developer, Administrators
60,575
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SW: →Despite approval, uncertainty over project remains: add HRL quotes and O'Brien
==Despite approval, uncertainty over project remains==
Despite the conditional approval by the EPA, there is considerable uncertainty over whether the project will proceed. Both Environment Victoria and HRL have flagged possible legal challenges to the EPA decision. Environment Victoria's legal challenge would most likely to centre on the EPA's decision to assess best practice energy production based on a benchmark of a brown coal-fired power station rather than including alternative energy sources.<ref name="Gearin"/> For its part, HRL has flagged that it may launch a legal challenge over the EPA's decision to approve one one 300MW unite and not both.In a statement, reported in the ''Australian Financial Review'' but not available on the company's website, stated that "Dual Gas has some significant concerns with the EPA Victoria-configured 300MW alternative."<ref>Patrick Durkin and Matthew Dunkley, [http://www.afr.com/p/national/vic_clean_coal_plant_left_up_in_0IraR5MSEJe1OyUwMZnbuO "Vic clean coal plant left up in the air"], Australian Financial Review, May 21-22, page 4. (Subscription required).</ref><ref name="No"/>
Even if the EPA decision survives legal challenges, the go-ahead of the project is by no means certain. ''The Age'' reported that all four main Australian banks -- ANZ, Westpac, the Commonwealth and National Australia Bank -- have stated that they are not involved in the project. Westpac spokeswoman Jane Counsel stated that "we will continue to consider financing coal projects in the future, but our focus is very much on supporting those projects that use cleaner and more efficient technologies and are making the transition to a carbon-constrained operating environment."<ref name="No"/>
''The Age'' also reported that federal government correspondence obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that in 2006 government officials believed that a plant smaller than 400MW would not be cost-effective. "HRL does not believe it can reduce the physical size of the plant," the advice says.<ref name="No"/>
''The Age'' reported that the Minister for Energy, [[Michael O'Brien]] "said the EPA decision meant Victoria could continue to use its vast brown coal reserves at a significantly lower level of emissions. But he added: 'The future of this project … is, of course, a commercial decision for HRL.'"<ref name="No"/>
==Citizens groups campaigning against the project==
