INITRODUCTION.
This month’s article is the second in the series on ‘lessons to be learnt from the Wallaces Gap Solar Farm initiative’. It focuses on how the prospective developer (EDPR ) interacted with the community while seeking approval of its DA . If you agree or disagree with anything said in this opinion piece you are welcome to email your comments to Beyond the Spin. (tim@beyondthespin.online) Comments will be published in next month’s issue.<br>
Thank you
Source: EDPR website
THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING TO KNOW A NEW NEIGHBOUR
WHO’S OUR NEW NEIGHBOUR?
Those living in small country towns quickly get to know new neighbours – if only to find out whether they want to become friends or would prefer to remain, politely, distant from the new arrivals. If you live on broad acres, out of town, in a small and isolated community, the arrival of a new neighbour is of even greater interest-and significance; more significant because of the mutual dependence of bush neighbours on each other in times of need or emergency, more interest because you hope they’ll share the same or similar interests that attracted you to live a rural lifestyle.So when locals heard, out of the blue, a new neighbour proposed to build a solar plant (consisting of 10,000+ panels, giant lithium battery, roads and back up facilities) next to (and in full view of their properties) they wanted to find out who this neighbour was and how they planned to fit-in.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND INVOLVEMENT
The first opportunity to find out what was planned was on March 19, 2026 when EDPR/BCE held two public presentations on the same evening at the Braidwood Services Club. In total about fifty people attended those sessions. Each session consisted of a presentation by EDPRA (Energia de Portugal Renewables Australia) on details of the scheme followed by a Q&A session (conducted by BCE-Braidwood Clean Energy). No record is available of who attended those meetings. No audience ‘vote’ was taken….and no further meetings or discussions planned. That one night in Braidwood was deemed by EDPR/BCE as sufficient ‘community consultation for them to progress with their plans.
It’s relevant to note that by the date of those public meetings EDPR/ BCE had already lodged their DA with Council. So there was no way what was said at those public meetings did (or could) influence anything. Their DA was fixed, signed, sealed and delivered before those public presentations. The public meetings held were little more than tick-the- box exercises to satisfy official process requirements, not true attempts to invite or encourage real community involvement in the development.
GETTING TO KNOW YOU
Evidence that the above is a fair assessment of the situation is attested to by the fact that many of the people who would be most impacted by the solar farm (the people of Ballalaba and Bendoura) weren’t even aware of the proposed solar farm by March 19, nor had they been invited to attend the meetings referred to above. Most remained in the dark because they hadn’t seen the ad in the local paper or noticed an online post announcing the meetings. The public meetings on the solar farm at Wallaces Gap were over before most were even aware that a farm was proposed.
Indeed, in my opinion, many (if not most) residents in Majors Creek, Araluen (and probably even most in Braidwood itself) had little or no knowledge of anything about the specifics of the proposal – the size of the plant, its siting or an understanding of what it could and couldn’t deliver for whom under what circumstances.
When debate about the solar farm took off it quickly became clear confusion reigned. Some believed the farm would be Community owned, others expected it would supply the district with 100% clean energy all the time. Some expected lower power bills. Yet others assumed the plant would provide a bullet-proof ‘emergency’ back up power source if and when the main grid line between Captains Flat and Majors Creek went down because of natural disasters (such as the bushfires that isolated Cobargo in 2019).Many liked the idea of idea (ie. the ‘ concept’) of having a local renewables plant, especially a community owned one. Most also assumed because the word ‘community’ was bandied around so much that all residents in the district would be treated equally – and fairly.
In summary, opinions as to whether this DA was a good or bad one were largely based on assumptions, expectations, hearsay and gossip.
WHAT RESEARCH REVEALED
The first surprises were what the DA that went before QPRC and then the SOUTHERN REGION PLANNING PANEL did and didn’t cover,(1)It didn’t cover the islandable-microgrid (stand-alone emergency back-up supply) function at all. The DA before Council was solely about feeding the proposed farm’s output into the existing grid line mix. BCE’s support for this farm emphasised this emergency supply benefit although it wasn’t part of the DA. That is, I’d suggest, an example of overselling.
(2) The owner and operator of the proposed solar farm was EDPRA Pty. Ltd (Energia de Portugal Renewables Australia), a wholly owned subsidiary of one of the world’s largest energy companies. Nothing in the DA committed EDPR to any scheme for a local/community holding or financial stake in the ownership/operation of the facility. Indeed, subsequent questioning (by the Sane Solar Power Group) established (a) EDPRA intended to retain a controlling interest in the farm (b) for the expected life of the project (around three decades). Our new neighbour from overseas intended to be in our community for a long, long time. It claims not to be in the build-and-flip for a profit business.
NOTE: EDPR will not be the owner of the land on which it wants to build its plant – it will lease it from an existing landowner. The arrangement will be similar to agisting stock or renting. Leasing carries different and less onerous responsibilities. A lessee is less locked-in than a landowner. It’s easier for a lessee to ‘move out-and-on’ without remediation of the land they leave behind.(3) That EDPR didn’t come all the way from Portugal to help the people of Braidwood & Villages, (yet alone its would be neighbours in Ballalaba/ Bendoura), is highlighted by contrasting the company’s rhetoric with its actions.If you read EDPR’s corporate PR they claim to take great care to meet with the neighbours of their solar farms, to listen, consult and adapt so that all can live in harmony to mutual benefit. Sounds great. Sounds just the way things should be, ought to be.
Unfortunately, EDPR’s actions prove a far better indicator of their real motivations than their flowery words.
Here are some key facts,• No one from EDPR (or its consultants or supporter groups) contacted, discussed, consulted or negotiated with the people/residents surrounding their proposed solar farm about anything before finalising and submitting its DA.
• When questioned EDPR claimed to have tried to make contact with locals but were rebuffed. EDPR has presented no evidence of any such attempts to reach out. Every neighbour (bar one) around the Wallaces Gap site signed a statutory declaration/statement that they have never been approached by EDPR or BCE about anything at any time – either before they submitted their DA or since. The input of residents was treated as irrelevant, their interests ignored.
• Public meetings/consultations with people living in villages outside of Braidwood were also limited or non-existent. The people of Majors Creek (through MCPA) had to take the initiative to find out what was going on. Had they not taken the initiative they too would likely have been left in the dark, their interests also deemed irrelevant in the drive to meet the Government’s rush to meet its renewables time-table, no matter what • A reading of EDPR/BCE’s DA shows the developer offered their farm’s neighbours absolutely nothing – nothing at all by way of compensation for the negative impacts their plant could or would have on the enjoyment of their neighbours’ properties, lifestyles, property values, increased fire and water pollution risks. EDPR even advanced the fictitious argument that there’s “no evidence” the building a solar farm alongside a neighbour depresses the value that neighbour’s property! Any estate agent will, smilingly, rebut that ludicrous assertion. And, yes, statistics are available. But (as any rational adult would expect), they contradict what EDPR says.During the whole process, not one screening tree was offered, no indemnity insurance, nor a site remediation plan proposed. EDPR’s behaviour falls far short of living up to the virtuous ,community involvement ,equity and (in some cases philanthropy) promises the Company so strongly features in its brand advertising. It is true that in other developments in Australia EDPR has shared $ with community and other groups. Not so here.EDPR’s Wallaces Gap DA clearly demonstrates it sees itself as having no social obligations toward the local community in which it wants to embed itself for decades to come. Without the ‘emergency’ back up supply benefit this DA offers only few (and minor) benefits of any tangible kind to Braidwood & Villages.
• Several of the many ‘expert’ reports submitted by EDPR to support their DA proved inadequate in design, data sources and/or the soundness of the conclusions reached. These inadequacies are listed by both QPRC and NSW Planning Panel Refusal reports. Of equal significance is the fact that EDPR proved reluctant to comply with the requests made by planners for further reports and information. Such resistance to comply from EDPR illustrates the company’s aggressiveness and impatience to build its plant as cheaply and quickly as possible so it can start recouping its investment and start earning revenue.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The above is only part of the history and legacy EDPR will bring back to the table if it seeks to appeal the refusal of its DA (by appealing to the Courts) or modifying its DA (or submitting a new DA) to build a solar farm at Wallaces Gap.
They’ll be keen to proceed asap so as to gain access to the $ 3 million ARENA grant that’s sitting there waiting for them if they can move on to testing the ‘islandable supply’ concept. Their motivation is clear. It’s money, money for them. They won’t happily accept the umpires’ decisions and leave the district with a big hole in their pocket.
Given their past performance, it’s not difficult to understand why the people of Ballalaba & Bendoura won’t welcome EDPR back with open arms. EDPR has exhibited no good faith towards us or (I’d argue) the broader community as a whole. In EDPR’s eyes our community is little more than a source of taxpayer grants, government largesse and an ongoing and growing supply of bill paying consumers. It would be sensible to take nothing >EDPR says at face value. Any commitment EDPR makes would have to be in writing, and legally binding, before it should even be considered. Even then, it’s unlikely they’d be welcome around here. A leopard doesn’t change its spots. We know this company’s only too happy to write locals off as collateral damage if it can get away with it. EDPR has demonstrated it’s only too happy to put its interests ahead of its neighbours and the communities they purport to serve.
Renewables are great source of energy – and a boon to all – as long as their benefits and costs are equitably shared. Nobody’s gain should be won at the expense of others in a democratic community.
DE-NOS UMA CHANCE JUSTA O COMPANHEIRO!