Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
It is nearly 30 years since Australia's first wind farm was built near
Esperance in Western Australia. Currently, there are 82 wind farms accredited
under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. They consist of 2,077
wind turbines with total installed capacity of approximately 4,180 MW.[1]
Appendix 4 shows their location.[2]
1.2
Current policy settings in Australia provide strong financial incentives
to invest and develop capacity in renewable energy sources. Most notably, the
Renewable Energy Target (RET) creates a market for renewables, requiring electricity
retailers to purchase a set annual amount of renewable energy certificates
(RECs).
1.3
Among renewables, wind is a major player in Australia. It has benefitted
greatly from the financial incentives of the RET. In 2013, wind sources
received nearly 60 per cent of the 14 million RECs.[3] That year, wind power
accounted for around 63 per cent of the total renewable generation supported by
the RET.[4]
1.4
It is anticipated that wind power will drive much of the growth in
electricity generation in Australia over the next 20 years. In South Australia
alone, proposed wind farm developments will nearly triple the State's existing
capacity from wind.[5]
Companies are seeking efficiencies through larger turbines. The Australian
Energy Market Operator (AEMO) noted in a 2013 report that several recent wind
farm developments in the National Electricity Market (NEM) have been built
using 3 MW wind turbines, compared to the 1.5–1.75 MW turbines typically used
in earlier NEM projects. AEMO noted that turbine manufacturers are continuing
to offer larger turbine sizes and that turbines up to 5 MW are expected in the
NEM.[6]
1.5
Given the scale of proposed investment and technology and continuing
government assistance for wind power, it is concerning that the industry continues
to face persistent and widespread complaint and criticism. As this inquiry
amply demonstrates, there is continuing disquiet about the lack of transparency
and consultation in planning processes, and the lack of rigorous, independent
research into possible health impacts of turbines. This report draws the
attention of the Australian Parliament and the Australian public to these
issues.
The inquiry
1.6
This is the second and final report of the Senate Select Committee on
Wind Turbines. The committee's interim report, tabled on 18 June 2015,
contained seven 'headline recommendations'.[7]
These recommendations were based on the evidence of the committee's 490 submissions
and eight public hearings held in Portland, Cairns, Canberra, Melbourne,
Adelaide and Sydney.
1.7
Since then, the committee has held a further three public hearings in
Canberra (twice) and Sydney. It has also put many questions on notice to
witnesses, the answers to which are on the committee's website.
1.8
As noted in the interim report, this represents a substantial body of
evidence. In terms of the detail of evidence and the range of issues covered by
submitters and witnesses, this is arguably the most complete Australian parliamentary
inquiry into wind farms.[8]
Appendix 1 contains a full list of submissions. Appendix 2 contains a list of
witnesses for each public hearing.
The interim report and its recommendations
1.9
The purpose of the recommendations in the interim report was twofold.
First, it was important to know more about the impact and the operation of wind
farms in Australia. The committee proposed establishing an Independent
Expert Committee on Industrial Sound (IESC) to research the impact on human
health of audible noise and infrasound from wind turbines (recommendation 1).
It also recommended making publicly available various data collected by wind
turbine operators, so as to facilitate the work of the proposed IESC
(recommendation 7).
1.10
The second purpose of the interim report was to strengthen the
regulatory governance of wind farms. To this end, the committee recommended
introducing National Wind Farm Guidelines, which each State and
Territory Government should reflect in their relevant planning and
environmental statutes (recommendation 3), and establishing a National
Environment Protection (Wind Turbine Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise)
Measure (NEPM) (recommendation 2). The NEPM is automatically reflected in
States' and Territories' statutes.
1.11
The committee also recommended stricter requirements for the receipt of
RECs. Specifically, wind turbine operators seeking RECs should have to:
-
comply with National Wind Farm Guidelines (recommendation
4);
-
comply with the NEPM (recommendation 4); and
-
pay a levy to fund the costs of the proposed IESC and a proposed
National Wind Farm Ombudsman (recommendation 6).
The federal government's response
1.12
The committee is delighted that the federal government has agreed to the
recommendations in the committee's interim report. The federal Minister for the
Environment has committed to:
-
establish, by 1 September 2015, an IESC to examine (among other
matters) the impact of wind turbines on human health;
-
publish research on the development of Australian methodologies
and frameworks in sound measurement and standards for wind farms to improve
planning and compliance decisions by state and territory authorities;
-
publish research on options for wind farm operators to maximise
transparency such as by providing information on wind speed, operational
statistics, operating hours and sound monitoring;
-
establish a National Wind Farm Commissioner to resolve complaints
from concerned residents about the operation of wind farm facilities. The
Commissioner will publish documents on:
-
the location of existing and proposed wind farms in Australia;
-
planning and environmental approvals in place for each wind farm;
-
RECs received by each wind farm; and
-
data on wind farm operators including operating times, wind
speed, power output and sound monitoring and emissions reductions in the
electricity sector;
-
seek agreement from the States and Territories to implement
National Wind Farm Guidelines as recommended by the IESC which each state and
territory government should reflect in their relevant planning and
environmental frameworks; and
-
seek to obtain agreement of state and territory Environment
Ministers through the National Environment Protection Council to develop sound
measures.[9]
The purpose of this report
1.13
This report presents evidence that further substantiates the need for
these recommendations. It highlights submitters' and witnesses' concerns with
the impact of wind turbines on human health. It identifies various concerns
with state planning processes that have facilitated wind farm developments, and
with inadequacies in the way that wind farms are monitored and through which
wind companies are eligible for RECs. In assessing the committee's evidence on
these matters, the report directly addresses key terms of reference relating to
the role of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the
Clean Energy Regulator (CER).
1.14
This report also addresses two terms of reference not covered in the
interim report, namely:
-
the effect on household power prices, particularly households
which receive no benefit from rooftop solar panels, and the merits of consumer
subsidies for operators; and
-
the effect that wind towers have on fauna and aerial operations
around turbines, including firefighting and crop management.
The need for a broader mix of renewable energy
sources
1.15
The committee acknowledges the need for Australia's renewable energy
sector to develop and prosper. It also recognises that a properly regulated
wind industry should be an important part of the sector's future growth.
However, the committee has been concerned that not enough is being done to
promote the development of other renewable technologies. The committee is
encouraged that the Australian Government has committed to consider various
options to further support solar technologies and develop a solar technology
information package.[10]
1.16
This report does not deal in any detail with the development of solar
technologies or renewable technologies other than wind. However, the report
does note that the RET is promoting an unbalanced market for renewables in
Australia, with an over-reliance on wind.
Science and public policy
1.17
The interplay of science and public policy is a complex matter. For
policy-makers, there are some fundamental but difficult questions in how
science is interpreted for purposes of decision-making. These questions
include:
-
how well the science is 'settled';
-
what were the assumptions and the methodology for reaching the existing
findings;
-
what new evidence would cast doubt on an existing consensus;
-
what is the likelihood that it will evolve, particularly in new
directions and with new outcomes;
-
what are the risks of basing public policy on 'the current
science'; and
-
what constitutes a satisfactory solution to these risks?
1.18
As the committee's interim report made clear, the committee believes
that the science on the possible impact of wind turbines on human health is
evolving. By agreeing to establish an IESC to research wind turbine sounds, it
is clear that the Australian Government shares this view.
1.19
This report highlights the evidence of several eminent acousticians as
to the audible and sub-audible sounds made by wind turbines and the possible
impact of these sounds on human health. This evidence is notable for several
reasons:
-
the subject matter is highly complex and technical;
-
there is disagreement among acousticians as to the correct
methodology for testing wind turbine sounds and for simulating the operation of
turbines;
-
while there is dispute among acousticians as to what has, and has
not, been scientifically established in this area, there are various areas of
possible scientific inquiry for the IESC; and
-
the acoustical evidence is only part of the
equation—multi-disciplinary work with medical researchers is also needed.
Improving compliance and the duty of care
1.20
Many wind power companies have engaged constructively with this inquiry,
making written and verbal submissions. They have noted their efforts to connect
with, and contribute to, their local community. They have also noted that they
are generally compliant with current laws. But does compliance adequately meet
their 'duty of care' to the community? Does compliance alone mean that wind
companies have a 'social licence' to operate?
1.21
The committee makes a distinction between a wind company meeting
compliance and its 'duty of care': the second is broader than the first. Wind
executives seemed to believe that existing standards represented the limits of
the company's 'duty of care'. Pacific Hydro executive, Mr Andrew Richards, told
the committee that the company's initiative to fund the Cape Bridgewater study
with residents affected by its turbines was an effort '...to try and understand
why a compliant wind farm, with current regulations, is still creating
complaints of that nature...'[11]
He added:
We are reliant on the standards to meet our duty of care and
to ensure that they are operating within parameters. As far as our duty of care
is concerned, again, I point to the report that we have funded to try to
understand this issue better. There was nothing in that report, in our view,
that was actionable beyond what we have currently done.[12]
1.22
In this context, the committee reiterates two points made in its interim
report. The first is that there are considerable gaps in understanding about
the impact of wind turbines on human health. The second point is that there is
a regulatory lag in the wind sector. The sector has to date avoided some of the
regulations, guidelines and frameworks that apply to other energy producing
sectors. The recommendations in the interim report reflect the committee's view
that it is time that the wind sector 'caught up'.
1.23
The committee believes the higher bar set by implementing the
recommendations in the interim report will improve public confidence in how the
sector operates. Importantly, however, regulation and oversight will not
absolve wind power companies from a continuing duty of care.
1.24
This inquiry has also highlighted that a duty of care exists for
government and regulators. The medical dictum, primum non nocere,[13]
should also apply to governments, particularly where the effect of investments
on community health and safety is uncertain. As this report notes, submitters
and witnesses have complained that the NHMRC, the CER and State Environment
Protection Authorities have abrogated their duty of care.[14]
Acknowledgements
1.25
The committee is grateful to all the individuals and organisations that
have made a submission and provided verbal evidence to this inquiry. It
acknowledges that a decision to become involved in a parliamentary committee
inquiry of this nature can be difficult to make. For many rural communities,
wind farm developments have been emotive community issues and decisions to
speak out either in favour or in opposition to a development can strain and
even break relationships.
A note on procedure
1.26
The committee has, throughout this inquiry, provided information to
submitters and witnesses on procedural matters. In written evidence to
prospective witnesses and at public hearings, the Committee Chair has routinely
drawn attention to the following privilege resolutions:
A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat
of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind,
or by other improper means, influence another person in respect of any evidence
given or to be given before the Senate or a committee, or induce another person
to refrain from giving such evidence.[15]
A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or
deprive of any benefit, another person on account of any evidence given or to
be given before the Senate or a committee.[16]
1.27
The committee reiterates that these actions may be considered contempt
of the Senate. It may constitute a criminal offence under Section 12 of the Parliamentary
Privileges Act 1987.
1.28
The committee also highlights the following advice from the Clerk of the
Senate to the 2011 inquiry into the impact of wind farms:
If a person who is covered by a confidentiality provision in
an agreement gives evidence to a parliamentary committee about the contents of
that agreement, they cannot be sued for breaching that confidentiality
agreement. If they are subject to any penalty, threat or intimidation as a
consequence of their having given evidence to a committee, Privilege Resolution
1(18) provides that a committee must inquire into the circumstances, ascertain
the facts and, if those facts disclose that a person may have been improperly
influenced or subject to or threatened with penalty of injury in respect of
their evidence, the committee shall report the matter to the Senate. The Senate
may then deal with the matter as a potential contempt which may attract
penalties including fines and imprisonment. The action may be prosecuted as an
offence under section 12 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.[17]
1.29
While the committee itself will cease operating upon tabling of this
report, the Senate and its Privilege Committee have the capacity to examine
matters of contempt relating to the evidence that has been received by the
committee.
Structure of this report
1.30
This report has seven chapters:
-
chapter 2 focuses on the role and the capacity of the National
Health and Medical Research Council to advise on the possible impacts of wind
turbines on human health. It presents the view of many contributors to this
inquiry that the NHMRC's processes and findings to date have been flawed;
-
chapter 3 examines issues relating to the planning processes for
wind turbine developments including:
-
current planning processes in the various State jurisdictions;
-
standards for community engagement and consultation at each stage
of the application and development process;
-
the capacity of local councils to implement a robust planning
approval process for wind farms; and
-
the need for national wind farm guidelines;
-
chapter 4 looks at the current standards for monitoring noise and
environmental impacts of wind farms in Australia. It is interested in:
-
the current role of State Governments and local councils in
monitoring noise;
-
the view of local Councils and State Governments on their monitoring
responsibilities;
-
the role of the CER; and
-
the need to improve the system and the funding to monitor wind
farm operations.
-
chapter 5 examines the effect that wind turbines and wind towers have
on fauna and aerial operations around turbines, including firefighting and crop
management;
-
chapter 6 presents the committee's views and recommendations on research
into the impact of wind turbines on human health (chapter 2), the processes for
planning wind farm developments and engaging with communities on these plans
(chapter 3), and systems for monitoring and ensuring compliance (chapters 4 and
5); and
-
chapter 7 considers various issues relating to the first term of
reference including:
-
how the RET supports wind power and the impact of the RET on
wholesale and retail prices;
-
the impact of renewables, and wind energy in particular, on
retail prices;
-
the merit of consumer subsidies for wind farm operators; and
-
the evidence on the impact of wind power on wholesale and retail
electricity prices and the merit of providing RECs.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page