Snowy HYDRO 2.0
Environmental Impact STATEMENT CRITIQUE
Background information
Project Description
Overview of the Snowy 2.0 development project
Snowy Hydro Limited (Snowy Hydro) proposes the development of Snowy 2.0, which is a large-scale pumped hydro-electric storage and generation project within the existing Snowy Mountains Scheme in Australia.
Snowy 2.0 will link the existing Tantangara Dam and the Talbingo Dam within the Snowy scheme through a series of underground tunnels, with the construction of a new hydro-electric power station underground. Through this expansion, Snowy Hydro attempts to increase power generation and storage capacity. It aims to generate a further 2,000 MW of renewable energy per 175 hours at full capacity – enough to power an additional 3 million homes for a week.
​
This project has been deemed as critical state significant infrastructure and the exploratory works were approved in 2019. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was submitted in July 2019 and if approved, construction will begin mid-2020.
Location
Significance
Snowy 2.0 is considered critical to underpinning system security and reliability as Australia transitions to a decarbonized economy. As a result, Snowy 2.0 was declared a State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) and Critical State Significant Infrastructure (CSSI) by the former NSW Minister for Planning under Part 5 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and is defined as CSSI in clause 9 of Schedule 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP). CSSI is any infrastructure that is deemed by the NSW Minister to be essential for the State for economic, environmental or social reasons. An application for CSSI must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement (EIS).
​
Snowy 2.0 is claimed to ensure the stability and reliability of the National Electricity Market even during prolonged weather events. In addition to this, it makes available on-demand at critical times of peak demand.
The Snowy 2.0 project is located in the Snowy Mountains, in Kosciuszko National Park; found near the New South Wales-Victoria border, Australia.
Main Works disturbance area
EIS REVIEW
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public consultation is an important stage in the EIS process in order to assess and address public concerns and receive feedback.
​
The Snowy 2.0 EIS was exhibited to the public on the 26th of September 2019 for a period of 42 days. This exhibition was done in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act and EP&A Regulation.
​
The public was provided a digital EIS summary and interactive map during this exhibition period, with 4 exhibition locations receiving printed copies of the full EIS report.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Submissions:
​
The public exhibition period resulted in a total of 201 submissions. The table below, from the Snowy 2.0 Response to Submissions report, details the sources and contents of these submissions.
​
Of these submissions, 5% supported the project, 73% opposed the project, and 22% provided commentary. 25% of submitters were local, and 49% of local submitters opposed the project, 43% provided commentary and 8% supported the project.
​
Majority of the concerns raised by submitters belonged to the categories below, as outlined by the Response to Submissions report:
​
• need and justification of the project
• project design
• environmental assessment and approvals process
• water
• aquatic ecology
• economics
​
Specifically, most concerns were related to impacts on and disturbance to Kosciuszko National Park, the merits of the project, alternatives to the project, aquatic biosecurity, groundwater drawdown impacts, and assessment approval and compliance.
Submitters in support of the project cited economic benefits and favor for renewable energy projects over fossil fuels.
​
​
Response to Submissions:
​
Following a review of the submissions, the project responded with the following project refinements:
​
• 62% reduction in disturbance area
• refinement of the management of excavated material, by changing excavated rock emplacement locations, reduction in the amount of excavated material placed within reservoirs, stricter guidelines for placement of excavated material into reservoirs to improve water quality, and introducing the use of excavated soil for geomorphic landforming
• reduction in traffic volume
• inclusion of a groundwater model simulating inflow with applied mitigation
​
​
​
​
Refinements to the project seem to have made significant changes in certain project impacts, however, there are significant concerns with the public consultations for this project.
​
The submissions were few (only 201), and some of the submissions submitted as commentary additionally provided the submitter’s opinion of the project, however, these submissions remained classified as commentary as if they were all neutral. Thus, opposition to the project may be greater than the report declares, making the report disingenuous. For example, 43% of local submitters provided commentary, versus 49% opposed and 8% in support, however, if any of those 43% of submitters also stated their support or opposition for the project, that would make these percentages dishonest.
​
This is a significant problem when bearing in mind the considerable public opposition to the project. With this significant opposition, further public consultation should have gone forward to accumulate more than 201 submissions and more effort put into looking at alternatives would have given public concerns a stronger role in the decision process. As such, it does not seem as though public opinion has any impact on the continuation of the project.
Critique
Table: Summary of Submissions
About us
McGill University students studying environmental impact assessments
Gayara
Emily
Zach
Hayley
Sufyan
Claudia
BA & BSc in Sustainability, Science and Society
BSc in Environmental Biology (Wildlife Biology)
​
Composed critique for the Public Consultation and Water and Flood Risk Assessments:
Appendices J & K
BAES in Environment and Sustainable Food Production
Composed critique for the Excavated Rock Placement and Geology Assessments: Appendices L & O
BSc in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Melbourne)
Composed critique for the Contaminants, Biodiversity, Aquatic Ecology, and Land and Soil Assessments: Appendices M & N
BSc in Environmental Biology (Wildlife Biology)
Composed critique for the Historic Heritage, Social Impact and Public and Worker Risk Assessments:
Appendices P, U, W, X
BSc Environment (Biodiversity & Conservation)
​
Composed critique for the Traffic, Noise, Aesthetic, Air Quality and Bushfire Assessments: Appendices Q, R, S, T, V
Composed critique for the Appendices B-I, Y (Proposed Works, Stakeholder Engagements, Economics, Mitigation, Alternatives and Rehabilitation Assessments)