Queensland Hydro Q&A: What it told government and when, how wildlife would be protected

After the delayed report into the now-scrapped multi-billion dollar pumped hydro scheme was released, questions swirled as to what the Miles government was told, and when. Here’s how Queensland Hydro answered.

View of the Pioneer Valley which would have been changed by the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro project's lower reservoir. Picture: Queensland Hydro.

After the executive summary of Queensland Hydro’s detailed analytical report into Pioneer-Burdekin was released, there were questions about timing, how the native plants and animals would have been protected, and more.

The 5000MW version of the project, which would have been one of the biggest pumped hydro systems on the planet was not “commercially viable” according to the people tasked with assessing it, an analysis which wasn’t given to the public until a new government was sworn in.

Despite that, two smaller versions of the project were feasible in the same place, and would have delivered a return on investment.

This is what we asked Queensland Hydro, and how a spokesman answered.

Was any member of the Queensland Government, minister, or staffer, briefed on Queensland Hydro’s ‘non-viable’ assessment of the 5000MW version of the project at any time before the caretaker period began?

No.

Queensland Hydro had not completed its detailed analysis of the Pioneer-Burdekin Project at this time. Queensland Hydro independently prepared the Detailed Analytical Report. Government agencies were provided regular updates on the progress of studies. Final conclusions and recommendations can only be made after detailed analysis of all the information gathered during the investigation phase. This detailed analysis was completed during the caretaker period so it was not provided at that time or prior to this time to either the then Government or Opposition.

When exactly did Queensland Hydro come to the conclusion the 5000MW project was unviable?

Final analysis of the options, and conclusion of all studies, was completed during the caretaker period, so it was not provided at that time to either the then Government or Opposition. The Detailed Analytical Report (DAR) for the proposed Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project was finalised on 30 October 2024. It was submitted on the day it was finalised.

Will Queensland Hydro rule out having had any discussions or warnings with any member of the Miles government the 5000MW version of the project would not be getting its approval?

The final conclusions and recommendations can only be made after detailed analysis of all the information gathered during the investigation phase. This detailed analysis was completed during the caretaker period so it was not provided at that time to either the then Government or Opposition.

Why was the DAR delayed from its expected delivery mid-year to the government. Was it the government that asked for the extension or QH, and why?

For a project of the scale and complexity of Pioneer-Burdekin, it was vital that the economic, environmental, and social impacts and benefits were the subject of comprehensive independent assessment by Queensland Hydro. On 22 March 2024, Queensland Hydro wrote to the Queensland Government seeking a date of the end of 2024 to complete the DAR and to finalise the evaluation of additional design configurations in order to ensure Queensland Hydro was providing the most robust analysis of an incredibly complex and large project. The government responded on 12 April 2024 supporting Queensland Hydro’s intent to provide the Pioneer-Burdekin DAR before the end of 2024.

Queensland Hydro’s investigations and detailed analysis were undertaken methodically to produce the highest quality Detailed Analytical Report (DAR) for decision-makers when they considered the proposed Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project. Upon completion, the DAR was over 6,000 pages, including all appendices. This included more than 2,500 pages of environmental technical reports and over 2,000 pages of engineering technical information.

Are you able to provide a breakdown of how the $14bn figure for money spent locally could be accounted for?

The DAR quantified the economic benefits that could be added to the regional economy. Economic outcomes were evaluated across a 30-year period from 2024 to 2054.

Gross Regional Product (GRP) measures the total value of goods and services produced in the economy, representing an aggregate of the value-add components of each sector’s production. GRP is a key metric in tracking the overall progress of an economy, estimated as the sum of consumption, investment, government expenditure and net exports in real terms.

Was Queensland Hydro in any initial discussions with third parties to gauge interest in investment and part-ownership?

No.

What levels of ownership would Queensland Hydro have been happy to hand to third parties?

Queensland Hydro had no discussions with third parties about private investment. On that basis, there is no comment to be made on this question.

The report notes endemic protected species such as the Eungella spiny crayfish, Eungella honeyeater and Eungella day frog might struggle to have suitable offset sites. What would ‘financial or in-kind’ offsets look like for those species which do not have other places to relocate to?

Queensland Hydro proposed to avoid and minimise environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. For example, the Project was designed to avoid impact on the surface of the National Park.

Biodiversity offsets are required by Commonwealth and State environmental regulators to compensate for any environmental impacts that cannot be avoided. Both the Commonwealth and State policies prefer direct offsets (such as creating new habitat or improving degraded habitat) over financial offsets. For example, the Commonwealth requires at least 90% of its offset requirements to be met with direct offsets. It allows up to 10% of the requirement to be met through other compensatory measures such as through research that demonstrates effective restoration of a habitat type would be considered by the Commonwealth.

The Queensland Government framework makes provision for financial offsets and uses the funds paid by project proponents to deliver high value conservation outcomes.

 Will Queensland Hydro release any of its studies into platypus in the area? Where would they have been relocated to?

Queensland Hydro is assessing the types of data that may have a benefit for future scientific purposes. Until this assessment is completed, it is not appropriate to comment further.

During the investigation phase, Queensland Hydro avoided interactions with platypus and their habitat. If

the project proceeded, Queensland Hydro’s commitment would have been to expand and improve platypus habitat and ensure the local platypus population was even healthier and more resilient than today.

Q: What specific changes to the Nature Conservation Act 1992 was Queensland Hydro seeking to allow access? Was the change in law needed drafted/planned for?

The Project was designed to avoid impact on the surface of the National Park. Most of the proposed above ground infrastructure, including reservoirs, was planned to be located on already cleared land (most of which had been used for agricultural activities).

If the project were to proceed, it was proposed that the waterway tunnels and power station would be constructed below ground under Eungella National Park (which is technically in the National Park (which extends “to the centre of the earth”).

The legislation allows service facilities such as transmission lines, gas pipelines and telecommunications towers to be built in National Parks subject to securing requisite Commonwealth and State environmental approvals. However, there is no clear provision to permit geotechnical investigations, which is a very low impact activity well below the surface of land. Geotechnical investigations typically involve drilling to assess underground rock conditions, with the diameter of the drill holes being about the same size as a takeaway coffee cup.

Queensland Hydro’s view was that rather than request for a subsurface area of the National Park to be revoked (ahead of a final design and/ or any decision in relation to the Project), the activity should be treated in a similar way to other service facilities (or other scientific studies). For clarity, that would not have removed the need for Queensland Hydro to obtain Commonwealth and State environmental approvals.

Beyond what is written in the DAR, Queensland Hydro did not request any amendment to the Nature Conservation Act 1992.

What were the terms of the 2023 Micromex study? How was that conducted, where, and by what method?

[Editor’s note - the Micromex study mentioned in the report claimed that “...regional stakeholders surveyed generally support the Project. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents to a survey undertaken in late 2023 were either somewhat supportive, supportive or very supportive of the project.]

For commercial and privacy reasons, it is not appropriate to provide all the specific details of this study. Queensland Hydro can confirm it included telephone surveys with Queenslanders in different regions, including in the project and broader Mackay region.

This photo by Mandy Tennent celebrated the cancellation of the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro project.

The report notes the project has the potential to be tolerated by local communities. Isn’t that bar low for something of this significance? Was ‘tolerance the best Queensland Hydro could hope for?

Queensland Hydro’s ambition was for the local community to be proud to host a pumped hydro that complemented the natural values of the Pioneer Valley, and ultimately observe us delivering on our commitments

in relation to the environment. Further, it was our intent to support the resettlement of any people that would be displaced by the project and ensure they were ultimately better off. We also hoped that locals would guide the specific project benefits that would deliver on their aspirations for their community.

We also recognised that it could be very challenging to secure the support of all stakeholders in the Pioneer Valley.