Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 8:32:54 to 8:39:27
Discussion regarding the cost and effectiveness of fish screens at Tantangra Dam to prevent the spread of invasive redfin perch.
Topics: Snowy Hydro, Animal welfare, Water management
Speakers: Dennis Barnes, David Pocock, Hon Murray Watt, Varun Ghosh, Unknown Speaker
I've got some questions about um fish screen fish screens at Tentangra. Um what's what's Snowy's uh Snowy Hydro's current estimate of the cost of constructing the Tentangra fish screens?
>> Uh I think we have a current view of around 80 to 100 million.
And does your modeling suggest that the screens would reduce the risk of red fin perch coming into the establishing themselves in the upper upper Mambai? I
>> mean our analysis says that the the risk is reduced but it's not an impossible event. uh we are engaged with uh department of planning at the moment on an alternative program that could have greater benefits to the fish population that we are continuing with the construction of this screens. uh but because the risk is not eliminated uh we we are engaged with DPID and you have to excuse me on the the the name of the department and fisheries on on what a more effective program could be
>> and can you give us some details of what that alternative program could be? I
mean, I I can do that on notice cuz it's it's been well traversed with the departments. Uh but it's quite a wide range of uh programs to support uh native fish populations.
>> And if you went with the fish greens at Tantangra, um would that construction prevent future upgrades of the Tantangra outlet to aid better water supply to the upper?
>> I'll say no, but I'll confirm on notice. >> Okay. I think I think the feasibility study uh recommended by the independent review panel would also traverse that question.
>> What are the other risks to um biodiversity and and um the ecology of the upper marbiji from snow hydro 2.0?
>> I mean the the upper morbid uh flows in 2.0 0 shouldn't necessarily be changed on the operation of 2.0. Uh it's a closed loop between Talbingo and Tantangra. Uh so shouldn't affect the upper modern picture. >> That would be in line with our current water license and operating rules. We're not Snowy 2. Perhaps a briefer way to say it is the operation of Snowy 2 does not change our water license
Um and then just tying off the um suoid review, the modeling I've seen suggests that getting to the 30% flows would be a fairly insignificant um reduction in Snowy's um capacity to generate electricity. Do you have a different view on that?
>> I think the short answer is it depends. uh although we generate electricity our primary role in the electricity market is reliability. So Dr. Swisser referred to the implementation pathways and if we were required to store water specifically for those flows at times when the market electricity market is at stress then it would have a significant impact on electricity reliability and snow is earnings but we believe there are implementation pathways to deliver the flows uh which minimize that and in fact there's some scenarios where uh there would No compensation required for the loss of earnings in Snowy Hydra.
>> Okay. And how will those details be worked out?
>> Well, I think our plea when the final report is issued is that there is a a a process of implementation detail that has to follow. uh the panel so far have understood this and been engaged on understanding the uh the the devil in the detail on implementation here.
>> Um one of the things that we've traversed um in the past is just how inflexible the timing of releases from you know despite um an update to the statement of expectations that doesn't seem to have um have changed the the reviews uh earlier issues consultation report concluded the deed had delivered inadequate environmental water allocations and poor inflexible timing of releases. Um, do you accept that and and do you think under a a I guess up updated arrangement that could actually be changed? I
>> mean, we work closely with New South Wales Water to provide flows as flexibly as the water license allows us, but the reality is we're just we're subject to these rules and we follow the rules. Uh I think some of the implementation pathways under the independent review panel recommendation would include more flexibility. One of our recommendations would be more flexibility.
>> Uh and so you're confident that the increased flows um in recommendation one the 30% flows can be achieved.
>> Well, fundamentally they can be achieved. It's a what consequence for electricity reliability and snowy's and we think there's an implementation pathway which minimizes that maybe even zero so they can be achieved at no energy market cost
>> and what about the cost to the river's will those two things align or
>> well that's why we think there's uh a lot of work on the implementation pathways
>> minister just on the timing of this I think the drought contingency for the upper marriage ends this financial year. Um is your government looking to have the implementation of of the updated um agreement in place for once that money's
>> Um I'm sorry, Senator, I probably need to rely on some of my officials in the water section of this department to be able to answer some of these questions. Um and again, they'll be here later this evening to be able to do that.
>> Thank you very much, Senator Pocock. Senator Henderson. Um,