic interest only if the Commonwealth has existing suitable legislation, which is a question
considered by the Committee hereunder. The phrase 'so far as is
possible' as far as it refers to legal limitations will be
considered in the following part of this chapter. The words 'and as appropriate for each country' do appear to the Committee to
introduce a potential limitation of some consequence. For
example, the Commonwealth may argue, that notwithstanding the obligation of the Convention, in this instance it is
inappropriate to act because of what it sees as the co-operative basis of Australian Federalism. This was touched upon in a
recent speech (9 September 1982) by the Minister for Home
Affairs and Environment who stated:
209
10.18
'While certain legal powers may be available to the Commonwealth in relation to South West Tasmania the existence of potential legal
power is not in itself a reason for
Commonwealth action on any particular issue. Consideration which affects the extent to
which the Commonwealth would wish to exercise its powers in relation to a particular issue, are often many and varied. In accord with the
Government's federalism policy, certain
responsibilities properly reside with the
State, or are addressed, by the Government
concerned, on a co-operative basis. r8
Without authoritative interpretation, the Committee can do no more than to raise the potential limitation of such words
to the argument that the Commonwealth is obliged to act.
Commonwealth Constitutional Powers
10.19 Those who support the argument that the Commonwealth is
obliged to legislate to protect areas of south west Tasmania
pursuant to its obligations under the World Heritage Convention then argue that the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to meets its obligation. Others, who do not accept the obligation
argument, nevertheless argue that the Commonwealth has power to act and preserve the area. Some have argued for new legislation
and pointed to specific heads of power. Others have argued that administrative action under existing legislation is available and adequate. Some have pointed to the fiscal powers of the
Commonwealth as enabling Commonwealth intervention. The
Committee finds it convenient to refer to the arguments under
such heads.
Commonwealth power to legislate
10.20 Submissions have accepted that the Commonwealth
Government does not generally have legislative power in respect of land use control, nevertheless, various heads of power under Section 51 of the Constitution have been drawn to the
210
Committee's attention as enabling legislation to preserve the wilderness which would then override any inconsistent
legislation of the State of Tasmania by virtue of Section 109 of the Constitution. Specific heads of power mentioned include:
(1) Section 51 (XXIX) - External Affairs Power
It is argued that the Commonwealth could by virtue of
the External Affairs power legislate to implement i n
Australia the World Heritage Convention and therefor e preserv e the areas of South West Tasmania identified by Australia under that Conv ention.
The popularity of this argument has increased since th e recent case of Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen and Others 56ALJR625. The High Court by a 4-3 maj ority held that
the Commonwealth's Racial Discrimination Ac t was a
valid exercise of the external o.ffai rs pow e r t o
implement in Australia the Inte rnational Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination.
The Committee acce pts that it may be argued that
matters concerning land usage are of a more dome stic
nature than racial discriminati o n. Also th e Co mmittee recognises that there have since be e n c hang e s in th e
compo s ition of the Hi gh Co urt. Ne ve rtheless th e
Committee found the argument, promoted by Wilco x ,
Q.c.9 and others, that the s ame principl e wou ld appl y
to implementation of the world Heritage Commissi o n t o be persuasive.
211
(2) Section 51 (XXVI) - Laws with Respect to Other Races
This head of power is argued to enable the Commonwealth to legislate to preserve Aboriginal relics and sacred sites. Thus the purpose of the Commonwealth legi s lation might be to preserve Aboriginal history (in view of the
significance of Fraser Cave).
(3) 51 (!) - Trade and Commerce
The power of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to 'trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States' is argued by some to give power to the
Commonw ealth to protect South West Tasmania.
For example, it is argued that the power includes
interstate and overseas tourism and that this could be a basis for Commonw ealth l egislation to preserve th e
wilderness of South West Tasmania.
A further argument is to use th e trade and commerce
power in a similar way as in the case of Mur.[2h:ior es
PtJ' LtQ v, 1976 136 CLR which
effectively upheld the right of the Commonw e alth t o
pr event further sandmining on Fraser Island by refus ing permission to export the extracted min erals. In th e
ca se of South West Tasmani a , arguments are promoted
that it would be used to prohibit the import of certain
equipment necessary fo r dam building or to prohibit th e export from the area of products such as wood chips and
minerals.
212
(4) Section 51 lXIII) - The Banking Power
It is argued that the banking power could be u s ed to
support action under the Banking (Foreign Exchange)
Regulations in relation to overseas borrowing to
finance the proposed dam. With regard to
intra-Australia borrowing possibly use the trade and
for intervention.
the Commonwealth commerce power as a
could basis
(5) Section 51 lXX) - The Corporations Power
It is argued by some that the corporations power could
be used to restrict the activiti e s o f corporation s in
the region to be preserved and that indirectly this
could have the effect of preserving the said
wilderness. For example, companies could be restricted in the supply of material or services for activities
inconsistent with the retention of wilderne s s, f o r
example, dam construction projects.
(6) Section 51 lXXXIX) - The Incidental Power
10.21
The incidental submissions for powers.
power has been referred
its ability to stretch other
to in
specific
Apart from specific heads of pow e r under Secti o n 51 of
the Constitution, some submissions hav e also mad e reference t o what is referred to as the 'nati onal implied power', as a head
unde r which the Commonwealth could legislate. It is argued that this 'inherent' power to do all thing s f o r a
national gov ernment or a power 'i nherent in the fa c t of
nationh o od and of interna tional pe r so nality ' ( see Vict o ria y The Co mmonwealth (the MP case) 1975 134 CLR 3 35) would e nabl e the
Commonwealth to legi s late t o mee t it s na ti o na l respo n s i bility
unde r the Wo rld Heritage Conve nti o n.
21 3
10.22 The Committee has noted that the extent of the implied
power, by its very nature, remains somewhat undefined. Some have argued that the AAP case is authority that the power would need
to be used in a non-coercive way. Mr Rose in his opinion found
that he had insufficient time to consider the full scope of the
power in relation to Commonwealth action for directly protecting South West Tasmania.
10.23 A consideration of the national implied power
conveniently led the Committee to arguments that legislation currently exists under which the Commonwealth could act.
Powers under existing legislation
(1) National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975
In his opinion Hr Rose referred to Section 6 (1) of the
above Act which provides for the establishment of parks and reserves 'appropriate to be established by the
Commonwealth Government, having regard to its status as the National Government'. Mr Rose recognised that this provision, together with the .I&!lQs Acguisitions Act 1955, 'already provides the Commonwealth with relevant
statutory power'.
The Committee has also noted Section 69 of the Act
which empowers the Governor-General to make regulation s for and in relation to giving effect to various
specified agreements which include the World Heritage Convention. Thus the Commonwealth could regulate to protect the relevant area of South west Tasmania
pursuant to that provision and to give effect to th e
Convention without even the need for legislation.
214
(2) Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975
The South West Conservation Area has been (1980)
registered on the
provisions of the
submissions before Section 30 of the
National Estate pursuant to the
above Act. It has been argued in
the Committee that by virtue of
said Act, Commonwealth Government
authorisation of overseas borrowings by the HEC for
purposes that would adversely affect the relevant parts of South West Tasmania would first require the relevant minister or authority to be satisfied that no 'feasible and prudent alternative to the taking of that action'
is available.
(3) Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974
It is argued that the Australian Government is obliged by the above Act to fully examine and take into account
matters affecting the environment before assisting in the financing of the dam project in South west
Tasmania. This could be done by either th e preparation of an environmental impact statement under Section 6 or an inquiry instituted under Section 11.
10.24 Finally, there are arguments before the Committee that
the Commonwealth could use its fiscal powers to restrain
development conservation.
Fiscal powers
in South West Tasmania inconsistent with
10.25 Particularly mentioned in submissions i s Section 96 of
the Commonwealth Constitution which allows the Comrr.onv1ealth to 'grant financial assistance to any State on such t e r ms and
conditions as the Parliame nt thinks fit'. It is s ubmitted that
215
the Commonwealth could make grants to Tasmania incorporating conditions that effectively preserve the area the subject of
this inquiry.
10.26 The Committee has recognised also that the Commonwealth can exercise substantial control over borrowings by the States and the State authorities through the Loan Council. Within the limits of this inquiry, Commonwealth power may be more
restricted than previously in that in June 1982 the Commonwealth Government exempted for a three year trial period state
electricity authorities from the need to comply with Loan
Council requirements. The Commonwealth thus enabled such
authorities to borrow within Australia on the open market.
Conclusions
10.27 At the outset of this chapter the Committee recognised
that it has not sought legal advice on the matters herein
discussed which are really incidental to the principal questions it has been charged to consider. Furthermore, the
Attorney-General has declined to give it advice. With those
shortcomings the Committee nevertheless believes that certain conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the submissions it has before it.
10.28 First, the argument that the Commonwealth is obliged to
act to preserve the territory in Tasmania it has submitted for
listing in the World Heritage List pursuant to the provisions of the world Heritage Convention appears strong. As noted above it is supported not only by the 'environmentalist lobby' but also by Nr Rose of the Attorney-General's Department. The
Committee's only reservation is the phrase 'as appropriate for each country' as applicable to the co-operative federalism
argument.
216
10.29 Given, however, that the Commonwealth is obliged to
act, it appears clear to the Committee that it can so act by
regulation under Section 69 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975.
10.30 It appears to the Committee that the Commonwealth
Government is likely in any event to have adequate power to
legislate to conserve the said area by a propitious use of a
combination of the External Affairs power, the Other Races
power, the Trade and Commerce power, the Incidental power and
the National Implied power.
10.31 Even stronger it appears to the Committee that the
Commonwealth could by a combination of the National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation Act and the Land Acguisition Act 1955
acquire the relevant area, proclaim it to be a national park and
make the relevant declarations to reserve a portion as a
wilderness zone.
10.32 The Committee is not so impressed with the arguments
for use of fiscal power. For example, Section 96 of the
Constitution proved ineffective in relation to Lake Pedder by the State simply refusing to accept funds with a reservation.
Use of the Loan Council powers appears also to the Committee to
be fraught with difficulty and the Committee has in any event
noted the exclusion of electricity authorities agreed earlier this year.
10.33 Arguments for use of the Environmental Protection
(Impact of Proposals) Act and the Australian Heritage Commission Ad also appear somewhat peripheral. Al so , the calling for an
environmental impact statement or an inquiry into environmental aspects does not in itself preserve the wilderness area. In th e
case of the Australian Heritage Commission Act, the same
consideration applies. That Act really inv ites the Minister t o look to feasible alternatives or, in other words, invites a
217
further inquiry into questions of supply and demand and
alternative sources of power in Tasmania. It is not appropriate to use if the Commonwealth has decided that it ha s the
obligation or is of a mind to preserve the area.
10.34 In conclusion, the Committee is therefore of the view
that the Commonwealth may well be obliged to act to pres erve the area and has a considerable number of powers and options open to it to enable it to meet that responsibility.
218
PART IV
CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER ELEVEN
CONCLUSIONS
11.1 The Committee has concentrated its attention up to this
time on examining demand for power in Tasmania and in forming a
supply strategy for meeting that demand.
11.2 The demand studies available to the Committee, based on
various methodologies, contain a wide divergence of demand
projections. There is not even unanimity of opinion among
government studies nor among conservationist studies.
11.3 The Committee's consultant, McLachlan Group
prepared a forecast of demand which took account of
and low growths of demand. The forecast provided
Pty Ltd,
both high a demand
projection within a band, the upper and lower limits of which
increased the further into the future it went. The forecast also included a probability of one in four that demand would fall
outside the forecast band.
11.4 For the purpose of its conclusions, the Comrr,ittee has
adopted the McLachlan Group forecast of demand.
11.5 The HEC projection fell just outside the upper limit of
the McLachlan Group band in 1990 and 1995 but was well within
the band in 2000. The HEC's lower limit fell within the band in
all three years. A comparison of the HEC's and McLachlan Group's forecasts is contained in Table 4.9.
11.6 If the lower limit of the McLachlan forecast
band were achieved, little or no additional capacity would be
needed this century. On the other hand, shoulci the upper lir:-its
219
be attained, the potential hydro-electric capacity remaining in Tasmania would be insufficient to meet that demand. It is likely that demand will actually be somewhere within the two extremes but, if a high growth in demand eventuates, a major new
generating facility would need to be operational in the mid
1990s.
11.7 The Committee concludes that construction of a major
option (the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme, a thermal station or interconnection with Victoria) does not have to be commenced for at least three years, while still allowing the upper limit of
the forecast of demand to be met.
11.8 However, consistent with the projection, a major option
may need to be commenced at some stage after three years. The
Committee examined the financial feasibility and economic
implications of the three major options.
11.9 To determine the comparative unit costs of energy from
each option, McLachlan Group undertook a discounted cash flow analysis of the construction and operational costs of each
option over a period of 60 years. From the results of this
analysis the Committee concluded that the unit cost of
electricity from each option varied significantly according to the values chosen for several critical parameters, level of
utilisation, interest rate, discount rate, fuel cost and fuel
price escalation rate. As there appeared to be no consensus
either in submissions to the Committee or from other sources as to the most appropriate value for each of these parameters, the
Committee concluded that it was impossible to determine an
absolute unit cost for any option.
11.10 The economic implications of each of the major options
were also examined and it was concluded that there are benefits and disadvantages associated with each option. Further detailed investigation would thus be required to determine which was the optimal economic option.
220
11.11 The Committee decided that a supply strategy which
would respond quickly to exigencies supply while minimising the risk of but ensure continuity of
having substantial capital
tied up in unused generating facilities, is required.
11.12 To commence construction of a major option at this time
would be inconsistent with that supply strategy.
11.13 Within the supply strategy, which is based on a
flexible approach, the Committee has developed the following proposals:
(i) the construction of one or more small hydro-electric
schemes which, apart from providing insurance against a shortfall in supply by a sudden and unexpected increase in demand, would alleviate some of the employment
problems within the HEC if the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme were abandoned;
(ii) the planning of several different minor options which
then, if required, could be commenced quickly;
(iii)
(iv)
further investigation into the feasibility of thermal power and the detailed evaluation of Tasmanian coal
reserves;
further investigation ir.to the feasibility of
interconnection with Victoria with regard to the
provision of power for Tasmania, the exchange of power
between Tasmania and Victoria on an opportunity basis and the sharing of reserve capacity;
( v) active research and development of magneto hydro
dynamics, photovoltaic cells, aerogenerators and other forms of potential electricity generation;
221
(vi) the implementation of a comprehensive energy management programme; and
(vii) the systematic monitoring of demand.
11.14 Although this report deals mainly with demand for power
in Tasmania and a supply strategy to meet that demand, the
Committee decided to include in its consideration two additional topics which emerged during the course of the inquiry.
11.15 The Committee heard evidence from Australian
archaeologists and received copies of letters forwarded to the Prime Minister from eminent international archaeologists on the significance of the archaeological discoveries in an area near the Franklin River which would be inundated by the proposed
Gordon-below-Franklin scheme.
11.16 The Committee accepts the views of these experts that
the archaeological discoveries near the Franklin River are of such international importance that they should not be inundated.
11.17 Although the Committee has to complete its examination
of the natural values of South West Tasmania and the impact of
various land uses on the area, yet attention must be drawn to
the overwhelming amount of information contained in many written submissions, studies and reports about the area and which
confirm its national and international significance, consistent with the nomination of the area for the World Heritage List.
11.18 In view of this nomination of the Western Tasmanian
Wilderness National Parks for addition to the world Heritage
List, there has been wide public debate on the Commonwealth's
powers and obligations as a signatory to the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
222
Although the Committee did not receive independent legal opinion on the matter, it did receive a number of relevant submissions.
It also had available to it an opinion prepared by Mr D.J. Rose
of the Attorney-General's Department which was incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard on 19 October 1982. On the evidence before it, the Committee believes that certain
conclusions can reasonably be drawn and no contrary evidence has been given to the Committee. The Commonwealth may well be
obliged to act to preserve the area and has a considerable
number of powers and options open to it to enable it to meet
that responsibility.
11.19 The nomination of the Western Tasmanian Wilderness
National Parks for listing on the World Heritage List was not
central to the areas of this inquiry on which this report
concentrates or the evidence the Committee primarily called. However, the Committee must say that nothing has emerged from
the inquiry which should persuade the Commonwealth Government from proceeding with the listing which invol ves the Gov e rnment in fulfilling its obligations and responsibilities under the
provisions of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
223
DISSENTING REPORT
DISSENTING REPORT BY SENATOR BRIAN ARCHER
After giving the report careful and detailed
consideration I have concluded I cann o t agree that, in its
present form, the report represent s a balanced assessment of the evidence presented to the Committee, Consequently, I must
dissent from some of the Committee's findi ngs and I find myself
bound to present to the Senate a minority report.
It has been a major concern to me that ther e has been
what I see as a lack of discrimination in the use and acceptance
of information by the Committee. I have specific objections t o
the report's handling of the evidence and its r esultant findings on the crucial questions of the supply of and demand f or pow er
in Tasmania, in spite of the fact that the HEC projection wa s
within the band as suggested by the consultants.
On the question of demand it is agreed, I believe , th a t
another substantive supply source will be needed within the next 10 to 20 years. The Tasmanian Gover nment, and its pr edecE: ssor,
accepted the r esponsibility to mee t that demand. The r eport has
chosen to accept th e projections vl hi ch are set loviE:r than t hat
of the Hydro-Electric Commission's, predominantly a s a result of reliance on the present depressed econorr:i c condi t i ons cu rrer.tly facing Australia. It se ems t o me t o be particularly impr ude nt t o
base long-term planning for power on short term econom1 c
I r ega rd the Hy dro- Electr ic Cor.. ;;-ission rjro jecticn of
1.5 per cent per annum for industri al demand as te ing
based . In fact, s e veral witnes ses i r. t he i r.ac;st ri al ar E:il
criti c ised the Hydr o-Electric Cor.rrission projection for tei ng too low.
22S
This difference of opinion on electricity demand is
fundamental to the whole issue, and the remainder of the report
is greatly affected by the conclusions in this area. I would
prefer to support those who have successfully planned for
Tasmania's power needs over the past 40 years, providing the
most reliable and economic source of power in Australia. I am
satisfied that the HEC projection of demand is appropriate, as was every other industry, industry organisation and Tasmanian government department with whom the matter was discussed.
The Tasmanian Government, as with any other State
Government, has the responsibility, subject of course to
electoral constraints, to consider, plan and make decisions
regarding the provision of power. The power industry itself is a major industry in Tasmania with direct effects on employment and industry growth in the State. The importance of this industry
has been understated as has the importance of the supply of
highly competitively priced power to any future industrial
progress in Tasmania.
Generally speaking, I concur with the report's
discussion of the various supply options available for
consideration and the conclusion that only three potentially viable major alternatives exist: hydro, thermal and the Bass
Strait cable.
However, I differ strongly with the report's
interpretation of the McLachlan Group's report, and also find difficulty with some of the conclusions of that report itself.
I am particularly concerned at the Group's assessment
of the Bass Strait cable link. Suffice to say that the Group's
conclusions on the comparative economies of the cable including
226
the end unit cost, the assumed output and related generated
employment, run counter to the available advice provided by the Zeidler Committee and expert professional individual witnesses without any adequate coverage of the unstated issues.
I find the Committee's conclusion that a major new
scheme will not be needed for at least another three years to
lack the optimism needed in Tasmania at the moment. I consider
the supply strategy to have been given insufficient
consideration, particularly in regard to the economic aspects of the minor options proposed. I do not believe that proven
long-term development planning should be abandoned in favour of stop-gap, short-term actions. The Committee has adopted an
approach which is designed to give maximum flexibility to
electricity planning in Tasmania but the economic and social
costs of this approach have barely been considered.
I believe that the Hydro-Electric Commission has
investigated all options for the supply of electricity, and that there is no adequate reas on to questi on its conclusion, which
has been verified by many expert witnesses before our Committee, that the Gordon-below-Franklin Scheme is the most economi c power development for Tasmania. I believe that the Committee has not
established th a t this i s not the case.
I consider
Tasmania's economic that insuffici en t regard has been development or to the long-term
given damage to
to
the Tasmanian economy of not proceeding wi t b power development scheme. I therefore do
paragraphs ll. 7, conclusions. 11.8, ll.ll,
227
11.12 and
a substantial new not agree with
11.1 3 of the
I have not canvassed in full the difficulties I have
with the Committee's report. However, as I have said the
substance of the report as it stands leaves me no alternative
but to dissent from several of its conclusions. In my opinion
the report reflects a negative view, and does not attend to the
issues of the reference adequately.
SENATOR B.R. ARCHER
228
REFERENCES
Chapter One
l. HEC 1979 Report, p. 91.
2. South West Advisory Committee, Report August 1978, Appendix 'A', p. 61.
3. ibid., p. 8.
Chapter Two
l. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and
from Tasmania, 1976, pp. 148-9. 2. Evidence, p. 2497.
3. Evidence, p. 1112.
4. Evidence, p. 2491.
5. Evidence, p. 2493.
6. Evidence, p. 2499.
7. Evidence, p. 2501.
8. Report of the Inquiry into the Structure of Industry and
the Employment Situation in Tasmania, 1977, p. 117. 9. Evidence, pp. 2540-8.
10. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 17.
ll. ibid., p. 17.
12. Evidence, p. 2524.
13. Report of the Directorate of Energy to the Co-ordination Committee on Future Power Development, May 1980, p. 193. 14. ibid., p. 199.
15. Evidence, p. 2525.
Chapter Three
1. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix I, p. 4.
2. ibid., p. 3.
3. ibid., p. 12.
4. ibid., p. 19.
5. ibid., pp. 19-20.
6. HEC Annual Review 1981-82, p. 2.
7. ibid., p. 4.
8. ibid., p. 4.
9. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix I, p. 19.
10. HEC Annual Review 1980-81, p. l.
11. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix I, p. 18.
12. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 3.
13. Evidence, p. 157.
Chapter Four
l. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 31.
2. Ev idence, p. 3297.
229
3. Evidence, p. 3226.
4. HEC, Gordon-below-Franklin Hydro-Electric Scheme -Financial Analysis, March 1982, p. (ii). 5. Evidence, p. 3250.
6. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, pp. 33 and 35.
7. Evidence, p. 3287.
8. Evidence, p. 3286.
9. Report of the Directorate of Energy to the Co-ordination
Committee on Future Power Development, Nay 1980, p. 227. 10. Evidence, p. 2748.
11. NcLachlan Group Report dated 9 June 1982. 12. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 7.
l3. Evidence, pp. 161.
14. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 14.
15. Evidence, p. 173.
16. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 14.
17. Evidence, pp. 1534-1535. 18. Evidence, p. 162.
19. ibid.
20. ibid.
21. ibid.
22. Evidence, pp. 2979-2980.
23. Evidence, p. 161.
24. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, pp. 9-30.
25. ibid., p. 15.
26. ibid.
27. ibid., p. 10.
28. ibid., p. 20.
29. Evidence, p. 3258.
30. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 22.
31. ibid., p. 30.
32. ibid., p. 38.
33. Evidence, p. 2979.
34. Evidence, p. 2980.
35. ibid.
36. Hydro Electric Commission, Tasmania Annual Review, 1980-81, p. 17. 37. Evidence, p. 2173.
38. ibid.
39. Hydro Electric Commission, Tasmania, Annual Review, 1981-82, p. 17. 40. Evidence, pp. 2161-2177. 41. Evidence, pp. 2169-2172.
42. Evidence, pp. 1532-1543.
43. Evidence, pp. 1534-1536. 44. Evidence, p. 1543.
45. Evidence, pp. 152-173.
46. Evidence, p. 164.
47. Evidence, p. 165.
48. Evidence, p. 163.
49. Report of the Directorate of Energy to the Co-ordination Committee on Future Power Development, Nay 1980, p. 190. so. ibid., p. 192.
51. ibid., p. 3.
230
52. Harwood, C.E. and Hartley, M.J. 1980, An Energy Efficient Future for Tasmania, Tasmanian Conservation Trust. 53. ibid., p. 38.
54. McLachlan Group Report on Demand. 55. Evidence, p. 2556-2557.
56. Thompson, P. 1981, Power in Tasmania, p. 118.
57. Evidence, pp. 2557-2558. 58. Evidence, p. 2558.
59. Evidence, p. 2562.
60. Evidence, p. 2563.
61. ibid.
62. Evidence, p. 2860.
63. Evidence, p. 780.
64. Evidence, pp. 2569 and
65. Evidence, pp. 2560-2569. 66. Evidence, p. 2568.
67. Evidence, p. 2564.
68. Evidence, p. 2994.
69. ibid.
70. Evidence, pp. 2993-2994. 71. Evidence, pp. 1527, 2186.
72. Evidence, p. 2992.
73. Evidence, p. 2860.
74. Evidence, p. 995.
75. Australian Newsprint Mills Limited, letter 3 March 1982, p. 8.
76. Australian Newsprint Mills Limited, letter 2 May 1979 to the Hon, K.E. Newman, M.P. 77. Evidence, p. 2991.
78. Evidence, p. 2558.
79. Evidence, pp. 630, 781, 1205, 2188, 1526.
80. Evidence, pp. 782, 1528, 2187.
81. Evidence, p. 2186.
82. Energy Policy Statement, Government of Tasmania, April 1982, p. 26.
83. Media Release, Premier of Tasmania, Hobart, 10 August 1982, Energy Conservation. 84. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix II, p. 22.
85. Evidence, p. 2989.
86. Evidence, p. 2990.
87. Harwood and Hartley, op cit.
88. ibid., pp. Sl-52.
89. Directorate of Energy, op cit, p. 158.
90. ibid., p. 219.
91 . Evidence, p. 8 4 5 .
92. Evidence, p. 112.
93. Evidence, pp. 643-647.
94. Evidence, p. 647.
95. Evidence, p. 2533.
96. Evidence, p. 2556.
97. Evidence, p. 647.
98. Evidence, p. 1549.
99. Evidence, p. 647.
231
100. Harwood and Hartley, op cit, pp. 53-55.
101. Evidence, p. 109, 778, 782, 1198, 1528, 1548, 2022.
102. Energy Policy Statement, op cit. 103. Media Release, Premier of Tasmania, Hobart, 10 August 1982, Energy Conservation. 104. Harwood and Hartley, op. cit, p. 51.
Chapter Five
1. Evidence, pp. 2017-2144, pp. 1933-1998 and pp. 3337-3395. 2. HEC 1979 Report, p. 23 and Appendix III, pp. 3-4.
3. Evidence, pp. 2017-2144, pp. 1933-1998 and pp. 3337-3395. 4. Evidence, pp. 895-904.
Chapter Six
1. HEC 1979 Report, p. 25.
2. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix IV.
3. Evidence, p. 889.
4. HEC Financial March 1982, p. 4.
5. Examiner. 4, 11, 12 August 1982; Mercury, 4, 10, 11 August
1982; Advocate, 4, 10, 11 August 1982; Australian 16 August 1982. 6. Examiner, 12 August 1982.
7. Evidence, pp. 3023-3024.
8, HEC 1979 Report, Appendix IV, p. 9.
9, HEC Annual Review, 1980-81, p. 10.
10. Canberra Times, 21 August 1982; Examiner, 24 August 1982. 11. Evidence, pp. 2322-2323. 12. ibid.
13. Bandler, M. 1982, Water and Energy Resources in South East
Queensland, Search Vol.l3, No.S-6, pp. 127-131. 14. Evidence, pp. 2311-2312. 15. HEC 1979 Report, p. 27.
16. Examiner, 30 June 1982
17. HEC 1979 Report, p. 43.
18. ibid., p. 44.
19. Evidence, p. 912.
20. Evidence, p. 1669.
21. Evidence, p. 1670.
22. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, pp. 35-36.
23 . HEC Financial Analysis, March 1982, Table 1, p. 20.
24. ibi d., p. 16.
25. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, p. 17.
26. Evidence, pp. 2319 , 2405, 2782.
27. Evidence, pp. 2319, 240 2 .
28. Evidence, p. 2319.
29. HEC 1979 Report , Appendix III, pp . 28 and 26.
30. HEC Financial Analysis, March 19 82 , p. 2.
31. Evidence, p. 313.
32. Cameron, Preece Internati onal A Review of the Financial Implications of the Gordon River Power Development (Stage 2J, p. 6-3.
232
33. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, p. 38.
34. HEC Financial Analysis, March 1982, p. 2.
35. Evidence, p. 2342.
36. Cameron, Preece International, p. 6-2. 37. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, p. 65.
38. ibid.
39. ibid., p. 67.
40. ibid., p. 69.
41. Evidence, p. 2188.
42. Evidence, p. 3591.
43. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, p. 67.
44. Evidence, pp. 1833-1932. 45. Evidence, p. 1883.
46. Evidence, p. 1836.
47. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, p. 45.
48. Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generation and the Sharing of Power Resources in South-East Australia, Vol. l, p. 57.
49. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, p. 47.
so. ibid., p. 48.
51. ibid., p. 48.
52. ibid., p. 51.
53. Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generation and the Sharing of Power Resources in South-East Australia, Vol. 1, p. 45.
54. Evidence, pp. 1316-1366. 55. Evidence, p. 1321.
56. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, pp. 53-54.
57. ibid., p. 54.
58. HEC 1979 Report, p. 33.
59. Evidence, p. 2020.
60. Evidence, pp. 2026-7.
61. Evidence, pp. 2026-2033.
62. Evidence, p. 2105.
63. Evidence, p. 2026.
64. Evidence, pp. 2046-7.
65. Evidence, p. 2033.
66. Evidence, p. 2035.
67. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix III, pp. 71-84.
68. Evidence, p. 3337.
69. Evidence, pp. 3381 and 1937.
70. Evidence, p. 1937.
71. Evidence, p. 1941.
Chapter Seven
1. McLachlan Group Report on Supply, 24 August 1982.
2. Evidence, pp. 3111-3112.
3. HEC 1979 Report, p. 84.
4. Evidence, p. 3036.
5. Evidence, p. 2581.
6. McLachlan Group Report on Supply, 24 August 1982.
7. Evidence, p. 3036.
23 3
8. Evidence, p. 2019.
9. Evidence, p. 2113.
10. Evidence, p. 2109.
11. Evidence, p. 3406.
12. McLachlan Group Report on Supply, 24 August 1982. 13. HEC 1979 Report, p. 37.
14. HEC March 1982, Financial Analysis, Table 1. 15. Evidence, pp. 3404.
16. Evidence, p. 3401-2.
17. Cameron, Preece International Review, Summary. 18. Evidence, pp. 2196-7.
19. Evidence, p. 2203.
20. Evidence, p. 452.
21. Evidence, p. 455.
22. Evidence, pp. 413-424.
23. Evidence, p. 2110.
24. Evidence, p. 2111.
25. Evidence, p. 2019.
26. Evidence, p. 3400.
27. Evidence, pp. 3398-3414. 28. Evidence, pp. 38, 147, 311, 353, 358, 437, 829-830, 2288.
29. McLachlan Group Report on Supply, 24 August 1982. 30. Evidence, p. 318.
31. Evidence, p. 1787.
32. ibid.
33. Evidence, pp. 39-40, 130, 216, 226, 295, 299-310, 316,
388, 1787, 1830. 34. Evidence, p. 3614.
35. Ev idence, pp. 3614-3615. 36. Evidence, p. 366.
37. Evidence, p. 2586.
38. HEC 1979 Report, p. 66.
39. HEC March 1982, Financial Analysis, Tables 2 and 3.
40. HEC 1979 Report, p. 68.
41. Evidence, p. 3053.
42. Evidence, p. 3054.
43. HEC 1979 Report, p. 67.
44. ibid.
45. HEC March 1982, Financial Analysis. p. 16.
46. Evidence, p. 776.
47. Evidence, p. 778.
48. Ev idence, p. 1788-1789.
49. Ev idence, p. 2021.
SO. Evidence, p. 2084.
51. Evidence, p. 3590.
52. Evidence, p. 3606.
53. Australian Bureau of Statistics Publications, Un employment, Australia, September 1982 Preliminary Estimates, Catalog No. 6201.0.
Chapter Nine
1. HEC 1979 Report, Appendix V, p. 223.
2. HEC 1979 Report, p. 57.
234
3. Evidence, p. 1726.
4. Evidence, pp. 1727-1728.
5. Evidence, p. 1730.
6. Evidence, pp. 1743, 1748-1749, 1759.
7. Evidence, p. 3455.
8. Evidence, p. 3455.
9. Evidence, p. 3458.
10. Evidence, p. 3459.
11. Evidence, p. 3498.
Chapter Ten
1. The Age, 30 August 1982.
2. Letter from the Acting Attorney-General, 11 October 1982. 3. Letter from the Acting Attorney-General, 14 October 1982. 4. Evidence, pp. 3738-3740.
5. Evidence, pp. 3730-3736.
6. Letter from Mr Stephen Lowe, Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Hobart Branch, 6 September 1982. 7. Evidence, p. 3739.
8. Speech given by the Minister for Home Affairs and
Environment at a public meeting on south West Tasmania, Canberra, 9 September 1982, p. 3. 9. Evidence, pp. 3734-3735.
235
APPENDIX I
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE RELATING TO THE COMMITTEE
23 September 1981
(1)
(2)
That a Select Committee, to be known
Committee on South West Tasmania, be
inquire into and report upon -as the Select
appointed to
(a) the natural values of South West Tasmania to
Australia and the world;
(b)
That
(a)
(b)
(c)
Federal responsibility in assisting Tasmania to preserve its wilderness areas of national and
international importance, including appropriate financial assistance consistent with the State's development needs and options for the State's
energy requirements.
the Committee consist of six Senators, as follows:
three to be nominated by the Leader of th e
Governme nt in the Sena te;
two to be nominated by the Leader of the
Opposition in the senate; and
one to be nominated by the Leader of the
Australian Democ rats.
(3) That the Committee proceed to the dispatch of business
notwithstanding that all members have not been duly
nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any
vacancy.
(4) That the Chairman of th e Committee be appointed by and
from the members of the Comm ittee .
(5) That the Chairman of th e Committee may , from time t o
time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the rr:ember so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any
time when there is no Cha irma n o r the Chairman is not
present at a meeting of the Committee.
(6) That, in the event of an equality of
Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when
Chairman, have a casting vote .
237
voting , acting the as
(7)
( 8)
( 9)
(10)
That three members of the Committee be necessary to
constitute a meeting of the Committee for the exercise of its powers.
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to
move from place to place, to sit in public or in
private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the
Parliament or dissolution of the House of
Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such
interim recommendations it may deem fit.
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to
refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters
which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of th e
Senators appointed to the sub-committee.
That the Committee be provided with all neces sary
staff, facilities and resources and be empow e red to
appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the
purposes of the Committee with the approval of the
President.
( 11) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to
day suc h papers and evidence as may be ordered by it,
and a daily Hansard be published of s uch proceedings a s take place in public.
(12) That, except
decides, its
public.
where the Committee by vote
hearings of evidence be open
otherwise to the
(13) That the Committee report to the Senate by the first
sitting day in 1982. (14)
(15)
That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee
has completed its report, the Committee may send its
report to the President of the Senate or, if the
President is not available, to the Deputy-President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing
and circulation and, in such event, the President or
Deputy-President shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
That the foregoing provisions of this Resoluti on, so
far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in th e Standing Orde rs.
238
24 September 1981
Select Committees - Appointment of Members:
That the Senators indicated, having been duly nominated in
accordance with the provisions of the Resolutions passed on 23 September 1981 be appointed members of the re s pective
committees as follows:
South West Tasmania:
- Senators Archer, Hill, Missen and Siddons
14 October 1981
That Senators Primmer and Coates, having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution passed on 23
September 1981, be appointed members of the Select Committee on South West Tasmania.
27 October 1981
attendance on Senator Chipp, the Resolution member of that
That Senator Siddons be discharged from further the Select Committee on South West Tasmania and having been duly nominated in accordance with
passed on 23 September 1981, be appointed a
Committee.
29 October 1981
That paragraph 13 of the Resolution of the
September 1981 establishing the Select Committee Tasmania be varied t o read as follows:
Senate of 23
on South West
That the Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible.
27 May 1982
( 1) That, if the Senate be
Committee on South West
first progress repor t -not sitting v1 hen the Select
Tasmania has completed its
(a) The Committee may send
of the Senate, or, if
act du e to illness
Deputy-President;
239
the Report to the Presioent the President is unable to
or other cause, to the
( 2)
(b) the Report shall be deemed to have been presented
to the Senate and the President or the
Deputy-President is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation; and
(c) in such event, the President
Deputy-President shall lay the Report Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
or
upon the the
That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution,
insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing
Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing orders.'
10 November 1982
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would
prevent such Senators as are members of the Select
Committee on South west Tasmania attending meetings of the Committee for the remainder of this period of sittings.
240
APPENDIX II
LIST OF WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
Allsopp, Mr L.B., General Manager, Smelting Operations, Comalco (Bell Bay) Ltd., George Town, Tasmania Amos, Dr J.J., Minister for Energy, Governme nt of Tasmania, Hobart Ashdown, Mr N.C., Director of Industrial De velopment, Hobart,
Tasmania Ashton, Mr J.R., Commissioner, Hydro-Electric Commission, Hobart, Tasmania Bamford, Mr J.H., Managing Director, Baldwin Transformers (Tas)
Pty.Ltd., Hobart, Tasmania Balcombe, MrS., Senior Research Officer, Energy Policy Unit, Premier's Departme nt, Hobart, Tasmania Barker, Mr R.D., General Mana ge r, Eletrolytic Zinc Company of
Australasia Limited, Hobart, Tasmani a Berglin, Mr C.I., Manager, Manganese Development, The Broken 3ill Proprietary Company Limited, Melbo urne, Victoria Blakers, Mr A., Randwick, New South Wales Brown, Dr R.J., Director, Tasmani an Wi lderness Society, Hoba rt,
Tasmania Brown, Miss K.E., Administrative secretary, Tasmanian Ab orig inal Centre, Glebe, Tasmania Burdon, Mr A.R., Principal Executive Officer, Electricity
Section, Department of National Development & Energy, Canberra Burmester, Convenor, Tasmani an Wilder ness Society, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Burton, Professor J.R., Armidale, New South Wa l es
Carington Smith, Mr O.F., Development Officer, Department of Industrial Development, Hobart, Tasmania Coleman, Mr H.E., Sydney Speleological So ciety , Sydney , New South Wales
Diesendorf, Dr M. Pr esi6ent-elect , Australasian Wind Energy Associati on , Canbe rra, Australi an Capi tal Ter rit ory Donnelly, Dr W. Centre for Resource a nd En v ironmental Studi es, Australian National Un i versi t y , Canberra, Australian Capital
Ter ritory Douglas, Mr D. W., Associate Commissioner, Snowy Hydro-Electric Authority, Coom a , New Sou th Wales Eshuys, Mr E., Exploration Manager, V1ctor &
Resources, Ltd., Melbourne, Victor ia Eve r e tt, Mr K.J., Kingston, Tasmani& Evers, Mr N.C.K., Se cretary, Premier's De partmen t an d Secretary to the Cabinet, Premier's Departrcent:, Hobart, Tas::,.a nio. Fitzgibbon, Mrs P. Ta smanian Counci l of Ch u r ch e s , fiobart ,
Tasmania Frankcombe, Mr D.W., Forest and wo od Produ c ts Ma nase r, Au s tralian Newsprint Mi lls Ltd. , Boyer, Tasm.ania
2 41
Gaskell, Mr W., Assistant to Commissioner, Hydro-Electric Commission, Hobart, Tasmania Gibson, Mr B.F., Chief Executive, Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd., Boyer, Tasmania Graham, Mr R., Moonah, Tasmania Harders, Sir Clarence W., representing the Australian Council of
National Trusts, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Harris, Mr C.S., National Liaison Officer, Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania Higgins, Mr I.A., General Secretary, Australian Council of National Trusts, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Hill, Mr D., Deputy Director, Australian Conservation Foundation, Hawthorn, Victoria Iles, Mr E.C., Executive Director, Tasmanian Chamber of Industries, Hobart, Tasmania Ives, Mr D.J., Deputy Secretary, Department of National Development and Energy, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Johnston, Mr R.G.A., Divisional Manager, Pulp and Paper
Production, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria Jones, Dr R.M., Senior Fellow, Department of Prehistory, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory Jones, Mr B., Assistant Secretary, De velopment Branch Departme nt of National Development and Energy, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Jones, Mr B.O., M.P., Shadow Minister for Science and Technology, Parliament House, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Keller, Mr R.J., Development Officer, Department of Industrial
Development, Hobart, Tasmania Kellow, Dr A.J., Lecturer, Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania
Kerrison, Mr G.N., Chief Electrical Engineer, Hydro-Electric Commission, Hobart, Tasmania Lambert, Dr G.A., south west Tasmania Committee (NSW), Sydney, New South Wales Langford, Mrs R.F., State Secretary/ Publicity Officer, Tasmani an
Aboriginal Centre, Glebe, Tasmania Lohrey, Mr A., M.H.A., Parliament House, Hobart, Tasmania Lowe, The Hon. D.A., M.H.A., Parliament House, Hobart, Tasmani a Mahon, Mr V.J., Information Officer Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania Mansell, Mr M.A., Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Glebe, Tasmania McLaughlin, Mr B.P. Chief Engineer, Australian Newsprint Mill s
Ltd., Boyer, Tasmania McNeill, Mr N.J., Senior Steam and Power Plant Engineer, Comalco Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria Meadows, Mr W.G.H.,Divisional Manager, Forestry and Timber
Di vision Assoc iated Pulp a nd Paper Mill s Ltd., Melbourn e , Victoria Merse, Mr A.G., Re search Officer, Department of Industrial Development, Hobart, Tasmania
242
Messerle, Professor H. Head of School of Electrical Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales Mitchell, Mr W.R., Chief Civil Engineer, Hydro-Electric Commission, Hobart, Tasmania
Morgan, Mr J.E., Group Technical Manager, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria Mulvaney, Professor J., Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
Nicholson, Mr R.B., Government Relations Manager, Shell Australia Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria Outhred, Dr H.R., Roseville, New South Wales Paisley, Mr W.D., Manager, Group Technical and Development
Division, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria Parsons, Mr L.C., Chairman, Chamber of Industries Energy Committee, Hobart, Tasmania
Rae, Senator Peter, Launceston, Tasmania Reece, Mr E.E., Glenorchy, Tasmania Reed, Mr G.K., Deputy Chairman, Victor Petroleum & Resources Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria
Richardson, Dr A.M.M., Senior Lecturer, Department of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Ridley, Mr R., State Secretary, Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, Hobart, Tasmania
Rowe, Mr K.C., Managing Director, Goliath Cement Holdings Limited, Railton, Tasmania Saddler, Dr H. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory Sanders, Dr N.K., M.H.A., Parliament House, Hobart, Tasmania Stewart, Mr J.M., General Manager, Comalco (Bell Bay) Ltd., George Town, Tasmania
Thompson, Mr P.X., South West Tasmania Project Officer, Australian Conservation Foundati on , Victoria Todd, Dr J.J., Lecturer, Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania
Turnbull, Mr c.s.s., Consultant, Business Association for Economical Power, Hobart, Tasmania Tysoe, Mr J.D., Assistant Secretary, Energy Economics Branch Department of National Development and Energy, Canberra,
Australian Capital Territor y Walker, Dr R.I. Executive Member, Business Association for Economical Power, Hobart, Ta s mania Watson, Mr R.J., Honorary Secretary, Business Association f or
Economical Power, Hobart, Ta smania Webster, Reverend D, General Secreta r y , Tasmani a n Council of Churches, Hobart, Tasmania west , Mr S.J., M.P., Opposition Spokesman on En v ironment and
Conservation wh itehouse, Mr D., Expl orati on and Mining Manag e r, Coal Di v ision, Shell Australia Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria wilcox, Mr M. Q.C., President, Australian Conservati on
Foundation, Hawthorn, Vict oria
243
APPENDIX III
LIST OF PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS WHO PROVIDED THE COMMITTEE WITH SUBMISSIONS OR OTHER WRITTEN MATERIAL
ANU Mountaineering Club, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Abbott, Mrs J., Sandringham, Victoria Adams, Mr R.N., Launceston, Tasmania Adelaide Bushwalkers Inc., Onley, South Australia Adelaide Ornithological Club, Millswood, South Australia Adelaide University Sports & Physical Recreation Association
Inc., Adelaide, South Australia Aikins, Mr D., Beaumaris, Victoria Akeroy d, Mrs L.V., Box Hill North, Victoria Akeroyd, Ms J., Euroa, Victoria Alexander, Ms L. & Lesslie, Mr R., St. Peters, South Australia Alvey, Mr J., Moorooka, Queensland Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwright's Union, Hobart,
Tasmania Anderson, Mr L.L., Rostrevor, South Australia Andrew, Mr R.C., Kensington, Victoria Animal Liberation, Sydney, New South Wales Ansell, C.H. & M.L., East Kew, Victoria Aquarian School of Yoga, Blackburn, Victoria
Archaeological & Anthropological Society of Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria Armstrong, Mr M.W.U., Mortlake, Victoria Ashenden, Mr P.J., We stbourne Park, South Australia Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Limited, Melbourne, Victoria
Aubrey, Mr D., Adelaide, South Australia Australasian Raptor Association, Clayton, Victoria Australian & New Zealand Scientific Exploration Society, Adelaide, South Australia
Australian Archaeological Association, Sydney, New South Wales Australian Committee for I.U.C.N., Sydney, New South Wales Australian Conservation Foundation, Hawthorn, Victoria
Australian Council of National Trusts, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Australian Mines & Metals Associati on , Hobart, Tasmania Australian Newsprint Mills Limited, Boyer, Tasmania
Australian Paper Manufacturers Limited , Gee ve ston, Ta sma nia Au s tralian Spele ological Federation, Grafton, New South Wales Australian Timbe r workers' Union, No.6 Branch, New Town , Tasma nia Aylen, Mr N., Heathfield, South Australia Aysom, Mrs A., Blacktown, New South Wales Bade, Ms J., Hamilton, Victoria,
Bailey, Mr J.M., and Thiele, Ms J., Como, Western Australia
2 45
Baker, Mr & Mr R.C., Prospect, South Australia Baker, Mr R.E., Orford, Tasmania Baker, Ms M., College Park, South Australia Bakewell, Mr c., Kew, Victoria Baldwin Transformers (Tas) Pty.Ltd., Hobart, Tasmania Balkau, Dr F., Glen Iris, Victoria Bally, Mr J., Moorabbin, Victoria Banks, Mr C.B., Brunswick, Victoria Baptist, Mrs M.B., Banyo, Queensland Barclay, Mr A., Belgrave Heights, Victoria Barmuta, Mr L.A., Caulfield South, Victoria Barnett, Mr P., Hectorville, South Australia Barossa Environment Society, Nurioopta, South Australia Bartholomaeus, Ms K., Weetulta, South Australia Bartlett, Mr M.A., Hawthorn, Victoria Beeston, Ms G., and others, Launceston, Tasmania Bega-Tathra Conservation Society, Tathra, New South Wales Beirne, Mr T., Chidlow, Western Australia Bell, Mr C., Blackmans Bay, Tasmania Bell, Mr D., Mitchell Park, South Australia Bell, Mr G.F., Hawthorn, Victoria Bell, Mr R.T., Horsham, Victoria Bell, Ms J.E., North Carlton, Victoria Benlow, Mr J.C., Stirling, south Australia Bennett, Drs., South Hobart, Tasmania Biggs, Mr J.B., Eleebana, New South Wales Biological Society of the A.N.U., Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory Bird Observers Club, Nunawading, Victoria Bird, Dr P.R., Hamilton, Victoria Blackwell, Mr D., Downer, Australian Capital Territory Blackwood & District Tree Preservation & Gardening Society,
Glenalta, South Australia Blakers, Mr A., Randwick, New South Wales Blyth, Ms J., Macleod, Victoria Boddington, Mr A.C., Parkerville, Western Australia Boland, Mr J., University of Adelaide, South Australia Booth, Mr D.R.C., Forth, Tasmania Botany Club, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland Bouman, Mr M., Ermington, New South Wales Bourke, Mr M., Lyons, Australian Capital Territory Bowden, Mr M., Moonah, Tasmania Bowling, Dr A., University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Bowman, Mr c., Magill, South Australia Boyce, Mr W.A., Eltham, Victoria Boyd, Ms K., Hamilton, New South Wales Bramsden, B. & Edmonds, M., Penrith, New South Wales Branxholm Sawmills, Launceston, Tasmania Bretherick, Mr c., Magill, South Australia Brightwell, Mrs A.G., Pt Clare, New South Wales Broad, Mr P., Uni versity of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria Broken Hill Propri e tary Company Limited, Melbourne, Victoria Brown, Dr R., Hobart, Tasmania Brown, Mr T., Rostrevor, South Australia
246
Brownell, Mrs J., Camberwell, Victoria Brownscombe, R., Dundas, New South wales Bryan, Dr L.R.A., Silvan, Victoria Buchanan, Mr G., Heathmont, Victoria Burke, Mr P., Nerrina, Victoria Burke, Mrs., East Malvern, Victoria Burrendong Arboretum Associati on , Stuart Town, New South Wale s Burton, Ms F., Hampton, Victoria Burton, Professor J.R., University of New England, Armidale, New
South Wales Bush and Mountain Walking Leadership Training Board of S.A. Inc., Millswood, South Australia Business Association for Econom ical Power, Hobar t, Tasmania Byrne, Mr G., Reservoir, Victoria Byrne, Ms L., Coleraine, Victoria Byrne, Ms L., Westbury, Tasma nia CSIRO, Dickson, Australian Capital Te rritor y
CWCV, Melbourne, Victoria Calvert-Smith, Mr S, Mentone, Victoria Camden Haven Conservation Soci e ty, North Ha ven, New South Wales Cameron, Mr D., Jackey 's Marsh, Ta sma nia Cameron, Mr P.N., Ballarat, Victoria Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, Adel a ide, South Australia Campbell, Mr J.A., Kensington, West e rn Australia Canberra Bushwalking Club, Canberr a , Aus tr alian Capi tal Te rritor y Canberra Speleologica l Society, Aranda , Aust r al ia n Capital
Territory Candy, Mr R.B., North Kew, Vi c toria Carolan, Ms P.M., Brighton, Victoria Carslaw Bindii & Beanie Briga de , Balmain, New Sout h Wa l es Carter, Mr G., Hawthorndene, South Australia
Catford, Mr A., South Turramurra, New South Wales Catholic Bushwalking Club, Sydney, New So uth Wales Central Australian Conservation Council, Al i ce Springs , Northe r n Territory
Ce ntral Hills Environmental Ac t ion Group, Little Hamp ton, Sou th Australia Chapman, Mr A., Raven s t ho rpe , Western Australia Chapman, Mr J., Melbour ne , Vict ori a Chapman, W.O., Doncaster East, Victoria Charman, Mr N., Clarence Park, South Australia Cheesman, Mrs s., Maldon , Vi c t or ia City of Hobart, Tasmani a
Clarke, Ms J., Dunkeld, Victoria Clulow, Mrs V.M., Trafalgar, Victori a Coa stal Protec tion As s oc iati o n Inc., Qu in n s Po cK, West er n Australia
Cocks , Dr K.D., O'Connor , Au st r alian Capital Territory Collard, Miss L., Carlingfor d , New South Kales Colong Committee Limited , Sy dney , New South Wales Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Lim ited, Tasman i a
Come ng Indu s tri a l Equipment Pty Lt d ., Piverwcod , Sout h Wales
Communist Party of Australia (Hob a rt Branc h) Compton, Mr H., Darwin, North er n Te rrit ory
247
Conservation Council of S.A. Inc., Adelaide, South Australia Community Research Action Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra Inc.,
Canberra City, Australian Capital Territory Cookson, Mr B. & Ms K., Dandenong, Victoria Cooper, Mr M.N., Hobart, Tasmania Cooper, Mr R., Rostrevor, South Australia
Cope, Mr G., Nunawading, Victoria Copley, Mr P., Leabrook, South Australia Corkran, Mr L., Paddington, Queensland Costigan, Mr T., Ashwood, Victoria Council of Social Service of Tasmania, North Hobart, Tasmania Counsell, Mr J., Ivanhoe, Victoria Counsell, Ms J., Ivanhoe, Victoria Cowdell, Mr A.W., Elsternwick, Victoria Cowles, Mr D., Highbury, South Australia Cox, Ms M., Lilydale, Victoria Coxon, Mrs A., Coleraine, Victoria Craven, Mr P.M., Essendon, Victoria Crawford, Ms 0., North Kew, Victoria Crescitelli, Mr 1., Hectorville, South Australia Cupit, Mr G., Carnegie, Victoria Curnow Family, Sandy Bay, Tasmania Cusack, M & S, Alexandra, Victoria D'Aloia, Miss., South Australia D. & T. Conservation Society, East Doncaster, Victoria Davey, Mr A., Grafton, New South Wales Davidson, J.M., Glen Waverley, Victoria Davies, Mr N., Launceston, Tasmania Davies, Mr R., Newton, South Australia Davies, Ms I.J., Kew, Victoria Davis, E. & s. and others, Ovingham, South Australia Davis, Mr G., Beaumaris, Victoria Day, Mr A., North Yelta, South Australia Day, Ms K., Fullarton, South Australia De La Rambelje, Mrs I.A., Black Rock, Victoria Dean, Mr B. & Mrs J., Red Cliffs, Victoria
Deed, Mr C.G., Bendigo, Victoria Delaney, Mr L., Hughesdale, Victoria Demmrich, Mr M., Magill, South Australia Dempster, Mrs R.M., Hamilton, Victoria Denholm, Mr B., Howrah, Tasmania
De nny, J.O.K., Lilydal e , Tasmania Department of Home Affairs & Environment, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Department of Industrial Developme nt, Hobart, Tasmania Department of Mines, Hobart, Tasmania De partment of National Development & Energy, Canberra, Australian
Capital Territory Department of Tourism, Hobart, Tasmania Department of the Environment, Hobart, Tasmania Des ign Centre of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania
Devonpor t Fi e ld Naturalists' Club, East Devenport, Tasmania
248
Diesendorf, Dr M., Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Dight, Ms R., South Yarra, Victoria Dillon, Miss W., Rostrevor, South Australia Dillon, Mrs A., Arcadia, New South Wales Division of Recreation, Education Department, Hobart, Tasmania Donaldson, Mrs H., Westbury, Tasmania Dorman, Mr & Mrs., Beaumaris, Victoria Derrington, Mr c., Sandy Bay, Tasmania Douglas, Ms F., Hawthorn, Victoria Douglas, R.E.M., Katoomba, New South Wales Dragun, Dr A.K., Australian National University, Canberra,
Australian Capital Territory Duncan, Mr A.G., Millswood, South Australia Duncan, Ms P.E., East Malvern, Victoria Dunstan, E.E., Heidelberg, Victoria Dunstan, M., Heidelberg, Victoria
Durre, Ms c., St. Kilda, Victoria Dutton, Mr I.M., Paddington, Queensland Dwyer, Mr P., Windsor, Victoria Eadie, Mr K., Drummoyne, New South Wales
Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited, Ro s eberry, Tasmania Ellemor, W.R., Wangaratta, Victoria Escott, Ms R., Heidelberg, Victoria Everett, Mrs J.M., Strathfield, New South Wales
Eves, Mr R., Kangarilla, South Australia Ewing, Mr P., Cottlesloe, Western Australia Farr, Mr A., Greensborough, Victoria Farrow, Mrs J., Bridgewater, South Australia Faulkner, Ms R., Taroona, Tasmania
Federated Miscellaneous workers' Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch), North Hobart, Tasmania Federation of Bushwalking Clubs of N.S.W., Sydney, New South Wales Federation of Tasmanian Bushwalking Clubs, Launceston, Tasmania Fellows, Ms R., Ashburton, Victoria
Fergus, Mr G., Highgate Hill, Queensland Fiala, N., Glenalta, South Australia Finnie, S.P., North Balwyn, Victoria Fizell e , Miss P., North Mackay, Queensland
Fizelle, Ms P., Kew, Victoria Flemming, Mr M., Tranmere, South Australia Flint, Mr C., Darwin, Northern Territ ory
Flint, Ms J., Torrens Park, South Australia Floyd, Mr P., Campbelltown, South Au s tralia Faden, Dr J.D., Belair, South Australia Fogarty, Mr M., Blackburn, Victoria
Ford, Dr R.J., University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Forelly, Mr F., Hectorville, South Australia Foulkes, Mr S., North Caulfield, Victoria Frank, Mr R.K., Clifton Hill, Victoria
Franz, Mr B., Kilsyth, Vic t oria Fraser, P., Klemzig, South Australia
Fricke, Mr R.C., Blairgowri e , Victoria
249
Friends of the Earth, Adelaide, South Australia Friends of the Earth, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Friends of the Earth, Perth, Western Australia Frochter, Mr H., Diarella, Western Australia Fulco, G., Rostrevor, South Australia Fund for Animals Ltd., Australia, Manly, New South Wales Galvin, Mr P., and others, Bendigo, Victoria Garvey, MS J.L., Toorak, Victoria Gee, Ms H., Buckland, Tasmania Geeves, Mrs K., Port Huon, Tasmania Gericke, Miss A. Rostrevor, South Australia Getty Oil Development Co. Ltd., North Sydney, New South Wales Gibbons, Mr G., Stirling, South Australia Gibson, Mr M., The Gap, Queensland Gibson, Mr W.L., The Gap, Queensland Gibson, The Hon, Sir Marcus, Hobart, Tasmania Gilfedder, Ms L., South Hobart, Tasmania Gilfedder, Ms T., Battery Point, Tasmania Gillian, Mr C., Lindisfarne, Tasmania Gillian, Mr C.A.L., Lindisfarne, Tasmania Go denzie, Ms J., Coogee, New South Wales God f rey-Smith, Ms A., Narrabundah, Australian Capital Territory Goe gan, Mr P., Lilydale, Victoria Goegan, Mrs K., Lilydale, Victoria Gold Coast Protection League, Miami, Queensland Goliath Cement Holdings Limited, Railton, Tasmania Gosford District Environment Foundation, Gosford South, New South
Wales
Gough, Ms A.J., Devenport, Tasmania Goulburn Field Naturalist Society, Goulburn, New south Wales Goulding, Ms J., Templestowe, Victoria Gouldthorpe, Ms H., Don, Tasmania Goven, Mr A.P., Ballarat, Victoria Graham, Mr C., Windsor , Victoria Gr aham, Mr R., Moonah, Tasmania Gramatopoulos, Mr N., Hectorville, South Australia Gr ay , Mr A., Montmor ency, Victoria Gray, Mrs J . E., Montmorency , Victoria Gr een , G.R., Jennings , D.J., Collins, P.L.F., Corbett, K.D.,
Thr ea der, V.M. & Bacon, C. A., Hobart, Tasmania Greene, Miss T Rostrevor, South Australia Greenhill, Mrs J., Sandy Bay, Tasmania Greenpeace Australia Inc., Adelaide, South Australia Greer, Mr B., Grassy Spur , Victoria Grogan, Dr R., Albert Park, Victoria Grosser, Mr I., Cheltenham, South Australia Grover, Mr D., Lane Cove , New South Wales Grulich, Mr A., Vale Park , South Australia Gulwon, Miss P., Morialta, Sou th Australia Gun s tone, Ms J.E., Kilsyth, Victoria
Ha ga r, Mr T., Belmore, New South Wales Hale, Mrs E., Malvern, Victoria Hands, A. & c ., Newtown, Victoria Hannagan, Mr M., Panania, New South Wales
250
Hannigan, Ms P., Hawthorn, Victoria Happy Larry Canoe Club, Downer, Australian Capital Territory Harries, Mr C., Hobart, Tasmania Harris, Miss T., Morialta High School, South Australia Harris, Mrs., Ravenswood, Tasmania Hart, Ms L., South Hobart, Tasmania Hartley, Mrs B.P., Greensborough, Victoria Hawes, Mr M., Battery Point, Tasmania Hay, Mr M.C., Dalkeith, Western Australia Hay, Mr P., Camberwell, Victoria Hazeldine, Mr E., Surrey Hills, Victoria Head, Miss K., Heathmont, Victoria Head, Ms L., Monash University, Clayton, Victoria Hennelly, Mrs D., Mentone, Victoria Hennigan, Mr K.A., Largs Bay, South Australia Herr, Dr R.A. & Davis, B.w., University of Tasmania, Hobart,
Tasmania Hewett, Mr M.R., Alice Springs, Northern Territory Hibbs, A.R., East Ringwood, Victoria Hildyard, Ms A., Cascades, Tasmania Himson, Mr A., Sandy Bay, Tasmania
Hines, G., Cowwarr, Victoria Hipkins, Mr M., East Perth, Western Australia Hitchcock, Mr D.E., Armidale, New South Wales Hobart Architectural Co-operative Inc., Hobart, Tasmania
Hobart Walking Club, Hobart, Tasmania Homan, Mr P., Eltham, Victoria Hoogstad, Mr B., Rostrevor, South Australia
Hooper, Mrs C., Applecross, Western Australia Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Branch No.1, Hobart, Tasmania Houghton, Ms s., Dingley, Victoria Hoysted, Mr P., Dynnyrne, Tasmania Humphries, Mr P., Burwood, Victoria Hutton, Dr D.R., Monash University, Clayton, Victoria
Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Ingles, Mr J.G., Launceston, Tasmania International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), Sydney, New South Wales
International Solar Energy Society, Canberra Section, Australian Capital Territory Jackson, A. E., Stonyfell, South Australia Jackson, s., Grose Vale, New South Wales
James, Mrs., South Caulfield, Victoria James, Mrs G., Hamilton, Victoria James, W.H.L., Hamilton, Victoria J ohnson, Professor B., University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasman ia Johnston, Mr L., Chatswood, New South Wales Jolley, Ms L., Mt Gambier, South Australia
Jolly, Mr C., Stirling, South Australia Jones, Dr R., University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Jones, Dr R., Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
Jones, G., Magill, South Australia
251
Jones, Mr B.O., M.H.R., Canberra, Australian Capitat Territory Jones, Mr I.R., Normanhurst, New South Wales Katoomba & District Wildlife Conservation Society, Wentworth Falls, New South Wales Keely, MrS. & Rose, Mr P., Swan Hill, Victoria Keily, Mr J., Black Rock, Victoria Kellow,.Dr A., University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Kelly, Mr B., Wantirna, Victoria Kelly, Mr D.J., Wollstonecraft, New South Wales Kerr, Mr P., Rostrevor, South Australia Khan, Dr & Mrs., Mt Pleasant, Western Australia Kiely, Mrs 0., Black Rock, Victoria Kiernan, Mr K., North Hobart, Tasmania King, Mr C.F., Launceston, Tasmania Klauer, Mr H.J., Seaford, Victoria Kleeman, Mr B.V., Flagstaff Hill, South Australia Lake, P.s., Monash University, Clayton, Victoria Lam, Mr J.C., Carlton South, Victoria Lamb, Mrs P., Palm Beach, Queensland Lamey, Mr G. & Ms J., Stirling, South Australia Lammerts Van Bueren, Ms D., Monash University, Clayton, Victoria Lancaster, Mr K., Launceston, Tasmania
Landers, Ms H., Fitzroy, Victoria Lane, Ms S.K., South Yarra, Victoria Langford, Mr M., Albury, New South Wales Latrobe Mountaineering Club, Ivanhoe, Victoria Launceston Field Naturalists Club, Hadspen, Tasmania Law, Mr G., Camberwell, Victoria Lawrence, Mr M., Derwent Park, Tasmania Lawson, Ms P. & Tedder, Mr G., Athelstane, South Australia Lello, C.D. & B.J., St. Kilda, Victoria Leonard, Mr M., Windsor Gardens, South Australia Lesser, Mrs c. & Mr A., Munich, west Germany Lewis, Mr D., University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia Lewis, Mr P., Clifton Hill, Victoria Lillywhite, Ms M., Mylor, South Australia Lilydale Council, Newnham, Tasmania Linnean Society of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales Lister, Ms A., North Hobart, Tasmania Lockhart, Mr T.J., Longford, Tasmania Locksley Bushwalking Club, Heidelberg, Victoria Logan, Ms J., Windsor, Victoria Lohrey, Mr A., M.H.A., Tasmanian Government Lord, Mrs G., Sandy Bay, Tasmania Lorenz, Mr M., Rostrevor, South Australia Lovis, Mr P., Highbury, South Australia
Lowe, The Hon. D.A., M.H.A., Hobart, Tasmania Lower Blue Mountains Conservation Society, Springwood, Ne w South Wales Ludwig, Dr J., Taroona, Tasmania Mace, Mrs N., South Yarra, Victoria Maciunas, K.J., University of Adelaide, South Australia Mackenzie, Miss M., Frankston, Victoria Mackerras, Mr M., Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
252
Madden, E., Launceston, Tasmania Maddock, Mr N., Rostrevor, South Australia Madge, Miss K.F., Magill, South Australia Maguire, Mr A., Unley Park, South Australia Mahon, Mr v., South Hobart, Tasmania Mahony, M.J., Launceston, Tasmania Main, Mr D., Clifton Hill, Victoria
Main, Mr R., Lambton, New South Wales Major, Ms J., Lower Templestowe, Victoria Maley, Mr B., West Leederville, Western Australia
Mann, M., Alphington, Victoria Mannall, Mr G., O'Connor, Australian Capital Territory Marquis, B.R., Lynton, South Australia Marsh, Mr D.W., Niddrie, Victoria Marshall, R.Q. & s., Waterfall Gully, South Australia Maryborough Field Naturalists' Club, Avoca, Victoria Maxwell, Ms B.D., Plympton, South Australia
Mayne, Ms C., Healesville, Victoria McAlpin, Mrs A., Horsham, Victoria McArthur, Mr G., East Malvern, Victoria McAuley, Mr I., Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory McCammon, Ms M., Mosman, New South Wales McCormack, Mr J., Windsor Gardens, south Australia McEachern, Mr C.M., Blackwood, South Australia
McGregor, R.M., Dunkeld, Victoria Mcinnes, s. & L.D., Victoria Valley, Victoria Mcintyre, Miss M., Beverly, South Australia McKaige, Ms M. and others, Murrumbeena, Victoria
McKenry, Mr K., Ainslie, Australian Capital Territory McKenzie, Mr R., O'Connor, Australian Capital Territory Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Adelaide, South Australia
Melbourne Bushwalkers, Melbourne, Victoria Melbourne University Mountaineering Club, Parkville, Victoria Melbourne Walking Club, Melbourne, Victoria Melbourne Women's Walking Club, St. Kilda, Victoria
Menzel, G., Brunswick, Victoria Menzies, R., Croydon North, Victoria Merrick, Mr C., Rose Park, South Australias Merrifield, Miss S., Magill, South Australia
Merrilees, Dr D., Manjimup, Western Australia Messerle, Professor H.K, Sydney, New South Wales Middlesex Conservation Farming Club, Roleystone, Western Australia
Millard, Miss K., Tranmere, South Australia Millard, Miss M.J., Kensington, Western Australia Milligan, Mr J., Nunawading, Victoria Minchin, c., Kensington Park, South Australia
Modistach, Mr I.C., Burnside, South Australia Molloy, Mr A., Glen Iris, Victoria Monash University Bushwalking Club, Clayton, Victoria Moore, Mrs L.B., Balwyn, Victoria
Moorhead, Mrs., Beaumaris, Victoria Moreton Island Protection Committee, North Quay, Queensland
253
Morison, Mr A.K., Shepparton, Victoria Morley, Miss J.R., Hawthorn, Victoria Morris, Mr D., Rostrevor, South Australia Morris, Mr P., Rostrevor, South Australia Morris, Ms H., Glen Iris, Victoria Morris, Ms J., Hurlstone Park, New South Wales Mosca!, A.M., Midway Point, Tasmania Mount Gambier Field Naturalists Society, Mount Gambier, South
Australia Mt Lyell Mining & Railway Co., Queenstown, Tasmania Mugford, J.S. & J.W., Campbelltown, South Australia Mulvaney, Professor, D.J., Australian National University,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Munckton, Mr M., East Melbourne, Victoria Municipality of Burnie, Tasmania Murvean, K., Battery Point, Tasmania Murphy, M.E. Nagel, Ms T., North Fitzroy, Victoria National Parks & Wildlife Services, Sandy Bay, Tasmania National Parks Association of N.S.W., Clarence Valley Branch,
Grafton, New South Wales National Parks Association of NSW - Tamworth Branch, New South Wales National Parks Association of N.S.W. Berrima District Branch,
Moss Vale, New South Wales National Parks Association of the A.C.T. Inc., Canberra, Australian Capital Territory National Parks Association of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales National Trust of Australia (NSW), Sydney, New South Wales National Youth Council of Australia Inc., St. Kilda, Victoria Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide,
South Australia Nelson, A., Rostrevor, South Australia Nevill, Mr & Mrs C.J., Oakleigh, Victoria Newbery, D.R., Hawthorn, South Australia Nicholls, Ms S., Kew, Victoria Nillsen, Mr C.S., Onley, South Australia North Coast Environment Council, Kendall, New South Wales North West Walking Club, Ulverstone, Tasmania North, Mr E.J.H., East Ivanhoe, Victoria North, Mrs D.M., East Ivanhoe, Victoria Northern Caverneers, Launceston, Tasmania O'Brien, Dr E.D., Albert Park, Victoria O'Brien, Miss K., Magill, South Australia O'Brien, Ms M., Mont Albert, Victoria O'Reilly, Ms P., Maida Vale, Western Australia Oakeshott, Ms S.J., Hawthorn East, Victoria Oakleigh & District Environment Group, Victoria Oats, Mr G., Glenalta, South Australia Officer, Mr K.L.C., Box Hill North, Victoria Ogilvie, Mr H.G., Box Hill North, Victoria Olivero, Miss F., Rostrevor, South Australia osciak, Mr R., Glen Waverley, Victoria Outdoor Educators Association of South Australia, Millswood,
South Australia
254
Outhred, Dr H.R., Univerisity of New South, Kensington, New South Wales Ovenden, Mr J.A., Hawthorn, Victoria Padgham, Miss L., Adelaide, South Australia
Page, D.C., Burnie, Tasmania Pahor, Mr G., East Bentleigh, Victoria Pannell, Mr E.R., Naracoorte, South Australia Pannell, Mrs C., Warrnambool, Victoria Pannell, Mr C., Warrnambool, Victoria Parrella, Miss A., Rostrevor, South Australia Pawsey, Ms E., Lindisfarne, Tasmania Paynter, Mr J.R., Newcastle, New South Wales Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd., Devenport, Tasmania Pembroke School, Kensington Park, South Australia (petition) Pennzoil of Australia Limited, North Sydney, New South Wales Pepper, Mr & Mrs A., Gateshead, New South Wales Phillips, Mr A., Hectorville, South Australia Picone, C.G., Hawthorn, Victoria
Pittendreigh, R., Blair Athol, South Australia Pledge, Mr N., S.A. Museum, Adelaide, South Australia Pocock, Miss K., Newton, South Australia Portland Field Naturalists' Club, Portland, Victoria Priest, Mr M.J. & Haggins, Ms D. D., Blackmans Bay, Tasmania Pritchard, Ms J., Hamilton, Victoria Prouse, M.M., Naracoorte, South Australia Quail, Mr K., O'Connor, Australian Capital Territory
Quiggin, Mr J., Downer, Australian Capital Territory Rackham, Mr C.A., New Town, Tasmania Rae, Senator Peter, Launceston, Tasmania Rallings, R.A., New Town, Tasmania
Rando, Mr S.P., South Caulfield, Victoria Ray, J.M., Merrigum, Victoria Rayner, Mr C., East Keilor, Victoria Rayner, Mr J., Parkville, Victoria
Rayner, Ms P., Coffs Harbour, New South Australia Reardon, Mrs M., Hope Valley, South Australia Reddy, Ms D. & Ryan, Mr B., Tighes Hill, New South Wales
Reece, Mr E., Glenorchy, Tasmania Reedman, L.A., Neutral Bay, New South Wales Reynolds, T.M., Lockleys, Tasmania Rich, Ms J., Healesville, Victoria Richards, Ms P., Bayswater, Victoria
Richardson, Mr A., South Oakleigh, Victoria Richardson, Mrs V.E., Frankston, Victoria Richardson, Vanessa, Adelaide, South Australia Rigg, Mr A.M., Doncaster, Victoria
Rimington, MrS., Clearview, South Australia Roberts, Mr C., Rostrevor, South Australia Roberts, Mrs M.A., Balmoral, Victoria Robertson, Mr P., North Hobart, Tasmania
Robertson, Mr R.C., Launceston, Tasmania Robertson, Ms V.E., Elwood, Victoria Ms B., Hampton, Victoria
Rohead, Mr A.B., Reservoir, Victoria
255
Rolls, R.F., Launceston, Tasmania Rooney, P.T., Hawthorn East, Victoria Rose, S.J. & V.L., Empire Bay, New South Wales Rossiter, Mr R., Bright, Victoria Rossiter, Mrs U.M . , Bright, Victoria Rowberry, Mr G.M., Glenalta, South Australia Rowe, Mrs R., Trevallyn, Tasmania Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Moonee Ponds, Victoria Royal Australian Institute of Parks & Recreation, Belconnen,
Australian Capital Territory Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory Ruddell, P. & A., East Bentleigh, Victoria Rusden Environment Action Group, Clayton, Victoria Saddler, Dr H. & Donnelly, Dr W., Australian National
University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Saddler, Dr H., Bennett, J., Reynolds, I. and Smith, B.,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Savill, M.J., Hyde Park, South Australia Scarlett, J . & K.J., Lower Templestowe, Victoria Scarlett, Mr G., Lower Templestowe, Victoria Scarlett, Mr J.D., Macleod West, Victoria Schaube, Mr C., Victoria
Schembri, Highett, Victoria Schneider, Ms R., North Adelaide, South Australia Scott, Mr R., Carlton, Victoria Scott, Ms F.J., Parkville, Victoria Scott, Ms T., Clearview, South Australia Scott, Ms T., Eltham, Victoria
Searle, Mr R., Bullaburra, New South Wales Sebastian, Ms J., Balwyn, Victoria Seed, Mr J., The Channen, New South Wales Semmens, Mr R.B. Mallacoota, Victoria Shannon, Mrs R.M., Taringa, Queensland Sharp, Mr F.W., Surrey Hills, Victoria Shaw, E.M., Mentone, Victoria Shaw, Mr R., Hove, South Australia Sheard, Dr G., Cooma, New South Wales Shell Australia Limited, Melbourne, Victoria Shelton, Mr G., Rostrevor, South Australia Sheridan, Mrs G.M., French's Forest, New South Wales Siliakus, Mr L., Tranmere, South Australia Simpson, Mr A.E., Glenelg North, South Australia Skinner, R., Muswellbrook, New South Wales Slinger, Mr P., Lilydale, Victoria Small, Ms E., Canterbury, Victoria Smith, Miss M., West Hobart, Tasmania Smith, Mr D.J., Montagu Bay, Tasmania Smith, Mr D. s., Brunswick, Victoria Smith, Mr G., Ivanhoe, Victoria Smith, Mr P., Launceston, Victoria Smith, R.G., Zeehan, Tasmania Smithers, Mr J., Camberwell, Victoria
256
Smithers, Mr R., Camberwell, Victoria Smithers, Sir Reginald and Lady, Melbourne, Victoria Smithson, Ms R., Rostrevor, South Australia Smyth, Miss A., South Yarra, Victoria
Smyth, Mr C.W., Doncaster East, Victoria Smyth, Mr J., Salter Springs, South Australia Society for Growing Australian Plants, Adamstown, New South Wales Society for Growing Australian Plants (Tasmanian Region), Hobart,
Tasmania South Gippsland Conservation Society, Leongatha South, Victoria South West Tasmania Committee, Hobart, Tasmania South West Tasmania Committee (NSW), Sydney, New South Wales Southern Caving Society, Moonah, Tasmania
Southern Districts Environment Group, Old Noarlunga, South Australia Southgate, Mr R., Alice Springs, Northern Territory Southwell, L.S., Camberwell, Victoria
Spaulding, Ms F., South Hobart, Tasmania Speleological Research Group, Nedlands, Western Australia Sperber, Mr C., Glenelg North, South Australia St Agnes Bushwalking & Natural History Club, Madbury North, South
Australia StClair, Ms R.M., East Malvern, Victoria St Francis Xavier College, Beaconsfield, Victoria Stabb, Mrs C., Frankston, Victoria
Stallwood, Mr P., Lorne, Victoria Standen, Miss s., Rostrevor, South Australia Stanthorpe Field Naturalist Club, Stanthorpe, Queensland Steiner, Mr A.J., Stonyfell, South Australia Stephens, Ms K.M., Fullarton, South Australia
Stewart, Mrs E.M. & Mr A.D., East Brighton, Victoria Stone, Mr J., Brunswick, Victoria Stone, Mr R.N., Boronia, Victoria Stone, Ms M., Surrey Hills, Victoria
Storey, Mr & Mrs., Koonya, Tasmania Story Edwards, Mrs M., Macquarie, Australian Capital Territory Story, Mr R., Deakin, Australian Capital Territory Story, Ms S., Deakin, Australian Capital Territory
Strappazon, Mrs A., Kew, Victoria Street, Mrs M., and others, Mt Eliza, Victoria Stynes, Mr D., Swan Hill, Victoria Sumner, Ms R., Macleod West, Victoria
Sutter, Mr G., Dandenong North, Victoria Swainson, Mrs E., Lower King, via Albany,Western Australia Swami Satyabodhi, Adelaide, South Australia Swanton, Mrs M.H., Elwood, Victoria
Sydney Bush Walkers, Sydney, New south Wales Sydney Speleological Society, New south Wales Tap Tap, Blackburn, Victoria Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc., Hobart, Tasmania Tasmanian Chamber of Industries, Hobart, Tasmania Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc., Ulverstone, Tasmania
Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Hobart, Tasmania Tasmanian Council of Churches, Hobart, Tasmania
257
Tasmanian Environment Centre, Hobart, Tasmania Tasmanian Field Naturalists' Club, Hobart, Tasmania Tasmanian Government, Mr H. Holgate, Premier Tasmanian Tourist Council (Inc.), Launceston, Tasmania Tasmanian Wilderness Society, College Park, South Australia Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Victorian Branch Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Tasman Peninsula Branch,Premaydena,
Tasmania Tasmanian Wilderness Society (SA) Branch, Adelaide, South Australia Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Westbury Branch, Tasmania Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory Taylor, Mr J., Harden, New South Wales Taylor, Mr J.W.K., Brighton, Victoria The Bush Club The Tree Society (Inc.), Claremont, Western Australia Thiele, Mr L. & Tesch, Mr M., Glen Iris, Victoria
Thomas, R.A., Deloraine, Tasmania Thompson, Mr A., Epping, Victoria Thompson, Mr G., Mount Wa verley, Victoria Thompson, Mr J.R., Ashburton, Victoria Thompson, Ms L.A., West Moonah, Tasmania Thyer, R.S., Blackburn, Victoria Tideman, Ms J., Leabrook, South Australia Tideman, Ms S., Rose Park, South Australia Tilley, Mrs E., Sandy Bay, Tasmania Todd, Dr J., University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Todd, Miss L., Hectorville, South Australia Toodyay Naturalists' Club, Northam, Western Australia Toowoomba Field Naturalists Club, Toowoomba, Queensland Town & Country Planning Association(S.A.) Inc., Adelaide, South
Australia Toyama, C., Beaumaris, Victoria Tremayne, Mr A., Glen Iris, Victoria Trendle, Mr M.W., Strathpine, Queensland Trew, Mr R., Colac, Victoria Trickett, Mrs T.E., Newtown, Victoria Tudehope, Dr J.J., Mildura, Victoria United Nations Association of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania Urquhart, Ms J., Toorak, Victoria Van Rossen, Mr M., Campbelltown, South Australia Vanner, Mr G.D., Greensborough, Victoria Vegetarian Society of S.A. Inc., Adelaide, South Australia Victor Petroleum & Resources Limited, Melbourne, Victoria Victorian National Parks Association, Melbourne, Victoria Village Community Co-operative Ltd., Prospect, South Australia Vining, Dr & Mrs R., Randwick, New South Wales W.A. National Parks & Reserves Association Inc., Maylands,
Western Australia Wall, Mr L.E., North Hobart, Tasmania Walter, Mr K.J., Riverton, South Australia Walters, Mr B., Cottlesbridge, Victoria
258
Wannon Conservation Society, Coleraine, Victoria Ward, Mr R.N., Kensington Park, South Australia Warner, Ms T., Eltham, Victoria Warringal Conservation Society, Rosanna, Victoria Water Studies Centre, Caulfield Institute of Technology,
Caulfield East, Victoria Waterman, Dr P., Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Watkins, Mr D., Valley View, South Australia Watts, D. & C., St. Morris, South Australia
Waud, Ms P.M., Sandy Bay, Tasmania Way, Mr T.H., Glenalta, South Australia Webb, Mr M., Newport, New South Wales Weinstein, Mr N.H., The Flinders University of South Australia
Wennersten, M., Brighton, Victoria Wentworth, Mr I., Kew, Victoria Werren, Mr G.L., Monash University, Clayton, Victoria West, MrS., M.H.R., Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Westmore, Mr D., Camperdown, New South Wales Whately, MrS., Kew North, Victoria Whatley, Ms V., Westbury, Tasmania
White, Dr R., Cascades, Tasmania White, Mrs P., Whittlesea, Victoria Whitehorse Canoe Club, Carnegie, Victoria Whyte, Miss S., Port Augusta, South Australia
Wide Bay-Burnett Conservati on Council, North Bundaberg, Queensland Wild, Mr c., Dingee, Victoria Wilderness Equipment, Werribee, Victoria
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Inc., Tully, Queensland Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Inc., Surfers Paradise, Queensland Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland,
(Maryborough-Moonaboola Branch), Queensland Wilkins, Mr J.K., Sandy Bay, Tasmania Wilks, Mr P.O., Camberwell, Victoria Williams, Mr M.W., Newtown, Victoria
Williams, Mr N., Mordialloc, Victoria Williamson, Mr M.G., Essendon, Victoria Wilson, Mr C.G., Plympton Park, South Australia Wilson, Ms J.G., Kew, Victoria Wilson, Ms K., Beaumont, South Australia
Wood, Dr R., Lane Cove, New South Wales Wood, T.J., Kadina, South Australia Woof, Mr P., Killara, New South Wales Wright, Mi ss C., Tranmere, South Australia
Wright, Mr I.W., West Hobart, Ta smania Wright, Mr J., Langwarren, Victoria Youth Affairs Council of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Yule, Rev DrS., Fitzroy, Victoria
Zehr, Ms J., Toowong, Queensland Zell, E., Hectorville, South Australia Ziegel e r, Mr D., Sandy Bay, Tasmania
259
ALTEO
ANM
APM
APPM
AusWEA
BAL
BHP
CSIRO
DEHCD
DID
DNDE
EZ
GL
GPC
GWh
HEC
HEC 1979 Report
kV
kWh
LTAO
MHD
APPENDIX IV
ABBREVIATIONS
Assessed Long-Term Average Energy Output Australian Newsprint Mills, Pty Ltd. Australian Paper Manufacturers, Ltd. Associated Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd. Australasian Wind Energy Association
basic average load The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Department of Environment, Housing and
Community Development (former Commonwealth Department) Department of Industrial Development (Tasmania)
Department of National Development and Energy (Commonwealth) Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd. general load Goliath Portland Cement Company, Ltd.
gigawatt hour Hydro-Electric Commission Hydro-Electric Commission Report on the Gordon River Power Development Stage Two
( 197 9)
kilovolt kilowatt hour Long Term Average Output magneto hydro dynamics
261
MIL
MW MW av. SWTC (NSW)
TPFH
TWS
Zeidler Committee -
major industrial load megawatt megawatt average South West Tasmania Committee (New South
Wales) Tasmania Pulp and Forest Holdings Pty Ltd . Tasmanian Wilderness Society Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generation and the Sharing of Power Resources in South-East Australia (1981)
262
APPENDIX V
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Assessed long term average energy output (ALTAEO) - a measure of the annual energy which can be supplied on average of several decades and is based on simul a ting the operation of the system using river flow information recorded over the past 50 years.
Average capacity - maximum annual energy output which can be maintained at all times under the ran ge of yield conditions the system is designed to meet.
Base Load - energy for that portion of the load of an
electricity system which is supplied on a continuous basis throughout a period of time.
Basic average load (BAL) - average system load excluding holidays and weekends.
Capacity factor - ratio of the average l oa d ov er a peri od to
the possible load over the same period i f it had operated
continuously at in3talled capacity.
Co-generation - the simultaneous production of electricity and process heat.
Conversion efficiency - the efficiency with which a thermal station c an convert the heat energy in fuel to electricity .
Energy - the work which electric power does in a given period
(ie power multiplied by time) and is measured in kilowatt-hours (or gigawatt hours)
26 3
Escalator, fuel price or construction cost - increase in cost in real terms (ie after inflation has been taken into account)
General load - combined energy consumption of all customers other than major industrial load customers
Gigawatt - 1 000 000 000 watts (measure of capacity)
Gigawatt hour - million kilowatt hours (measure of consumption)
Hydro system average capacity - maximum annual energy output which can be maintained by the hydro-electric part of the system at all times under the full range of catchment yields,
Installed capacity - the ma x imum continuous load that a generator can supply (usually measured in megawatts)
Kilowatt - 1000 watts (measure of capacity)
Kilowatt hour - 1000 watt hours (measure of consumption and usual commercial 'unit')
Load factor - the ratio of energy generated in a period to the
energy which would have been generated if the maximum load had been sustained throughout the period.
Major industrial load (MIL) - combined load of 17 major industries taking high voltage supply in large quantitie s under special contracts.
Major option- power station with aver a ge capacity greater than
about 120 MW.
264
Megawatt - 1 000 000 watts (measure of capacity)
Megawatt hour - 1 000 000 watt hours (measure of consumption)
Megawatt average (MW av.) - 8 760 000 kilowatt hours per annum
Minor option - power station with average capacity less than about 80 MW.
Nominal peak capacity - the maximum rate at which the system or a power station can supply electrical energy
Peak capacity (actual or effective) - the maximum rate at which the system or power station actually suppli es electrical energy
Peak load - energy for that portion of the load on an
electricity syst em which is commonly substantial but of short duration.
Power - the rate at which electrical energy is produced or consumed (measured in watts or, more conveniently, in kilowatts or megawatts)
Total system average capacity - maximum annual energy output which can be maintained by the total system (thermal and hydro-electric components)
watt - basic unit of power (meas ure of capacity or rate of doing
work)
Watt hour - amount of power ge ner a ted or consumed in one hour
265