South Australia Infrastructure Report Card 2010

www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ircsa

South Australia Infrastructure Report Card 2010 ISBN 978-0858259546 Š Engineers Australia, 2010, June All rights reserved. Other than brief extracts, no part of this publication may be produced in any form without the written consent of the publisher.

All Report Cards can be downloaded from www.engineersaustralia.org.au.

Acknowledgements This publication was only possible with the support of members of Engineers Australia, other building and infrastructure professionals, and representatives from government departments, industry and business and professional associations.

South Australian Infrastructure Report Card Committee Doug Gillott FIEAust CPEng (Committee Chair) Jeff Walsh FIEAust CPEng Kim Read OAM FIEAust CPEng (Ret) Mark Gobbie FIEAust CPEng EngExec Dr David Cruickshanks-Boyd FIEAust EngExec Report Card contributors David Alm FIEAust CPEng Rene Arens FIEAust CPEng Ian Coat MIEAust CPEng Dr Phil Crawley FIEAust CPEng Borvin Kracman FIEAust CPEng Duncan McLeod MIPENZ MIEAust CPEng Phil Motteram MIEAust CPEng Phil Verco RPEQ FIEAust CPEng South Australian Division project staff Caroline Argent, Executive Director Sarah Carey, Deputy Director National Project Director Project Director: Leanne Hardwicke, Director, National and International Policy, Engineers Australia Consultant Principal Author: Athol Yates MIEAust, Australian Security Research Centre Project Team: Professor Priyan Mendis FIEAust CPEng, Henry Pike, Barbara Coe, Jacinta Nelligan, Trudy Southgate and Minh Duc Nguyen

Engineers Australia South Australia Division Level 11, 108 King William Street Adelaide SA 5000 Tel: 08 8202 7100 Fax: 08 8211 7702 www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sa

Australian Security Research Centre International Affairs House Level 1 32 Thesiger Court Deakin ACT 2605 Tel: 02 6161 5143 Fax: 02 6161 5144 www.securityresearch.org.au

CONTENTS CommuniquĂŠ............................................................................................................... i Ratings summary ...................................................................................................... v Overview..................................................................................................................... 1 Rating process ..........................................................................................................................1 State-wide issues ......................................................................................................................2 Cross sector challenges ............................................................................................................3

Transport .................................................................................................................... 7 1

Roads .................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

2

Rail ......................................................................................................................... 25 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

3

Summary .........................................................................................................................25 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................25 Performance ....................................................................................................................36 Future challenges ............................................................................................................39 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................40

Ports ...................................................................................................................... 41 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

4

Summary .........................................................................................................................13 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................14 Performance ....................................................................................................................19 Future challenges ............................................................................................................23 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................24

Summary .........................................................................................................................41 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................41 Performance ....................................................................................................................51 Future challenges ............................................................................................................52 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................52

Airports ................................................................................................................. 53 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Summary .........................................................................................................................53 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................53 Performance ....................................................................................................................60 Future challenges ............................................................................................................63 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................63

Water ........................................................................................................................ 65 5

Potable water ........................................................................................................ 71 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Summary .........................................................................................................................71 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................71 Performance ....................................................................................................................81 Future challenges ............................................................................................................84 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................85

Contents

6

Wastewater............................................................................................................ 87 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

7

Stormwater .......................................................................................................... 101 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

8

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 87 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................... 87 Performance ................................................................................................................... 95 Future challenges ........................................................................................................... 99 Report Card rating .......................................................................................................... 99 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 101 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 101 Performance ................................................................................................................. 110 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 112 Report Card rating ........................................................................................................ 113

Irrigation .............................................................................................................. 115 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 115 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 115 Performance ................................................................................................................. 122 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 122 Report Card rating ........................................................................................................ 123

Energy .................................................................................................................... 125 9

Electricity ............................................................................................................ 129 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

10

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 129 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 130 Performance ................................................................................................................. 143 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 148 Report Card Rating ....................................................................................................... 149

Gas....................................................................................................................... 151 10.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 151 10.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 151 10.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 159 10.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 163 10.5 Report Card Rating ...................................................................................................... 163

Telecommunications ............................................................................................ 165 11.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 165 11.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 166 11.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 178 11.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 186 11.5 Report Card Rating ....................................................................................................... 186

Appendices............................................................................................................ 187 Appendix A: Rating methodology ............................................................................... 188 Appendix B: Units and acronyms ................................................................................ 190 Appendix C: Glossary .................................................................................................. 191 Appendix D: References .............................................................................................. 195

COMMUNIQUÉ South Australia‘s economic, social and environmental viability depends on the adequacy of its infrastructure.

In 2005, Engineers Australia took the initiative to raise community awareness about the importance of infrastructure by producing the 2005 South Australian Infrastructure Report Card. The Report Card gave a strategic overview of the important infrastructure sectors and independently assessed the fitness for purpose of South Australia‘s economic infrastructure. The Report Card found that much of the infrastructure was not in good condition.

We have again examined the state of our infrastructure to see what progress has been made and what needs to occur so that South Australia can live up to its vision to be prosperous, environmentally rich and culturally stimulating, while offering its citizens every opportunity to live well and succeed.

South Australia‘s infrastructure is stressed. Improvements and additions are necessary to meet our current or anticipated future needs. There are particular challenges to the provision of infrastructure in South Australia, such as the size of our regional areas with low population densities, and meeting the needs of a growing mineral resources sector.

Geographic barriers around Adelaide restrict growth in some directions and low rainfall requires a diversity of water sources.

The 2010 Report Card recognises the considerable improvement in the level of strategic planning this decade, as well as improvement in integrated decision making between government entities. However, significant new investment in infrastructure is needed to meet existing and projected demand. As well, sufficient attention has not been given to including sustainability in the policies and strategies that shape cities, towns and regions in South Australia.

Some major road construction projects have been initiated recently, including the Northern and Port River expressways and the duplication of the Sturt Highway between Gawler and Daveyston. However, road congestion remains an issue, as does the quality of local government roads and bridges. There is also a significant backlog of road maintenance that must be addressed.

The start of the renewal of Adelaide‘s public transport network is most welcome, as is the replacement of tram and train rolling stock. This will need long term funding to maintain a reasonable standard.

Existing port infrastructure is in a reasonable condition because of recent projects such as the deepening of the shipping channel and the redevelopment of the passenger terminal in Port Adelaide‘s Outer Harbour. However, there is an urgent need to provide additional port infrastructure in regional South Australia to support the development of our mineral resources sector. The construction of Terminal One at Adelaide Airport is a major

i

CommuniquĂŠ

improvement since 2005. Maintaining the financial viability of regional airports will be an issue for the future.

Water infrastructure is in satisfactory shape with the exception of stormwater. We have seen the introduction of an integrated approach to water management, the commencement of construction of the desalination plant and a significant increase in the use of recycled water, which will all improve water supply for the State. The efficiency of irrigation infrastructure has been increased, together with improvements in rural water supply pipelines and construction of salt interception schemes. There have been some projects undertaken to improve stormwater infrastructure, but a number of areas in suburban Adelaide remain flood prone.

Electricity and gas infrastructure are rated well and there is sufficient generation capacity to meet current demand. There have been a number of significant developments, particularly with regard to the construction of wind farms and two gas transmission pipelines. Renewing aging electricity transmission infrastructure will need to be high on the agenda in the future in order to meet growing consumer demand, the requirements of the renewable energy sector, and the changing energy demands likely under a carbon constrained power generation regime.

Telecommunications infrastructure is only adequate. The success of the Broadband Development Fund is recognised, but many black spots remain for broadband and mobile phone coverage.

Ratings are given below for the current and past South Australian and National Report Cards.

Infrastructure Type

ii

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Roads Overall National roads State roads Local roads

CC C D

Not rated C CD

C C+ C C-

Not rated C CD

Rail

C

C ARTC B- Metropolitan D Regional

C-

D-

Ports

B-

Not rated

C+

B

Airports

B-

Not rated

B

B

Potable water

B

B- Metropolitan C Non-metropolitan

B-

C

Wastewater

B-

C+ Metropolitan C- Non-metropolitan

C+

C-

Stormwater

D

D

C-

D

Irrigation

C+

Not rated

C-

D-

Electricity

B-

B-

C+

B-

Gas

B+

B+ B+ AB+

C+

C

Telecommunications

C

Not rated

Not rated

B

Overall Transmission Distribution LP Gas

Communiqué

Recommendations Engineers Australia recommends the following to improve the standard of South Australia‘s infrastructure: 1. Further integrate State-wide planning, especially transport strategies, to improve the movement of people and freight.

2. Encourage shifts in transport modes from road to rail for freight, and from private to public transport for people.

3. Increase funding for all infrastructure, including maintenance and renewal, to ensure the State‘s long term productivity.

4. Prioritise the development of port infrastructure in regional South Australia to support the emerging mineral resources sector.

5. Continue to increase the diversity of water supply options, including greater take up of recycled water.

6. Deliver improvements to stormwater infrastructure in flood prone areas and apply careful planning to new urban infill schemes.

7. Increase efforts to achieve the State‘s sustainability objectives with regard to energy use, especially with respect to base load electricity generation.

8. Provide a financial and regulatory environment that facilitates the creation of renewable energy generation and transmission infrastructure to meet the State Government‘s ambitious renewable energy targets.

9. Give further consideration to road infrastructure funding alternatives to enable earlier provision of key road links.

iii

CommuniquĂŠ

iv

RATINGS SUMMARY The following summarises the South Australian Infrastructure Report Card ratings.

Infrastructure Type

Grade

Comment

Roads Overall National roads State roads Local roads

CC C D

These ratings recognise that significant improvements are needed in road infrastructure, notably a need to address the significant maintenance backlog in regional and metropolitan areas, and growing congestion and slow speeds on major Adelaide arterial roads. Deterioration in the road network is likely unless increased funding for capital works and maintenance occurs, coupled with a reduction in the distance travelled per capita.

Rail

C

This rating recognises that the metropolitan rail network has experienced a continual decline in service quality over the last 5 years, however significant planned investments should arrest this trend. The intrastate rail network has improved marginally in some areas, but the remainder of this network continues to wither. The interstate network has improved due to selective upgrades by the ARTC, but bottlenecks remain, particularly in the Adelaide Hills and metropolitan areas.

Ports

B-

This rating recognises that the ports are generally fit for their current purpose.

However, major expansion of existing ports or the development of new ports will be needed to accommodate any significant increase in mineral exports.

Airports

B-

This rating recognises that there have been continual upgrades at Adelaide Airport and regional airports. However, some smaller airports have limited financial means to provide the improved airport infrastructure required to accommodate heavier aircraft and new security measures.

Potable water

B

This rating recognises that country water supply has improved due to the Country Water Quality Improvement Program, as will metropolitan supply reliability with the completion of the Adelaide Desalination Plant. However, there is a need to continue to increase the diversity of supply in both rural and metropolitan areas, so as to reduce reliance on River Murray water and groundwater, and to reduce demand.

Wastewater

B-

This rating recognises that there have been improvements in the funding and asset quality of sewerage networks in both metropolitan and rural areas, a reduction in environmental impacts from sewage, and a continual growth in the reuse of wastewater.

Stormwater

D

This rating recognises that while stormwater reuse continues to rise in SA, there are a number of areas in Adelaide that remain flood prone and require improved drainage and stormwater infrastructure. In addition, there is a concern that existing stormwater infrastructure will be more frequently overwhelmed due to increased runoff arising from urban infill that creates larger impervious areas.

Irrigation

C+

This rating recognises that while there has been improvement in irrigation infrastructure, such as replacing open channels with pipes, constructing salt interception schemes and increasing the use of recycled water, there is concern about the long-term viability of much irrigation infrastructure due to poor management of the total Murray-Darling water resource.

Electricity

B-

This rating recognises that SA has sufficient generation capacity to meet demand until 2012/13. However, peak demand growth needs to be moderated to prevent high cost, low utilisation infrastructure being required. While the present significant expansion in transmission and distribution network infrastructure is important to rectify key limitations, ongoing growth in wind power and the development of distributed generation will require significant additional investment.

Gas

B+

This rating recognises that the two transmission pipelines in the State provide security of supply, and the distribution network is in adequate condition.

v

Ratings Summary

vi

Infrastructure Type

Grade

Comment

Telecommunications

C

This rating recognises that while telecommunication services are generally available to a high percentage of the population, there are still many blackspots in broadband and mobile coverage, and areas of network vulnerability due to a lack of competitive backhaul.

OVERVIEW Rating process Background The objective of the Report Card is to rate the quality of economic infrastructure. Engineers Australia has been rating infrastructure since 1999. In 1999, 2001 and 2005, national report cards were published. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, report cards on States and Territories were published.

This Report Card revises and expands on the 2005 edition of the South Australian Infrastructure Report Card.

The purposes of the Report Cards are to:  Raise awareness by politicians, media, business and the public that infrastructure underpins the community‘s quality of life and that inadequate infrastructure impedes economic and social growth, and reduces environmental and societal sustainability  Generate debate on the adequacy of the infrastructure (including condition, distribution, funding and timing) required to meet society‘s needs  Increase appreciation of the value of developing an integrated and strategic approach to the provision of infrastructure  Raise awareness of the new challenges facing Australia‘s infrastructure due to climate change, changes in demographics, increases in demand, resilience and sustainability  Improve the policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance of infrastructure.

This Report Card provides a strategic overview of South Australia (SA) infrastructure that other organisations can use when they undertake detailed analysis of particular infrastructures. It also provides a benchmark that the community can use to identify need and evaluate alternative infrastructure priorities over time.

Rating description Ratings have been based on an assessment of asset condition, asset availability and reliability, asset management, sustainability (including economic, environmental and social issues) and resilience. The assessment includes evaluating infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance. (See Appendix A: Rating methodology for details.) The assessment was carried out through research and consultation. Interviews were held with relevant stakeholders and documents were analysed. The assessment has relied on publicly available information and has, in line with its aims, focused on strategic issues, supplemented by quantitative performance measures where these were readily available. A number of industry associations were consulted and Engineers Australia provided assistance through its experts. Ratings used are comparable with those of past Report Cards. The rating scale is detailed below.

1

Overview Rating scale Letter grade

Designation

Definition*

A

Very good

Infrastructure is fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

B

Good

Minor changes required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

C

Adequate

Major changes required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

D

Poor

Critical changes required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

F

Inadequate

Inadequate for current and anticipated future purposes

* Fitness for purpose is evaluated in terms of the needs of the community, economy and environment using criteria of sustainability, effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

State-wide issues Major factors influencing SA’s infrastructure demand and supply Both population and economic growth are key drivers of infrastructure demand.

Population The figure below shows SA‘s population projections along a high and low future growth path. It shows that SA‘s population will expand from nearly 1.6 million in 2007 to 2.1 million (31% increase) in 2051 under low growth assumptions, or 2.4 million (50% increase) under high growth assumptions. A growing population will accelerate the demand for all water, electricity, transport and telecommunication services.

SA’s recent and projected population using high and low growth assumptions1a 2.6 2.4

Millions

2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 2051

2049

2047

2045

2043

2041

2039

2037

2035

2033

2031

2029

2027

2025

2023

2021

2019

2017

2015

2013

2011

2009

2007

2005

2003

1

Gross State Product The table below shows SA‘s projected Gross State Product. Economic growth directly increases demand by businesses for infrastructure services, and indirectly increases demand by consumers due to their raised standard of living.

SA’s Gross State Product2

a

Gross State Product

2008/09

Yearly change

1.4%

2009/10 Forecast

2010/11 Projection

2011/12 Projection

2012/13 Projection

-0.5%

2.25%

3.25%

3.25%

The 2007 South Australia’s Strategic Plan uses this data series for its predictions and projections. Government of South Australia, 2007, South Australia’s Strategic Plan, p. 16.

2

Overview Climate change Climate change impacts on infrastructure in SA may include:  Increased flooding due to more frequent extreme rainfall events exceeding stormwater and drainage infrastructure capacity  Increased ingress of saline water into stormwater and sewerage infrastructure due to rising sea levels and rising coastal water tables  Increased rail buckling and signal failure, and road fatigue due to more frequent hot weather  Surges in electricity demand leading to brownouts caused by more frequent heat waves.

Infrastructure investment The supply of infrastructure is heavily influenced by the amount of investment. The figure below illustrates the investment in transport, electricity and gas, water and sewerage and telecommunications facilities over a 25-year period and shows that SA‘s investment levels have tracked roughly parallel to the national levels, albeit at a lower level compared with the national average.

Index of economic infrastructure expenditure in SA and nationally3

Population normalised index (Aus 1988-89 Base)

300

250

200

150

AUSTRALIA

100

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

50

2008-09

2007-08

2006-07

2005-06

2004-05

2003-04

2002-03

2001-02

2000-01

1999-00

1998-99

1997-98

1996-97

1995-96

1994-95

1993-94

1992-93

1991-92

1990-91

1989-90

1988-89

0

Real prices, base year index is 1988/89, base is 100 for national expenditure.

Cross sector challenges While each chapter identifies sector-specific challenges to the future provision of individual infrastructures, below are challenges that cross multiple infrastructure sectors.

Strategic planning, coordination and integration Infrastructure drives the productivity, liveability and sustainability of cities, towns and regions.

Optimising all three is a considerable challenge that requires planning, coordination and integration. Strategic planning requires a long-term perspective which, for cities, can exceed 100 years. Coordination requires bringing together all stakeholders, including the owners, operators and builders of the infrastructure, the infrastructure users, and the community, in the planning process and negotiating mutually acceptable outcomes. Integration requires linking infrastructure plans with broader land-use objectives, as well as ensuring that the plans for different infrastructures complement one another.

3

Overview SA‘s level of strategic planning has improved considerably this decade, as illustrated in the release of a number of plans such as the Water for Good plan. The SA Government has also worked to improve integrated strategic decision-making by reforming legislation, policy and the priorities of infrastructure organisations. SA is also benefiting from increased national level strategic planning, such as the creation of a National Transmission Planner, and the work of Infrastructure Australia in identifying nationally significant infrastructure requirements.

Challenges to improving planning, coordination and integration of infrastructure include:  Ensuring that plans balance productivity, liveability and sustainability goals, and explicitly identify any tradeoffs that have to be made  Recognising that strategic plans are based on predictions that often turn out to be inaccurate, e.g. population growth or traffic demand, and consequently all plans have to be continually adapted so that their long-term vision can still be achieved  Controlling overly-optimistic expectations of what the strategic plan can achieve (e.g. containing growth within boundaries, achieving high levels of infill, increasing economic activity in areas of social disadvantage), the ease of its implementation, and the ability to maintain a consistent vision over decades  Ensuring that plans not only address growth areas, but also address the very large outer suburban areas and regional towns that today have inadequate infrastructure  Making unpopular decisions such as changing economic activity or relocating populations in areas that are unsustainable  Implementing a long-term land-release program to meet the housing needs of a growing population and address housing affordability.

Funding New infrastructure provision can be extremely expensive, particularly in built-up areas.

SA has recognised that there needs to be significant investment in infrastructure over the next few decades to meet existing and projected demand. Identified investment includes $2 billion for metropolitan rail transport, $3 billion for water and $2 billion for electricity network infrastructure.

Challenges to infrastructure funding include:  Ensuring that high levels of investment are maintained over many years  Balancing investment on capital works, maintenance, renewals and upgrades against investment on reducing/managing demand  Selecting the best-value source of infrastructure funding  Ensuring that new infrastructure projects receive funding for both the capital works and maintenance.

Sustainability and climate change Infrastructure must contribute to sustainable economic, social and environmental activities. While individual projects in SA over the last decade have sustainability as one of their criteria, sustainability has not been prominent in policies and strategies that shape cities, towns and regions.

Challenges in improving infrastructure‘s contribution to sustainability include:  Ensuring that decisions on infrastructure reflect economic, social and environmental criteria  Ensuring that decisions on infrastructure reflect the fact that its physical life is typically between 20 and 50 years, but can be over 100 years with refurbishment  Designing the infrastructure to operate under changed rainfall, temperature, wind speeds etc, due to climate change  Minimising greenhouse gas emissions over the infrastructure‘s lifecycle

4

Overview  

Designing infrastructure so that it can be upgraded at some time in the future Designing infrastructure that maximises the use of recycled elements and minimises total resources use.

Infrastructure performance Infrastructure performance is judged differently by infrastructure owners, operators, users and other stakeholders. Some stakeholders give priority to financial returns, while others focus on service b quality.

Challenges to improving the performance of infrastructure include:  Increasing the supply of infrastructure through the building of new infrastructure or increasing the utilisation of existing infrastructure  Reducing/managing infrastructure demand by methods such as introducing pricing regimes that reflect the fixed cost of provision and time of use  Developing infrastructure performance measures that reflect the priorities of all stakeholders  Building detailed information on infrastructure demand and supply, and infrastructure conditions, to allow for better allocation of resources.

Maintaining governments’ informed buyer status Having and utilising technical expertise is a pre-condition to being an informed buyer of engineering, information technology and other technical goods and services. It is crucial that buyers are well informed so that they are able to select and justify the option that offers best value for money, select and justify an innovative solution, as well as to reduce contractor risks by providing relevant technical details in tender documents, and prevent contractors from taking advantage of the buyer's lack of knowledge. The SA Government and local governments need to maintain their informed buyer status, which can be challenging due to budgetary constraints and finding appropriately experienced staff.

Infrastructure security and continuity Security risks to infrastructure became apparent following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, the Madrid attacks in 2004, and the London attacks in 2005. Continuity risks to infrastructure became apparent during the 2009 heatwaves in SA. The community expects that infrastructure security and continuity risks will be appropriately managed. The security and continuity of SA‘s infrastructure has generally improved this decade, however, there are noticeable inadequacies that are related to the infrastructure‘s accessibility, age, condition, level of redundancy and tight supply-demand balance.

Challenges to improving the security and continuity of infrastructure include:  Managing unrealistic stakeholder expectations for absolute security and 100% supply continuity  Ensuring investment in infrastructure security and continuity is focused on the highest risks rather than political or topical risks  Maintaining appropriate levels of security and continuity given yearly variation in the frequency of malicious attacks and extreme weather events.

Intelligent infrastructure networks Infrastructure of the future will increasingly be intelligent. Intelligent infrastructure has attached or built-in components (e.g. sensors and cameras) that are able to collect and transmit information about its physical state. This information can be used to identify when water pipes require maintenance, when traffic conditions should be changed to improve flows, and which route

b

The Report Card uses a balanced stakeholder assessment.

5

Overview motorists should use to minimise travel time. Currently, very little of SA‘s infrastructure could be called intelligent.

Challenges to building intelligent infrastructure include:  Justifying the cost of investing in intelligent infrastructure  Designing network-wide intelligent infrastructure systems  Manipulating the infrastructure data and providing it to stakeholders in a useful form  Providing a process so that third parties can access infrastructure data and exploit it.

Conclusion SA‘s infrastructure is mostly rated as only adequate meaning major changes are required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes. There has been little improvement in most sectors over the past five years. The ratings for the State reflect that its infrastructure is stressed. In metropolitan areas, this is evident from traffic congestion and public transport inadequacies. In regional areas, it is evident in road quality and inadequate broadband availability.

The State experiences particular constraints not faced by most other States, such as its low population density requiring extensive infrastructure with a low utilisation rate, geographic barriers around Adelaide limiting its growth to the north-south axis, and low rainfall requiring diversity in its water sources. Critically important is maintaining existing infrastructure rather than waiting for it to fail and then replacing it. Significant investment in new infrastructure is also required. Sustaining this necessary high level of investment will be challenging due to the numerous demands for government and private sector investment. However, it is critical that this is done to ensure that the State has liveable, productive and sustainable cities, towns and regions.

6

TRANSPORT Integrated transport The last decade has seen two major changes in transport planning and operation in SA. Firstly, transport modes, which were traditionally seen in isolation from each other, are now seen as complementary. This means that the goal is now to integrate transport modes (i.e. road, rail, sea, air, bicycle and pedestrian transport), to provide a seamless transport task, whether for freight or passengers. This approach, which was first introduced into SA‘s planning documents early this decade, is now central to transport planning, for multi-mode and individual mode strategies.

Secondly, transport plans have become integrated with land planning strategies. This development recognises that the realities of urban sprawl, unplanned development and failure to reserve land for future transport expansion, results in increased congestion, social exclusion and higher transport costs. SA has adopted a strategic land planning approach that includes:  Containing urban growth to defined boundaries  Increasing urban densities  Promoting developments along transit corridors.

Key transport policy documents are summarised in the table below. Transport mode specific documents are described in the relevant section.

SA Government transport policies and strategies Policies and strategies

Description

30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (2010)

The aim of this plan is to outline how the SA Government proposes to balance population and economic growth with the need to preserve the environment and protect the heritage, history and character of Greater Adelaide.

Tackling Climate Change – South Australia’s Greenhouse Strategy 2007– 2020 (2007)

This document provides a framework for meeting SA‘s greenhouse targets and commitments.

South Australia’s Strategic Plan (2004 and updated in 2007)

This plan sets out State-wide goals. It defines the objective for infrastructure as the facilitation of economic growth and productivity improvement.4

Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia (2005)

This plan provides the overarching State framework for the planning and delivery of infrastructure by all government and private sector infrastructure providers. Strategic priorities for the period between 2005/06 and 2014/15 are identified for 14 infrastructure sectors.

Draft State Transport Plan 20032018 (2003)

The draft plan provides a guiding framework for transport decisions in road, rail, sea and air. It focused on 8 target areas encompassing regulation, policy and operational matters, and identified the key funding priorities of: Freight Safety Asset maintenance Public transport Environmentally sustainable transport.5 The final plan was never released.

7

Transport Region-specific transport planning documents include:  Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan (2009), which is a joint Victorian and SA Government plan that identifies the key projects required to meet the growing transport demand in the region  A Plan for Freight Transport for the South East / Limestone Coast Region of South Australia (2006), which aims to improve freight efficiency to the export ports as well as other needs of industry and the community  Eyre Peninsula Grain Logistics Transport Plan (2008)  South East 2020 Transport Strategy (2000)  Murray and Mallee Regional Transport Strategy (2002)  Eyre Peninsula Regional Transport Strategy (2003)  North-South Corridor Final Report (2007). This report was prepared as part of the Regional Transport Strategies for the Murray and Mallee, Central Region and Southern and Hills local governments  Transport sustainability study for Adelaide (yet to be released). The study will analyse urban congestion to 2030 and identify improvements that need to be made to public transport networks (rail, bus and tram), road networks, traffic management, land use and demand management6  Perth-Adelaide Corridor Strategy (2007)  Melbourne-Adelaide Corridor Strategy (2007)  Adelaide Urban Corridor Strategy (2007)  Adelaide-Darwin Corridor Strategy (2007)  Sydney-Adelaide Corridor Strategy (2007).

Examples of strategies being pursued to integrate land planning and transport include:  Upgrading the public transport network to link the State‘s activity centres  Increasing accessibility across the metropolitan public transport network by improving the connectivity of services at key interchanges and expanding capacity  Strengthening public transport links with future land use planning strategies, including facilitating the growth of new transit-oriented developments (TODs) to meet housing demands and contributing to the development of a more environmentally resilient city7  Encouraging residential and commercial developments along transit corridors in the Adelaide metropolitan region8 as displayed in the figure below.

Key challenges for SA in achieving an integrated transport approach involve addressing problems caused by legacy transport networks and historic land-use decisions, and the need to ensure that planning decisions remain true to the integrated strategic vision over many decades. Other challenges include:  Achieving the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide‘s goal of building 70% of all new metropolitan housing within the established areas of Adelaide and close to transit corridors  Lack of a realistic funding methodology to deliver planning outcomes.

Another manifestation of the integration of the transport task is the attention that governments and the private sector have given to developing intermodal freight connections and facilities. SA's major intermodal facilities are located at Outer Harbour in Port Adelaide and at the Bowmans terminal, which is north-west of Adelaide. Studies have examined future intermodal hubs at Pimba, Port Augusta, Angaston and Monarto. For people, the equivalent of intermodal hubs is Public Transport Interchanges, such as those at Mawson and Marion Oaklands. These recognise the importance of providing integrated car, bicycle, pedestrian, bus and rail facilities and services to encourage increased public transport patronage, and correspondingly less car traffic.

The SA Government has outlined in its Strategic Infrastructure Plan for SA that the lack of intermodal facilities feeding into the standard gauge network in SA is a factor preventing an 8

Transport increase in the role of rail. New intermodal facilities that facilitate rapid transhipment between modes of transport have been planned for Northern Adelaide and the Barossa Valley, with possible future developments at Port Augusta, the Riverland and Port Stanvac. Access to intermodal connections is also outlined as a high priority to facilitate growth in SA‘s automotive industry.9 Transit corridors and population growth10

9

Transport Key State and Australian Government agencies involved in transport planning and management are:  Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) (SA Government). Formerly known as Transport SA, it is responsible for enabling the safe and efficient movement of people and freight across the State and facilitating the development of the State‘s infrastructure. 11 The Department plays a role in providing policy advice and strategy development, facilitating improvements to infrastructure, and supporting equitable access to port services. Key groups under this portfolio are:  Public Transport Division, which supports the provision of passenger transport, including service planning and design, contract administration, marketing, communication, customer service and infrastructure. The Division oversees the provision of passenger services by bus, train and tram.  Transport Services Division, which manages, controls, maintains and operates Stateowned transport assets, manages traffic on the arterial road network, provides services to plan and deliver key transport projects, and contributes to the development of transport and road safety policy.  Policy and Planning Division, which develops, produces, implements and evaluates policies, plans and investment strategies as well as monitoring emerging transport issues.  Safety and Regulation Division, which provides road, marine and rail safety advice and manages the implementation of a range of programs related to transport users, infrastructure, vessels and vehicles.  The Essential Services Commission of SA (ESCOSA), which is the regulator for SA‘s intrastate rail access regime and proclaimed ports.  Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG) (Australian Government). The Department has a policy advisory role in transport, and management of some transport programs.

Case study: The South Road Upgrade Program - Creating a corridor Adelaide is notable amongst Australia‘s capital cities for its relative absence of freeway standard roads. This has led to long term trends towards increased travel times. The extended north-south layout of the Greater Adelaide urban area means that the lack of a free flowing north-south connector is the biggest problem. South Road, passing just west of the CBD area, has become the major north-south arterial connector and carries an estimated 88,000 vehicles per day over its 22km length. The South Road corridor passes through extensively built up industrial and residential suburbs for most of its length. An attempt was made in the 1960s to acquire a suitable freeway corridor under the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study. Faced with strong opposition, subsequent governments slowly abandoned the MATS and eventually sold off most of the property along the proposed corridor that had already been acquired. Thirty years later, Adelaide is still struggling with the legacy of those earlier decisions. Until 2009, the South Road corridor had only one grade separated intersection.

In the last five years there has been a renewed commitment from the SA Government for the creation of a free flowing South Road arterial connector. The first step was the creation of grade separation between South Road and ANZAC Highway. Completed in 2009, the Gallipolli Underpass required the compulsory acquisition of around 80 properties and cost around $118 million. Another $32 million was spent to build an overpass for the Adelaide to Glenelg tram line several hundred metres further south.

10

Transport

South Road Corridor Map12

Significant planning has been underway since 2008 for a larger stage at the northern end of the corridor where a 4km elevated road will overpass four traffic light controlled intersections and rail one level crossing. About $40 million has been spent to date and the project cost is likely to be around $850 million. A planning study is underway for the next grade separation, which is expected to be an underpass of Sturt Rd at the southern end of the corridor.

Even once these works are completed, over 25 other sets of traffic control signals and one rail level crossing will remain. Extrapolating the current activity level forward predicts that about another generation will pass before the South Road Corridor realises the aim of free flowing traffic north to south. Upgrading a road within an existing corridor is an expensive and disruptive activity. However, the South Road upgrade shows the costs of deferring hard decisions and reinforces that the best time to allocate future corridor needs is now.

Gallipolli Underpass where South Road meets ANZAC Highway13

11

Transport

12

1

Roads

1.1

Summary Infrastructure type

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Roads overall

C-

Not rated

C

Not rated

National roads

C

C

C+

C

State roads

C

C-

C

C-

Local roads

D

D

C-

D

These ratings recognise that significant improvements are needed in road infrastructure, notably a need to address the significant maintenance backlog in regional and metropolitan areas, and growing congestion and slow speeds on major Adelaide arterial roads. Deterioration in the road network is likely unless increased funding for capital works and maintenance occurs, coupled with a reduction in the distance travelled per capita.

Since the last Report Card, the major road sector developments have been:  The release of a range of planning documents that provide some strategic direction for roads  Major road construction projects have been initiated.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Construction of the 23km Northern Expressway Project, connecting the Gawler Bypass with Port Wakefield Road and associated upgrading of Port Wakefield Road‘s intersections with Waterloo Corner Road and the Salisbury Highway  The 2009 completion of the 17km Sturt Highway duplication between Gawler and Daveyston  The 2008 completion of the Port River Expressway to create a major thoroughfare for freight and passenger road traffic travelling from the northern suburbs to the port facilities at Port Adelaide  Port Wakefield Road Upgrade between the Northern Expressway and the Salisbury Highway  Grade separation of South Road and Anzac Highway  Henley Beach Road underpass of James Congdon Drive and the multiple urban and freight rail lines  Completion of the Eldersmith Road providing an east/west link for the Salisbury Highway and Main North Road.

Challenges to improving road infrastructure include:  Reducing road congestion and increasing average road speeds  Increasing long-term maintenance and capital funding for roads as per various transport plans  Improving the quality of local government roads and bridges  Delivering integrated land use and transport planning outcomes  Addressing the need for a State-wide transport strategy  Improving the interaction between the road and rail network in and around Adelaide  Encouraging transport mode shifts from road to rail for freight, and from private to public transport for people.

13

Transport

1.2

Infrastructure overview

1.2.1

System description SA‘s road infrastructure comprises:  National highways (2,751km of sealed highways)  Arterial urban and regional roads (12,375km of sealed roads and 10,123km of unsealed roads)  Local government roads (17,562km).14 Figure 1.1 illustrates SA‘s road infrastructure network.

Figure 1.1: SA’s road infrastructure network15

The SA Government, through DTEI, manages nearly 23,000 kilometres of these roads. The breakdown of roads is listed in Table 1.1.

14

Roads Table 1.1: State managed roads in SA, as of February 200716 Road category

Road length (km) Sealed

National highway Urban arterial Urban local Rural arterial Rural local Total

Unsealed

DTEI total

2,751

0

2,751

920

0

920

22

0

22

8,565

48

8,613

117

10,075

10,192

12,375

10,123

22,498

There are also 516 road bridges in the metropolitan area that are maintained by DTEI.17 DTEI‘s operational road responsibilities include:  Maintaining main roads, including line marking, drains, road shoulders, bridges, culverts, headwalls, guard fencing, signs, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and street light poles  Maintaining vegetation overhanging roads  Operating 24 hour road maintenance service managed through the Traffic Control Centre 18  Operating the Traffic Control Centre at Norwood to manage traffic signals and ITS systems across the road network for safe and efficient traffic movements.

Local government is responsible for planning, managing and maintaining local roads. Specific responsibilities include maintaining:  Local council roads and the kerbs, gutters, footpaths and roadsides on main roads  Vegetation in the road reserve to maintain sight lines and clear zones  Local street name signs.19 Street lighting is generally the responsibility of local government and the DTEI. ETSA Utilities often undertakes the design, installation, ownership of assets, or maintenance of streetlights for these parties.20 Table 1.2 identifies the substantial road and bridge assets owned by local governments.

Table 1.2: Road lengths (includes laneways) and bridges by council21 Local government State Total

Sealed (km) 17,562

Formed (km) 48,289

Unformed (km) 9,082

Roads total 74,933

Bridges 869

Local government road funding Local government road funding comes from three sources – rates, the Australian Government and State Governments. Local governments in SA spend about $162 million per annum on road construction and maintenance. The asset value of SA roads is about $4.8 billion. 22 The SA Local Government Grants Commission allocates roads funding to local governments through Identified Road Grant and Special Local Roads Grant components. Table 1.3 identifies road funds and general purpose grants for local governments.

Table 1.3: Grants to local governments from the SA Local Government Grants Commission23 Year

Identified Road Grant ($)

Special Local Roads Grant($)

2006/07

24,181,530

4,267,000

28,448,530

2007/08

25,317,811

4,468,000

29,785,811

2008/09

26,871,069

4,742,000

31,613,069

2008/09

27,756,801

4,898,000

32,654,801

104,127,211

18,375,000

122,502,211

Total

Total($)

15

Transport Road travel trends Table 1.4 identifies the growth in road travel in SA as a whole and in Adelaide over the last 17 years. It shows that the total vehicle km travelled has increased both in absolute terms as well as per capita terms. In particular, the growth in Adelaide per capita travel has been 24.3% over that time. As the total amount of distance travelled increases, maintenance has to increase to maintain the level of road quality.

Table 1.4: Distance travelled and population figures Financial year

State population24

Total distance travelled on SA roads25 (billion vehicle kilometres travelled)

1989/90

1432056

12.86

1990/91

1446299

12.86

1991/92

1456512

12.98

1992/93

1460674

1993/94

1466138

1994/95 1995/96

Change in vehicle km travelled per capita (%)

Adelaide population26

Total distance travelled on Adelaide roads27 (billion vehicle kilometres travelled)

Change in vehicle km travelled per capita (%)

1090526

7.86

-1.0

1092462

7.90

0.3

0.2

1094398

8.06

1.8

13.29

2.1

1096334

8.31

2.9

13.57

1.7

1098270

8.55

2.7

1469429

13.91

2.3

1100206

8.88

3.7

1474253

14.05

0.7

1102142

9.05

1.7

1996/97

1481357

14.11

-0.1

1104078

9.12

0.6

1997/98

1489552

14.69

3.5

1106014

9.46

3.5

1998/99

1497819

14.68

-0.6

1107950

9.53

0.6

1999/00

1505038

15.19

3.0

1109886

9.76

2.2

2000/01

1511728

14.95

-2.0

1111822

9.63

-1.5

2001/02

1521127

15.30

1.7

1113765

9.87

2.3

2002/03

1531278

15.62

1.4

1121742

10.05

1.1

2003/04

1540434

16.25

3.4

1131089

10.47

3.3

2004/05

1552514

16.27

-0.7

1140436

10.51

-0.4

2005/06

1567888

16.17

-1.6

1149784

10.45

-1.4

2006/07

1585794

16.30

-0.3

1159131

10.53

0.0

2007/08

1603361

16.26

-1.3

1172105

10.50

-1.4

Change between 1989/90 and 2007/08

12.0%

26.4%

12.9%

7.5%

33.6%

24.3

The vast majority of road travel in metropolitan Adelaide occurs on urban arterial roads, generally laid out in a grid pattern with a few major radial routes emanating from the central business district.28 1.2.2

Policy and governance The SA Government‘s strategic vision for roads is that they play a central role in the development of an efficient, affordable and safe transport system, which will contribute towards the SA Government‘s objectives of growing prosperity, improving wellbeing, attaining sustainability and building communities.29 Key roads legislation is the:  Highways Act 1926. This Act provides the legislative underpinning for the care and control of the SA road network and associated facilities.  Road Traffic Act 1961. This Act provides a framework for the operation of motor vehicles on the road network and associated facilities.

16

Roads  

Motor Vehicle Act 1959. This Act provides the framework governing motor vehicles.

Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan Act 1972. This Act provides for the reservation of road easements for the development of the road network in the Adelaide metropolitan region.

The Australian Government has limited powers under the Constitution to regulate transport.

However, it is involved in facilitating national regulatory consistency in roads, developing national transport networks, and providing specific road funding programs. Until 2009, Australian Government road funding was provided principally under the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 and, to a much lesser extent, under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 and the Federation Fund. However, in 2009, the Australian Government replaced the term c AusLink in its land transport infrastructure funding program with the term Nation Building Program.

Key Australian Government funding components are:  National Projects. These are targeted projects on the National Land Transport Network designed to improve efficiency and safety. In SA over the 2008/09 to 2013/14 period, National Projects funding totalled $82.43 million for ongoing projects (principally AusLink 2 projects), $885.2 million for new projects, $3.5 million for off-network projects and $243.26 million for road 30 maintenance programs.  Roads to Recovery. This program addresses the problem of local roads reaching the end of their economic life, and their replacement being beyond the capacity of local government. SA 31 local governments received $142 million for the period July 2009 to 30 June 2014.  Black Spot Program. This program improves the physical condition or management of hazardous locations with a history of crashes involving death or serious injury. SA black spot 32 projects announced in March 2009 totalled over $17 million.  Financial Assistance Grants for Roads. Annual Financial Assistance Grants for roads paid directly to local government totalled $131.7 million in 2009/10.

All six of SA‘s regional Local Government Associations (Eyre, South East, Central, Murray & Mallee, Southern & Hills) have developed or are in the process of developing strategic Regional Transport Plans. These plans are developed to be the basis of local planning and funding for multimodal transport needs and to ensure that local roads that traversed more than one local government area are not overlooked for funding or upgrading. A majority of the Regional Transport Plans have a 5 to 20 year planning horizon. 33 1.2.3

Sector trends Increasing urban congestion Road congestion is a major problem that increases the time and cost of road tasks, which reduces economic efficiency and liveability. The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics has estimated that the cost of congestion on Adelaide‘s roads in 1995 was $0.8 billion and that this will grow to $1.5 billion by 2015.34 The decrease in average travel speeds and an increase in congestion are evident in Table 1.5.

The SA Government has outlined that achieving a greater use of rail for freight and public transport for passengers is the preferred method of reducing congestion levels, however the development of congestion-reducing infrastructure such as the Port River Expressway also remains a priority. In recent years, the SA Government has pledged to construct a number of congestion-reducing road infrastructure projects, including:  A 600 metre tunnel on South Road under Grange Road  The Port Road and Outer Harbor to Adelaide passenger rail line  An underpass at the South Road-ANZAC Highway intersection 35

c

The name change was announced at the Special Council of Australian Governments meeting on 5 February 2009.

17

Transport Passenger rail line extension to Seaford Grade Separation of South and Sturt Roads at Tonsley  O‘Bahn extension to the City of Adelaide  Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) for example at Bowden.  

Table 1.5: Performance of SA road transport36 Indicator Nominal Travel Speed (Urban): Weighted aggregate

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

63.8

63.1

63.9

63.8

63.8

63.7

72.6

62.6

44.4

42.4

42.0

42.4

42.0

40.8

40.8

39.9

10.8

12.5

12.1

10.7

10.5

11.1

11.8

11.9

0.44

0.47

0.48

0.46

0.48

0.52

0.52

0.55

speed on a representative sample of arterial roads and freeways in major cities (assuming vehicles travel at the posted speed limit) (km/hr) All Day Actual Travel Speed (Urban): Weighted aggregate speed on a representative sample of arterial roads and freeways in major cities (km/hr) All Day Variability of Travel Time (Urban): Variability of travel time on a representative sample of arterial roads and freeways in the urban metropolitan area (%) All Day Congestion Indicator (Urban): Difference between Actual and Nominal Travel Time — delay from traffic conditions which do not permit travel at the posted speed limit (min/km)

Growth in the freight task In SA, road freight has been projected to rise 3.8% per annum to 2020. In Adelaide, the growth in truck movements is expected to be between 3 and 4% per annum. Outlook for the road freight task is displayed in Figure 1.2.37 Figure 1.2: Outlook for the SA road freight task38

18

Roads The Centre for Transport Energy and the Environment predicted in 2004 that further growth in economic activity and productivity improvements by the road freight industry will result in an increase in the amount of freight carried by road transport in SA of 63 million tonnes or 37.5% of 2004 levels by 2013/14. The annual road tonne-km task was projected to increase by 32% to 21.500 billion tonne-kilometres by 2013/14.39 Traffic on the non-urban corridors on the National Land Transport Network The average traffic growth across all non-urban corridors on the National Land Transport Network (NLTN) (formerly AusLink) in SA is expected to grow at 0.87% per annum between 2005 and 2030.

Light (passenger) vehicle growth is expected to be higher than heavy vehicles. The growth on each corridor in SA is listed in Table 1.6.

Table 1.6: Projected growth in vehicle traffic, NLTN non-urban corridors and non-urban interstate corridors, 2005 and 203040 Average traffic levels (vehicles per day) Light vehicles

Heavy vehicles

Length (km)

2005

2030

2005

SA

2,724.2

1,966

2 526

421

Sydney Adelaide

984.0

2 779

3 405

Melbourne - Adelaide

700.4

6 234

Adelaide Perth

2 666.9

Adelaide Darwin

2 697.9

State/ Corridor

2030

All vehicles

Average annual traffic growth (% per annum between 2005 and 2030)

2005

2030

Light vehicles

Heavy vehicles

All vehicles

442

2 388

2 968

1.01

0.20

0.87

646

708

3 426

4 113

0.8

0.4

0.7

10 376

1 577

1 911

7 811

12 287

2.1

0.8

1.8

1 149

1 476

348

337

1 497

1 813

1.0

-0.1

0.8

599

1 017

115

131

714

1 147

2.1

0.5

1.9

1.3

Performance

1.3.1

Road safety The quality of road infrastructure influences road safety. According to the Australian Transport Council ‘improving the safety of roads is the single most significant achievable factor in reducing road trauma’. It notes that ‗road investment improves road safety through general road improvements — typically, ‘new’ roads are safer than ‘old’ roads — as well as through treatment of 41 black spots.‖ SA‘s strategy for road safety is called the South Australian Road Safety Action Plan 2008-2010.

The strategy aims to reduce the number of fatalities to less than 90 and to reduce the number of serious injuries to less than 1000. It is based on the assumption that as road crashes will always occur, the best approach to minimising crashes is by focussing on:  Safer roads – designing and maintaining roads and roadsides to reduce risk  Safer speeds – setting speed limits that better reflect the level of risk in the road network  Safer road users – advising, educating and encouraging road users to comply with road rules, to be unimpaired and alert, and to drive according to the conditions  Safer vehicles – encouraging the take-up of vehicles with safety features that reduce the likelihood of a crash and safety features that reduce injury severity.42 These targets require that a coordinated approach be taken, which involves the DTEI, the Road Safety Advisory Council, the police, the Motor Accident Commission, local governments, the transport, health and education sectors, the Centre for Automotive Safety Research, the Royal Automobile Association (RAA) and community road safety groups.

19

Transport The annual SA road death toll between 2004 and 2009 has ranged between 182 and 99. Figure 1.3 provides road safety trends. It illustrates a declining road death per capita and per vehicle kilometres. Improved road infrastructure is likely to be a contributing factor in this decline.

Figure 1.3: SA road safety trends, 1998 - 200843

Index: Base Year = 1998

1.2

Fatalies per capita

1 Fatalities per vehicle kilometre 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

The Australian Road Assessment Program (AusRAP) provides an indication of where there are road safety problems. AusRAP is an initiative of the Australian Automobile Association (AAA).

AusRAP determined a star rating for the National Land Transport Network of roads to assess road safety. A road‘s star rating is based on an inspection of design elements that are known from extensive research to influence the likelihood of crashes occurring and the severity of those crashes that do occur. SA‘s NTLN network star ratings are displayed in Figure 1.4.44 Figure 1.4: AusRAP star ratings for the National Land Transport Network road network in SA45

20

Roads The 2009/10 SA Budget allocated $23 million over four years to improve rural road safety. This is in addition to the $4.9 million allocated in the 2008/09 Budget.

Road quality Ride comfort is measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI). When the IRI is less than 4.2, travellers consider it a smooth ride. Figure 1.5 identifies the proportion of the arterial road network, which is defined as smooth.

Figure 1.5: Proportion of travel on smooth arterial roads46 94 Urban

92 % less than 4.2 IRI

90

Rural

88 86 84 82 80 2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

2002/03

2001/02

78 2000/01

1.3.2

Surface cracking is detrimental to the durability of most road pavements and is a useful indicator of pavement condition. Durability indicates the capacity of road pavements to resist premature deterioration. Table 1.7 identifies the targeted and actual road performance measures for DTEI‘s controlled road and bridge infrastructure.

Table 1.7: Performance indicators on the DTEI’s controlled road and bridge infrastructure47 Performance Indicator

2006/07 Actual

2007/08 Target

2007/08 Estimated

2007/08 Actual

2008/09 Target

2008/09 Estimated

2009/10 Target

% length of rural sealed network rehabilitated

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

Not stated

0.1%

Not stated

Not stated

% length of rural sealed network resealed

2.5%

3.0%

3.6%(a)

Not stated

3.0%

Not stated

Not stated

% length of urban sealed network resealed

1.4%

1.1%

0.5%(a)

Not stated

1.0%

Not stated

Not stated

% length of urban sealed network rehabilitated

2.3%

2.3%

2.2%

Not stated

2.2%

Not stated

Not stated

Actual travel speed (average speed to travel on arterial roads in Adelaide)

41 kph

40 kph

40 kph

39.9 kph

40 kph

39.3 kph

39.5 kph

Variability of travel speed (% variability caused by traffic controls and conditions)(a)

11.8%

11.7%

12.5%

11.9%

13.0%

12.6%

12.5%

Bridge health index(b)

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

64

64

64

64

Road pavement surface condition (% of travel taken on roads with acceptable or better smoothness (a roughness level of less than 4.2 IRI)

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

91

90

90

90

(a) It is expected that the average travel speed and variability of travel speed will improve in 2009/10 as a result of rectification of a number of congestion hot spots in the metropolitan road network (notably the South Road/Anzac Highway intersection and the Northern Expressway) and traffic signal phasing improvements. (b) The Health Index of a structure is its current condition expressed as a percentage of its as-built condition. The higher the number, the better its condition.

21

Transport Drawing on the figures below, it is notable that:  The targeted percentage length of rehabilitated roads at 0.1% for rural roads and 1% for urban roads means that it will take 1,000 years and 100 years respectively for the entire rural and urban network to be rehabilitated  The targeted percentage length of resealed roads at 3% for rural roads and 3.3% for urban roads means that it will take 33 years and 30 years respectively for the entire rural and urban network to be rehabilitated  Average travel speeds on arterial roads continue to decline, as does the increase in variability of travel speeds due to traffic conditions  The average road pavement surface condition targets remain the same, but as seen in Figure 1.6, road roughness for rural roads is significantly lower than urban roads.

The targeted reseal or rehabilitate rates are below recommended rates to allow the quality of the road network to remain stable. Unless this is addressed, road quality is likely to decline.

For local roads, the low expenditure of about $162 million per annum on the road construction and maintenance, spread over $4.8 billion of assets48 means that the asset renewal rate is about 3.4% per annum. This is below a sustainable level, again meaning that road quality is likely to decline.

Unless maintenance increases, road pavement failures will increasingly occur. This can only be addressed by major and expensive renewal work. Ongoing maintenance is a more cost effective way of maintaining road quality than renewals. Symptoms of poor maintenance are fatigued pavements (e.g. potholes), deteriorating line marking and seals and unmaintained signs. The Royal Automobile Association of SA considers that some $400 million is required to address the State‘s road maintenance backlog.49 The reduction in the quality of road pavements over the last decade is partially hidden by the dry conditions of the last few years. Extended wet weather is likely to result in large scale, rapid deterioration.

Capital works are also required to meet increased demand such as reflected in road congestion issues in Adelaide, on South, North, Port, North East, Glen Osmond and Greenhill roads. While road efficiency improvements, such as right turn lanes, banning of parking during peak times, bus lanes and traffic signal optimisation contribute to a reduction in congestion, new roads are also required. However, new road construction needs to be coupled with an increase in public transport provision so as to reduce the per capita distance travelled by road users. Without this dual approach the new roads will only result in a temporary reduction in road congestion.

The cost and challenges of constructing new roads should not be underestimated. Due to existing land-use in Adelaide, there are limited opportunities for new road corridors, meaning new roads need to navigate around numerous physical and political challenges. In addition, the flat terrain means that costly overpasses are required to reduce road intersections.

1.3.3

Environmental sustainability A key objective in SA‘s climate change strategy is to substantially reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions, which compromise nearly 20% of the State‘s total emissions, while maintaining accessibility and economic development. 50 The actions being pursued to reduce greenhouse gas production from transport by the SA Government include:  Reducing trip lengths and the need for motorised travel through integrated land use and transport planning  Achieving more sustainable travel behaviour  Improving the emissions performance of vehicle and fuels 51  Shifting transport towards low greenhouse emission modes.

22

Roads

The SA Government‘s 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide outlines how a reduction in emissions can be achieved through planning restrictions, which could avoid urban sprawl and locate more developments within or adjacent to existing transport corridors to reduce car travel.52 Ongoing environmental challenges include:  Vehicle emissions and greenhouse gases  Water quality from road run-off  Alienation of land.

Other factors to be considered to embed sustainability in road infrastructure in SA include:  Use of recycled pavement materials in roadways  Use of other recycled products in other associated infrastructure, e.g. recycled concrete  Reducing the demand on fossil fuels through the provision of improved public transport systems and through governments legislating to enforce the improvement of vehicles (both manufactured in Australia and imported) to either become reliant on renewable energy or use less fuel.

Environmental sustainability improvements can also be delivered by reducing traffic congestion, which results in higher average speeds and consequently greater fuel efficiency.

1.4

Future challenges The future challenges to achieving improvements in road infrastructure in SA are:  Reducing road congestion and increasing average road speeds. In the short to medium term, congestion is likely to increase and average road speeds are likely to decrease. Efforts to shift travel to other modes, such as rail and cycling, will only have a marginal impact due to constraints such as a limited metropolitan rail network. Innovative methods are required to reduce demand, including using congestion pricing, reducing just-in-time logistic practices and encouraging people to work locally. Supply augmentation in built-up areas will increasingly involve improving road asset utilisation rather than building new roads. Ways to improve efficiency include:  Targeting road works at the points of congestion  Building links between existing road networks  Minimising the impact of road works  Ensuring quick clearance of traffic incidents  Improving traffic signal coordination  Prioritising road space for high occupancy vehicles or ‗high value‘ movements.  Increasing long-term maintenance and capital funding for roads as per various transport plans. There are a number of State-wide, regional and local transport plans, many of which contain an ambitious program of roads projects. While recent expenditure on roads has increased, maintaining this high level will be essential for the foreseeable future to achieve the goals of the transport plans.  Improving the quality of local government roads and bridges. Local government roads are facing the following three main problems:  Maintaining road quality in the face of greater freight volumes. Many local government roads were not designed for large loads or the tonnage they currently carry, nor do local governments have the ability to fund their maintenance.  Developing roads that provide acceptable access without encouraging excessive traffic and speed, while providing road access for larger vehicles such as garbage trucks and fire trucks.  Maintaining a large number of deteriorating timber bridges. The annual maintenance budget for timber deck bridges is approximately double that of concrete bridges.  Delivering integrated land use and transport planning outcomes. Implementing integrated plans will require overcoming the following major challenges: 23

Transport Ensuring that land-use decisions to slow the growth in urban boundaries, to reserve land corridors for future roads, and to focus on building in designated growth corridors are maintained over many decades  Implementing transit orientated developments along designated transit routes  Increasing significantly the amount of funding for both new roads and maintenance  Encouraging public support for urban infill.  Addressing the need for a State-wide transport strategy. SA does not have a defined longer-term integrated Transport Plan with a list of planned projects and indicative timelines.

While the Adelaide Plan has a 30 year timeframe, the Plan is not supported by any plan for the provision of transport infrastructure beyond the current budgetary cycle.  Improving the interaction between the road and rail network in and around Adelaide.

There are a number of locations in Adelaide and surrounding areas where the interaction between the road and rail networks leads to significant congestion, delays and inconvenience.

For example, the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study notes that the interstate track runs parallel to the urban passenger rail network from Belair and crosses over urban passenger rail lines at Goodwood Junction and Torrens Junction with nine at-grade rail crossings between Belair and the Keswick terminal. Given the proximity of Goodwood Junction to the rail crossing on Cross Road, west-bound freight trains giving way to passenger trains often sit across the road causing road users to experience delays as the boom gates remain down for extended periods.53 Addressing these problems will require building overpasses and realigning rail and road corridors.  Encouraging transport mode shift from road to rail for freight, and from private to public transport for people. Without a shift to rail freight and public transport, congestion and road maintenance will continue to rise at a much faster rate than can be addressed. However, it needs to be recognised that realistically, future development of the rail and tram network is limited and bus services may play a greater role in public transport than they do today. 

1.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure type

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Roads overall

SA 2010 C-

Not rated

C

Not rated

National roads

C

C

C+

C

State roads

C

C-

C

C-

Local roads

D

D

C-

D

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s overall road infrastructure has been rated C-. This rating recognises that significant improvements are needed in road infrastructure, notably by addressing the significant maintenance backlog in regional and metropolitan areas, and growing congestion and slow speeds on major Adelaide arterial roads. Deterioration in the road network is likely unless increased funding for capital works and maintenance occurs, coupled with a reduction in the distance travelled per capita.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Substantial increased expenditure on new road infrastructure  Integrating transport modes  Increased focus on grade separation.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Large number of grade separations still to be addressed  Large backlog of regional and rural road maintenance and improvement  Lack of identified corridors for road network improvements  Underfunding of network maintenance for rural and metropolitan roads.

24

2

Rail

2.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Rail

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

C

C ARTC network B- Metropolitan network D Regional rail network

C-

D-

This rating recognises that the metropolitan rail network has experienced continual decline in service quality over the last 5 years, however the significant investments planned should arrest this trend. The intrastate rail network has improved marginally in some areas but the remainder of this network continues to wither. The interstate network has improved due to selective upgrades by the ARTC, but bottlenecks remain, particularly in the Adelaide Hills and metropolitan areas.

Since the last Report Card, the major rail sector developments have been:  Starting the $2 billion program to renew Adelaide‘s public transport network, which involves electrifying the majority of the network, extending several lines, and upgrading or purchasing new rail vehicles  Continual growth in metropolitan rail patronage, particularly on the Glenelg Tram line  Closure of several regional lines  Upgrading of the East-West Interstate Rail Corridor.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Replacing the Glenelg trams  A 4km extension of the tram line from Victoria Square along King William St to Adelaide railway station, and to the Entertainment Centre  Extending the existing Noarlunga line some 5.5km to Seaford (to be completed in 2013)  Concrete resleepering of the Belair, Noarlunga, Gawler and Outer Harbor lines  The electrification of the Noarlunga (including Tonsley), Outer Harbor, Grange and Gawler lines  The conversion of 66 railcars to full electric operation  Introduction of a new, integrated ticketing system  Procurement of new rail cars  Upgrading of the Le Fevre Peninsula line and construction of the new Bishop Loop.

Challenges to improving rail infrastructure in SA include:  Maintaining long-term funding for rail to achieve the goals of the Rail Revitalisation Plan  Improving the interstate and intrastate freight rail lines, and their intermodal connections  Increasing metropolitan rail patronage levels during network upgrade  Delivering integrated land use and transport planning outcomes.

2.2

Infrastructure overview

2.2.1

System description SA‘s rail infrastructure comprises:  Adelaide‘s broad gauge metropolitan heavy rail passenger network  Adelaide‘s standard gauge metropolitan light rail (tram) line

25

Transport Interstate network, consisting of the SA segments making up the following Defined Interstate Rail Network corridors:  Adelaide – Melbourne  Adelaide – Perth  Adelaide – Sydney  Adelaide - Darwin  Intrastate (regional) rail networks consisting of the following freight lines:  Narrow gauge lines on the Eyre Peninsula  Broad gauge lines in the Mid North  Standard gauge lines in the Murray - Mallee region  Specialist (regional) networks consisting of the following freight lines:  Standard gauge line between Port Augusta and Leigh Creek  Narrow gauge Whyalla steel works lines  Historic railways. 

Figure 2.1 identifies the SA rail networks and their owners.

Figure 2.1: SA’s rail networks54

26

Rail Rail lines in SA are primarily freight lines, with passenger services limited to:  The Adelaide metropolitan area  Interstate rail services operated by Great Southern Railway, consisting of:  Indian Pacific between Sydney and Perth via Adelaide  The Ghan between Adelaide and Darwin  The Overland between Melbourne and Adelaide.

Adelaide’s metropolitan heavy rail passenger network 55 The heavy rail passenger network consists of six lines and 84 stations as shown in Figure 2.2. It 56 has a total length of 120km of train line. The Adelaide rail network is a non-electrified rail network.

Adelaide's rolling stock consists of 99 railcars, of which 70 are 3000/3100 diesel-electric and 29 are 2000/2100 diesel hydraulic railcars.

Figure 2.2: Adelaide heavy rail and tram map57

27

Transport

The metropolitan heavy rail passenger network is part of the Adelaide Metro, which is a multimodal transport network providing light and heavy rail, and bus services throughout the metropolitan area. Adelaide Metro is a brand name of the Public Transport Division of DTEI. All public transport services are integrated under Adelaide Metro and share a universal ticketing system, marketing, and common livery and signage. Adelaide Metro passenger services are contracted to one rail and three bus providers for a period of five years with an option to extend for another five years. The contracting body is the Public Transport Division.

TransAdelaide is the provider of both rail and tram passenger services, and its key responsibilities, as defined by the TransAdelaide (Corporate Structure) Act 1998, are to operate and maintain both networks. It is a government owned organisation and subject to the provisions of the Public Corporations Act 1993. The rail assets are owned by the DTEI, having been transferred from 58 TransAdelaide in 2007/08. TransAdelaide‘s contract for the provision of services expired on 24 59 April 2010. TransAdelaide controls all rail traffic using the metropolitan broad gauge system, as well as rail traffic on the standard gauge lines in the metropolitan area. 60 Recently completed infrastructure developments include: 61  Replacing the windows for the entire 3000 and 3100 class rail fleet – comprising 70 rail cars  Re-sleepering of the Belair rail line.

Adelaide’s metropolitan light rail (tram) line Adelaide has only one tram line, the standard gauge 16km Glenelg to Entertainment Centre line.

Adelaide once had a number of tram lines, but these were closed in the 1950s. The tram line is 62 serviced by five H-class historic trams and 11 Flexity trams made by Bombardier. Recently completed infrastructure developments include:  Purchasing a new tram fleet  A 1.2km extension from Victoria Square along King William St to Adelaide railway station  A 2.8km extension to the Entertainment Centre.

Interstate network The standard gauge interstate network (known as the Defined Interstate Rail Network (DIRN)) is managed by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). The ARTC is a company with shares owned by the Australian Government and manages over 10,000 route kilometres of standard gauge interstate track in SA, Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales.

The SA component of the DIRN consists of the following rail sections:  Adelaide to Wolseley on the Adelaide – Melbourne Corridor  Adelaide via Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie on the Adelaide – Perth Corridor  Port Augusta to Whyalla spur on the Adelaide – Perth Corridor d  Crystal Brook to Broken Hill on the Adelaide – Sydney Corridor (the Adelaide to Crystal Brook segment is shared with the Adelaide – Perth Corridor)  Metropolitan Adelaide lines, which consist of a north-south standard gauge line adjacent to the 63 e urban lines and a dual gauge spur line from Dry Creek to Port Adelaide and Outer Harbor  The Tarcoola to Alice Springs line, which is owned by ARTC and leased to the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium.

The ARTC is generally responsible for capital investment in the corridors, management of infrastructure maintenance, and selling access to train operators. These lines predominantly carry freight but are also used by a few interstate passenger services. Figure 2.3 identifies the interstate network. d

e

This corridor runs from Dry Creek intermodal terminal (Adelaide) - Crystal Brook -Broken Hill – Parkes - Forbes - Stockinbingal Cootamundra - Goulburn - Chullora intermodal terminal (Sydney).

ARTC does not own the Port Adelaide to Glanville section of this spur line as it is part of TransAdelaide‘s metropolitan network.

Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, South Australian Rail Access Regime Information Kit, p. 3.

28

Rail Figure 2.3: SA Components of the interstate rail network64

Adelaide - Tarcoola - Alice Springs - Darwin line The Tarcoola to Darwin standard gauge railway was built in two stages, which together form part of the Adelaide to Darwin railway corridor. The 824km Tarcoola to Alice Springs section was completed in 1980 and was entirely funded by the Federal Government. The 1,420km Alice Springs-Darwin section was completed in October 2003 at a cost of $1.2 billion and began 65 operating in January 2004.

Intrastate rail networks SA‘s intrastate rail networks are owned and managed by Genesee and Wyoming Australia (GWA).

GWA is based in Adelaide and operates approximately 1,290km of track and civil infrastructure in SA. Its main activities in the State are providing haulage of bulk commodities, notably grain, steel, 66 gypsum and mineral sands, and short haul shunting and terminal operations. Its lines are mainly located in the Eyre Peninsula, Murraylands and the Mid-North. Details are:  Narrow gauge lines on the Eyre Peninsula, including 500km of operational and 275km of dormant lines  Broad gauge lines in the Mid North, including 40km of operational lines  303km of operational standard gauge lines in the Murray-Mallee region.

The land on which GWA operates is owned by the SA Government and leased to the company.

67 GWA owns the above ground rail infrastructure and rolling stock. GWA also operates on ARTC standard gauge track and the TransAdelaide broad gauge metropolitan rail network, as well as OneSteel‘s Whyalla network. GWA provides other rail services including:  Hook and Pull services on behalf of other railway operators  Lease of items of rolling stock to other railway operators  Train control for the Tarcoola to Darwin component of the Darwin to Adelaide railway.

68

GWA has approximately 200 employees, 77 locomotives, and 575 wagons. Transfield Services maintains the SA rail network of GWA. The GWA network on the Eyre Peninsula was recently upgraded. This area produces some 2.1 million tonnes of grain each year and this is expected to 69 rise to an average annual harvest of 2.6 million tonnes by 2030. By the early 2000s, the network‘s quality was recognised as so deficient that the rail operator could not justify the investment required to make the network fit for purpose, meaning that the lines would be abandoned. Consequently, the State Government, Australian Government, farmers (via a levy) and the rail operator have funded a $30 million rail renewal program, which involves:  The curtailment of the grain train operations on the rail network at Bucklebook/Kimba on the eastern line and Wudinna on the western line and closure of the Kapinnie line. These rail lines 29

Transport will be kept in a dormant state so they can be reopened should needs arise, such as if there is a transfer of rail vehicles from Thevenard to Port Lincoln or an upsurge in the mining industry.

Maintenance of the line in a dormant state is a requirement under the lease agreement between GWA and the SA Government.  Upgrades to the network, including sleeper and rail replacement, ballasting and other minor works.

70  Upgrades to grain handling facilities/rail interface at key port and up-country silo sites.

Specialist networks (regional) Specialist networks consist of:  Standard gauge line between Port Augusta and Leigh Creek  Narrow gauge Whyalla steel works lines  Historic railways.

The first two railways are exclusive networks that are integral to the operation of industrial enterprises.

Alinta Energy (Port Augusta to Leigh Creek coal haulage) Alinta Energy Group (formerly known as Babcock & Brown Power, which in turn purchased NRG 71 Flinders) leases the 250km Port Augusta to Leigh Creek rail line from the SA Government. The line carries coal from the Leigh Creek coal mine to the Northern and Playford Power Stations in Port Augusta. Pacific National (Asciano) provides rail haulage services from Leigh Creek to Port 72 Augusta for Alinta Energy Group.

OneSteel (iron ore rail haulage line at Whyalla) OneSteel is the owner of the Whyalla steelworks and is the owner of an 80km rail line between the Whyalla steelworks and its iron ore mines. OneSteel completed an upgrade of its rail system in 73 74 2006, with an expectation that the Whyalla Steelworks will continue operation until 2027. GWA 75 is the contracted service operator for the railway. Transfield Services provides maintenance services and capital works for railway civil, track and signals infrastructure within the OneSteel, 76 Whyalla Steelworks and rail tracks running from the iron ore mines to the steelworks.

Historic railways Historic railways that have closed in the last few years are the Limestone Coast Railway, which operated around Mount Gambier, and the Lions Club of Yorke Peninsula Rail, which operated out of Wallaroo. There are two operating historic railways in SA and they are:  The SteamRanger Heritage Railway, which operates a number of different heritage steam and diesel hauled tourist trains between Mt Barker in the Adelaide Hills, up over the crest of the southern Mt Lofty Ranges, down to Strathalbyn and on through the coastal holiday towns of 77 Goolwa and Port Elliot to the tourist resort town of Victor Harbor.  Pichi Richi Railway, which operates steam and diesel train services on the oldest remaining 78 section of the narrow-gauge old Ghan railway, departing from Quorn and Port Augusta.

Dormant rail lines There are a number of lines in SA that have become dormant in recent years and these could be reopened if there was sufficient demand. These include the: 79  Wolseley to Mt. Gambier broad gauge line 80  Broad gauge line linking the port at Wallaroo and the interstate rail network near Snowtown  Eyre Peninsula narrow gauge grain lines.

30

Rail Adelaide metropolitan passenger task The SA Government‘s public transport patronage figures and targets for Adelaide are identified in Table 2.1 Table 2.1: Performance figures for metropolitan public passenger services (rail and bus)81 Performance indicator

2007/08 actual

2008/09 targeted

2008/09 estimated result

2009/10 target

Total service kilometres (millions)

45.1

44.9

46.4

47.1

Total boardings (millions)

66.2

67.4

67.5

70.2

Table 2.2. identifies the growth in passenger numbers for Adelaide‘s train and tram services. Over the last 4 years, train patronage has risen a total of 5%, while tram patronage has risen by 24%.

The SA Government‘s public transport patronage growth performance target is a 4% increase per 82 annum.

Table 2.2: Passenger growth, 2004/05 to 2008/09 (millions of passengers)83 2003/0484

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Train

11.19

11.17m

11.71m

11.62m

11.58m

11.74m

1.40%

Tram

2.16

2.10m

2.07m

2.36m

2.58m

2.62m

1.50%

Total

13.35

13.27m

13.78m

13.98m

14.15m

14.36m

1.43%

Service

Growth over the last year (%)

An examination of the patronage on individual routes shows considerable variation. Of note is that there was a 12.7% drop in patronage over the last financial year on the Belair line, as seen in Table 2.3. This was due to the closure of the line between April and August 2009 to allow for concrete re85 sleepering, with patrons preferring not to use the substitute bus services.

Table 2.3 Passenger growth on selected rail lines (millions of passengers)86 Train line

2007/08

2008/09

Change 5 500

Growth over the last year (%)

Outer Harbor

2,477,196

2 482 746

0.2%

Gawler

3 844 992

4 068 608

223 616

5.8%

Belair

1 121 517

978 541

-142 976

-12.7%

Noarlunga

4 138 297

4 214 105

75 808

1.8%

Freight task The major segments of the rail freight task in SA are:  Intermodal freight with Adelaide as a the point of origin or destination  Intermodal freight, which passes through Adelaide  Bulk freight on the interstate network, with the main freight products being:  Steel products, particularly from Whyalla to Melbourne and Newcastle  Grain, along the length of the Melbourne – Adelaide line, and north from Adelaide to Crystal Brook  Lead concentrate between Broken Hill and Port Pirie 87  Mineral sands between the Bemax siding at Kanandah (Broken Hill) and Port Pirie.  Bulk freight on the intrastrate network with the main freight products being:  Grain  Steel  Minerals, gypsum, limestone and coal.

The percentage of each freight category carried along the East-West Interstate Rail Corridor is identified in Figure 2.4.

31

Transport Figure 2.4: Percentage of each freight category carried along the East-West Interstate Rail Corridor in 2007/09 (gross tonne km) 88

The total rail freight task into and out of Adelaide over 2007/08 was 4.8 million tonnes, of which 89 some 83% was containerised and 17% bulk.

2.2.2

Policy and governance South Australia’s Strategic Plan, released in 2004 and updated in 2007, identifies that the objective 90 for infrastructure is to facilitate economic growth and productivity improvement. Detailed guidance for transport infrastructure is provided in the Strategic Infrastructure Plan for SA, released in 2005.

This plan provides guidance from 2005/6 to 2014/15. It states that the ―long-term strategic aim for rail is to develop a connected metropolitan, regional and interstate standard-gauge network, capable of supporting the axle weights and lengths of modern freight trains [and] the network should be serviced by intermodal terminals that facilitate rapid transhipment between road and 91 rail‖.

A key transport priority is to shift passenger and freight movements to rail, where justified by 92 environmental, economic or social imperatives. The target for public transport is to increase its 93 use to 10% of metropolitan weekday passenger vehicle kilometres travelled by 2018. Strategies being pursued to achieve this are:  Improve performance on the rail, tram and O-Bahn corridors by increasing frequency, reliability and speed of services  Increase accessibility across the metropolitan public transport network by expanding capacity and improving connectivity of services at key interchanges  Strengthen public transport links with future land use planning strategies, including facilitating growth of new transit-oriented developments (TODs) to meet housing demands and contributing to the development of a more environmentally resilient city  Continue to invest in improvements to customer information, safety, security and amenity 94  Increase the use of lower emission and renewable fuels and technologies.

Excluding the government-owned metropolitan rail network, the SA Government has limited direct control over the vast majority of the State‘s rail networks, as they are owned by the ARTC or leased to the private sector. The key role of government for these rail lines is to ensure that any above-rail operators can access them on fair commercial terms. Ensuring an appropriate access regime is particularly important in SA as on both the GWA and FreightLink railways, the railway owner/lessor

32

Rail is also a provider of above-rail services on those lines, thus creating potential conflicts of interest.

Access to these networks, and to TransAdelaide‘s network, is provided for by the South Australian 95 Rail Access Regime.

SA‘s rail transport legislation primarily comprises the following Acts:  Railways (Operations and Access) Act 1997. This Act establishes the South Australian Rail Access Regime and covers TransAdelaide‘s broad gauge network within metropolitan Adelaide, the GWA lines in the Murray-Mallee, Mid-North and Eyre Peninsula, and the Great Southern Railway passenger terminal at Keswick.  AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act 1999 (SA and NT). This Act provides for access to the Tarcoola-Darwin railway under the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) 96 Code.  Rail Safety Act 2007. This Act establishes a safety regulatory regime for all rail owners and 97 operators in SA. 2.2.3

Sector trends Renewal of Adelaide’s public transport system In May 2008, the SA Government announced a ten year, $2 billion program to transform Adelaide‘s public transport system. This investment was supplemented in 2009 with additional State funds and Australian Government funding from the Nation Building for Recovery program, bringing the total investment over the life of the program to $2.6 billion. The program aims to develop faster, cleaner, more frequent and efficient services for commuters. Its major components are:  Heavy and light rail extensions 98  Electrification of major rail lines (25kV AC overhead traction power system)  New and upgraded rail and light rail vehicles 99  A new ticketing system.

Detailed initiatives include: 100  Extending the existing Noarlunga line by 5.5km to Seaford (to be completed in 2013)  Construction of new light rail links to West Lakes, Semaphore and Port Adelaide (the $199 million tramline extension to West Lakes and associated tram purchases have been deferred101 and a revised start date for this extension is still to be announced)  Concrete resleepering of the metropolitan passenger rail network using sleepers suitable for gauge conversion in the future. Track upgrades have been completed on the Belair line, work on the Noarlunga line is planned for 2010, which will be followed by work on the Gawler and Outer Harbor lines.  The electrification of the Noarlunga (including Tonsley), Outer Harbor, Grange and Gawler 102 lines. The electrification design work is expected to start in 2010, with the major site works installation beginning in 2011. The first new rolling stock will arrive in 2012 with the electric train 103 service beginning to operate in 2013. Electrification of the Belair line is not proposed at this 104 time, as this requires further engineering and operational analysis. The Adelaide Hills line is the subject of a study by the Federal Government and a decision about electrifying the Belair line will not be made until after this study is completed.  Gauge standardisation of the rail network. It is planned to prepare the network for conversion from broad to standard gauge as part of the upgrade of the urban rail system. As the work on resleepering the track and the construction of the new Dry Creek maintenance depot progresses, the components (such as concrete sleepers and turnouts) are designed to facilitate gauge conversion, where practicable. Planning is underway to determine the optimum time for staging the delivery of standardisation.

105  Upgrading of interchange, station and Park ‗n‘ Ride infrastructure 106  Relocating the railcar depot and constructing the Seaford Railcar Facility

33

Transport 107

The conversion of 58 railcars to full electric operation. A number of diesel railcars will be 108 retained in use to service the non-electrified Belair line.  Procurement of new electric rail cars, trams and tram-train (dual-voltage) vehicles 109  Introduction of a new integrated ticketing system 110  Purchasing new trams (six new trams will be delivered over 2009/10). 

Other rail related developments underway include:  Planning for a rail corridor to Aldinga, the north-south urban corridor and the Northern Connector  Relocating the Adelaide rail yards to Dry Creek, which will free up inner city land for alternative 111 developments.

Growth in freight Forecasting future freight demand depends on assessing the future attractiveness of rail compared to other modes (road, sea and air) in terms of its price, availability and reliability, as well as considering the probability of major new projects commencing. In the case of SA, new projects include expansion in the mining and agribusiness industries such as the Olympic Dam expansion, mineral sands from the Murray Mallee and Eyre Peninsula, a pulp mill near Penola in the south 112 east and iron ore mining on the Eyre Peninsula.

Historically, the ARTC has based its growth forecasts on historical rates of demand growth plus 1% 113 to 2%, and a broad continuation of historical rail market share. However, the ARTC considers that rail freight attractiveness will rapidly change in the future due to:  Continued rising fuel costs in real terms  Continued rising labour costs in real terms, in particular for long-distance truck drivers  Introduction of a carbon trading scheme  Introduction of mass-distance charging for road access  Increased urban congestion  Continued rising demand for coal 114  Continued rising demand for other Australian minerals.

The ARTC has developed projections for rail share, using a low, base and high growth scenario out to 2017/18. Figure 2.5 presents these projections for various paths on the East-West Interstate Rail Corridor using 2004/05 as the base year.

Figure 2.5: Rail market share on various paths on the East-West Interstate Rail Corridor115

34

Rail There are two developments that will affect rail volumes in SA. Firstly, it is expected that sea trade 116 between the east and west will increase, taking some freight traffic away from rail. Secondly, Adelaide is expected to decline in its relative importance as a rail destination and point of origin on the East-West Interstate Rail Corridor over the next 30 years. This is because Perth‘s role as a rail 117 freight point of origin and destination is expected to grow at a faster rate than Adelaide.

Improvements in the East-West Rail Corridor The ATRC funds infrastructure investments on its networks based on market need. As the EastWest Interstate Rail Corridor has already captured around 80% of the corridor‘s land transport market, the ARTC‘s focus is now on sustaining asset performance to maintain volume growth in alignment with economic growth. The ARTC‘s priority is maintenance and small targeted 118 investments to keep up track performance, ride quality and speed.

ARTC projects on the East-West Rail Corridor currently underway include:  Increasing the height clearance for trains on the Crystal Brook to Parkes line to 6,500mm. This will allow a larger range of double-stacked container combinations to be carried.  Building passing loop extensions for 1,800 metre trains at Kinalung and Matakana (NSW) to increase capacity and reduce transit times between Parkes and Crystal Brook. These extensions complement new loops also recently completed at Haig, Mungala, Winninowie, Mingary and Port Germain on the Adelaide - Perth corridor.  Rolling out the In Cab Activated Points System (ICAPS) technology across the Port Augusta Kalgoorlie corridor. ICAPS allows train drivers to remotely change turnouts at passing loops.

This removes the need to bring the train to a stop to operate a push-button to change the 119 points, reducing transit time and fuel consumption. This technology will also be utilised on the Adelaide – Darwin Corridor.

The major enhancements that the ARTC wishes to pursue on the East-West Interstate Rail Corridor over the next 15 years are:  Increasing the permissible train length along the Melbourne – Adelaide corridor from 1,500 metres to 1,800 metres. This would increase capacity and improve efficiency, and require extending or building additional passing loops. The ARTC has proposed that this be completed by 2013.  Clearing the Sydney – Parkes line for double stacking, which would allow both the Sydney – Perth and Sydney – Adelaide traffic to carry a larger range of double-stacked containers. The 120 ARTC has proposed that this be completed by 2015.

Not included in the above list are projects to allow double stacking on the Melbourne – Adelaide line and to improve the existing Adelaide Hills line. This is because the ARTC considers that these 121 projects are not economically justifiable within the next 15 years. However, if the Australian Government funds the Adelaide Hills bypass, which will allow double stacking along this segment, then the ARTC may bring forward work on the rest of the Melbourne – Adelaide line to allow double stacking along its entire length.

Adelaide Hills Rail Realignment In 2008, the Australian Government announced a study into realignment of the rail line between Murray Bridge and Adelaide that travels over the Adelaide Hills. The existing railway alignment is deficient from a rail operations perspective, as well as being a concern to the local community due f to wheel squeal, safety and inconvenience from delays at level crossings.

The current rail alignment was opened in 1887 and has changed little since then. Only 38% of the alignment is straight, and it has vertical grades of about 2%, which is double the desirable grade of f

Wheel squeal is the loudest type of train noise. It is a high-pitched, piercing noise that can occur as trains travel on curved track due to friction between the steel wheel and the top of the steel rail head.

35

Transport 1%. It has six tunnels and ten bridges, and the line has insufficient clearance to allow for full height containers to be double-stacked. These inadequacies mean that:  The track can only carry trains to a maximum of 3,500 tonnes (total train weight) and a maximum length of around 1,500 metres  Freight trains must travel more slowly through the Adelaide Hills, averaging only 35kmh because of the tight curves and steep terrain. This performance compares with a target average speed for the Melbourne - Adelaide corridor of 60kmh. On the Sydney - Melbourne corridor, once improvements now underway are completed, the average speed will be approximately 122 80kmh, and on the Adelaide - Perth corridor, approximately 70kmh.

A discussion paper on the options for this route was released in October 2009. The final report will be sent to the Federal Transport Minister in 2010.

2.3

Performance

2.3.1

Passenger service network performance DTEI sets and monitors the performance levels that TransAdelaide needs to meet. The targets are primarily:  Punctuality (on-time running), measured as the percentage of the services arriving on time at specified monitoring points  Reliability, measured as a proportion of the timetabled train or tram services that have run.

On time running is reported as the percentage of journeys arriving at their destination within 6 123 minutes of their published timetable time. The target is 93%. Factors that affect on-time running targets are:  Train mechanical problems  Signal, track, level crossing and points problems  Vandalism  Passenger or staff illness or injuries  Passenger inability to or unwillingness to board and alight quickly  Extreme weather such as storms and heat waves 124  Police operations, fatalities and bushfires.

Table 2.4 details on time running for TransAdelaide trains and tram services. It shows that train services have not achieved the target for the last five years.

Table 2.4:On time running for TransAdelaide trains and tram services, 2004/05 to 2008/09125 Year

Train

Tram

2004/05

92.60%

97.80%

2005/06

89.70%

96.40%

2006/07

90.20%

98.40%

2007/08

82.90%

93.00%

2008/09

86.60%

92.40%

Service reliability is reported as the percentage of services completing their timetabled journey. The target is 99%. Table 2.5 details on service reliability for TransAdelaide trains and tram services. It shows that train service reliability targets have been achieved continuously over the last five years, but this has not been the case for trams for the majority of the last five years. A significant contributing factor in the decline in the last year has been due to ongoing renewal works and the hot weather causing track buckling and electrical faults.

36

Rail Table 2.5: Service reliability for TransAdelaide trains and tram services, 2004/05 to 2008/09 Year

2.3.2

Train

Tram

2004/05

99.46%

98.80%

2005/06

99.61%

98.90%

2006/07

99.69%

99.60%

2007/08

98.96%

98.30%

2008/09

99.32%

96.60%

Interstate rail network On the Adelaide – Melbourne Corridor, constraints include:  The difficult alignment and steep grades through the Adelaide Hills  Inadequate length and number of passing loop lengths and intervals  Congestion on the Victorian components.

The constraints on the Adelaide – Melbourne Corridor have resulted in a low freight arrival 126 reliability target of 55% for the corridor. The line currently carries about 4.8 million tonnes per year and has the capacity to handle 10.7 million tonnes based on existing train configurations and available track space and makes allowance for the fact that for commercial reasons, not all 127 scheduled opportunities are taken up, according to the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study.

128 The study states that this line has sufficient capacity for at least 10 to 15 years.

On the Perth – Adelaide Corridor, the line between Adelaide to Kalgoorlie is meeting the Australian Transport Council (ATC) endorsed target average operating speed of 75kmh. However, there can be congestion on the Adelaide to Port Augusta component of the railway due to the convergence of 129 trains from Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Whyalla, Broken Hill, Port Pirie and Darwin.

On the Sydney – Adelaide Corridor, there is sufficient capacity to meet current demand levels with 130 track utilisation below 50% across the corridor.

The major deficiencies with this corridor are located in NSW and include inadequate clearance to allow unrestricted double stacking of containers, speed restrictions due to poor track quality, and old signalling and communication 131 systems.

On the Adelaide – Darwin Corridor, there is sufficient capacity to meet current and expected demand. As demand increases with the emergence of new resource projects, such as the Olympic Dam mine expansion, additional crossing loops will likely be required to accommodate additional train movements. Compared to the rest of the interstate standard gauge railway, the Adelaide – Darwin Corridor performs well in terms of average train speed and on-time reliability. This is a function of fewer trains operating along the corridor, the fact that it is a relatively new railway and upgrading of the rail and turnouts. Extreme weather events can affect the railway, as seen in January 2010 when the track was temporarily closed north of Alice Springs by flood waters.

However, the flood design standards of the railway between Tarcoola and Darwin are higher than many parts of the remaining interstate network, reflecting its more recent construction. Flood outages are therefore less frequent than some other more vulnerable parts of the interstate rail 132 network. About 100km of track between Tarcoola and Alice Springs consists of light 40kg/m rail (the rest of the railway uses 50kg/m rail) and much of this will need to be replaced over the next 10 years. Likewise, this section of the railway will require the upgrade of turn-outs over time to the standard installed on the new Alice Springs to Darwin section and the replacement of a small number of derailment damaged concrete sleepers.

37

Transport 2.3.1

Derailments The quality of the rail network is reflected in the number of derailments. SA‘s rail network has experienced 183 derailments between January 2001 and June 2009. Converting this figure to derailments per million km travelled, SA‘s level of derailments per distance travelled is the third highest of all Australian States and Territories, as seen in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Train derailments per million km travelled, 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009133 Period January 2001 – June 2009

2.3.2

NSW

Qld

WA

Tas

Vic

NT

SA

Total

0.90

0.96

0.82

10.20

0.53

1.61

1.27

0.91

Level crossing safety Level crossings can be controlled through either passive or active control systems. Passive control systems alert road users through signs and road markings of an approaching level crossing. Active traffic control systems alert road users through flashing lights and sounds that are triggered by approaching trains. For high risk level crossings, Active Advanced Warning Systems can be installed that alert road users of approaching trains up to 200 metres before the crossing. There are 952 public access level crossings on operational lines in SA, of which 244 have active protection 134 measures and 708 have passive protection. There have been 81 road vehicle collisions at SA 135 level crossings between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2009. Normalising this collision rate for train distance travelled, the SA accident rate is trending down, as seen in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6. Normalised road vehicle collisions at level crossings per million train km travelled by jurisdiction, 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009136 SA 1 National average 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

2009 Jan-Jun

2008 Jul-Dec

2008 Jan-Jun

2007 Jul-Dec

2007 Jan-Jun

2006 Jul-Dec

2006 Jan-Jun

2005 Jul-Dec

2005 Jan-Jun

2004 Jul-Dec

2004 Jan-Jun

2003 Jul-Dec

2003 Jan-Jun

2002 Jul-Dec

2002 Jan-Jun

2001 Jul-Dec

0 2001 Jan-Jun

Road vehicle collisions at level crossings per million train km travelled

1.2

As part of the Federal Economic Stimulus package, the Australian Government is providing $13.6 million over 2008/09 and 2009/10 to fund the installation of boom gates and other safety measures 137 at 34 high risk rail level crossing sites across SA. Work on the upgrades started in mid 2009.

2.3.3

Rail security The SA Government has implemented a number of measures to improve safety and security on passenger trains, including closed circuit television (CCTV), and high visibility emergency help 138 phones at all major interchanges.

2.3.4

Environmental sustainability Rail transport is around four times as energy efficient as road transport for freight. This means that rail has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.

139 Currently, transport sector emissions account for almost 20% of total State emissions. Rail

38

Rail passenger transport also generates significantly less greenhouse gases than does private motor vehicles per km travelled.

An objective in SA‘s Strategic Plan is to reduce the State‘s ecological footprint by reducing the impact of human settlements and activities. This is being achieved through investing in public transport, and integrating transport and land-use planning. The aim is to link employment, services and homes, aiming to minimise the need for trips and increasing the efficiency of people and goods movements.

Table 2.7 identifies the progress the State is making towards the goal of increasing the use of public transport to 10% of metropolitan weekday passenger vehicle kilometres travelled by 2018.

Table 2.7: Performance figures for metropolitan public passenger services (rail and bus)140

2.4

Performance indicator

2009/10 target

Percentage of metropolitan weekday passenger vehicle travel on public transport

7.9%

2008/09 estimated result 7.3%

2008/09 targeted 7.7%

2007/08 actual 7.3%

Future challenges The future challenges to achieving improvements in rail infrastructure are:  Inadequate expenditure on rail infrastructure. The draft 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide predicts that the population will increase by 560,000 people over the next 30 years. A considerable proportion of this growth is predicted to occur north of Adelaide and the Plan recognises the need for public transport infrastructure improvements, especially rail, to service these growth areas. The current $2 billion public transport program to improve Adelaide‘s public transport, while large in the SA context, falls well short of the required funding to deliver the 141 public transport infrastructure improvements outlined in the Plan.  Maintaining long-term funding for rail to achieve the goals of the Rail Revitalisation Plan.

The Plan requires some $2 billion of investment over a decade. While recent expenditure on rail has increased significantly, maintaining this high level will be essential for the foreseeable future if the plan is to be achieved.  Improving the interstate and intrastate freight rail lines, and their intermodal connections. The diverse ownership and management of the State‘s interstate and intrastate freight rail lines requires considerable effort in coordinating investment and operational decisions that advance the State‘s interests. Compounding the problem are the different gauges used by different rail networks within the State, which impede the development of an integrated transport network.  Increasing metropolitan rail patronage levels during network upgrade. Customer satisfaction will reduce, along with patronage numbers, with the temporary closure of the Noarlunga and Gawler lines, and a reduction in the number of railcars due to their refurbishment. Minimising disruptions will be essential to stemming the likely patronage loss.  Provision of intermodal terminals. Multi-use intermodal terminals are essential to increasing rail volumes, and driving down transport costs. While the ARTC provides the interstate mainlines, it is generally private sector operators who provide the intermodal terminals. To maximise the benefits from these terminals, all stakeholders (e.g. local government, local businesses, community and transport operators) should be involved in their planning and funding in proportion to the benefit they receive from them.  Delivering integrated land use and transport planning outcomes. See the challenges described in the Roads section.

39

Transport

2.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Rail

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

C

C ARTC network B- Metropolitan network D Regional rail network

C-

D-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s rail infrastructure has been rated C. This rating recognises that the metropolitan rail network has experienced a continual decline in service quality over the last 5 years, however significant planned investments should arrest this trend. The intrastate rail network has improved marginally in some areas but the remainder of this network continues to wither. The interstate network has improved due to selective upgrades by the ARTC, but bottlenecks remain, particularly in the Adelaide Hills and metro areas.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Planned metropolitan rail line upgrades and extensions including electrification  Metropolitan tram line extensions  Metropolitan rail and tram vehicle fleet upgrades  A policy commitment that public transport is central to future urban development and emphasis on transport-oriented development  A study into the future of the rail line through the Adelaide Hills  Improving the quality of the interstate network.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are: 142  A rail system that is antiquated, such as sleepers dating back to the 1950s  Decades of under-investment in rail  Multi-gauge network owned and managed by different agencies  Inadequate rail connections to ports and intermodal facilities.

40

3

Ports

3.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Ports

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

Not rated

C+

B

This rating recognises that the ports are generally fit for their current purpose. However, major expansion of existing ports or the development of new ports will be needed to accommodate any significant increase in mineral exports.

Since 2005, the major port sector developments in SA have been:  The upgrade of facilities at Port Adelaide  Development of a master plan for Thevenard and Port Lincoln ports  Significant increase in mineral exports resulting in increased port usage  Proposals to develop Port Bonython and Sheep Hill Port.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Deepening of the shipping channel to Port Adelaide‘s Outer Harbor  Redevelopment of the passenger terminal at Port Adelaide‘s Outer Harbor  Redevelopment of Port Adelaide‘s inner harbour  Completion of the Common User Facility at TECHPORT Australia  Upgrades of Port Giles and Wallaroo  Development of ore exporting capability at Port Lincoln.

Challenges to improving port infrastructure include:  Ensuring ports can service the growth in mining exports

3.2

Infrastructure overview

3.2.1

System description SA‘s port infrastructure consists of:  Ten commercial seaports– Port Adelaide, Port Giles, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Thevenard, Wallaroo and Klein Point (all operated by Flinders Ports), Ardrossan (Viterra Ltd), Whyalla (OneSteel) and Port Bonython (Santos)  Local ports servicing local industries, tourism and recreation.

This section focuses on SA‘s commercial seaports, as they are an integral part of the State and g national transport system. It does not cover local ports, ports owned by the Department of Defence or stevedoring services whose primary role is to load and unload ships.

The key functions of commercial seaports are:  The provision and management of:  Basic port infrastructure, such as facilities for the berthing of ships and loading cargo  Navigation infrastructure, such as shipping channels, to provide for the safe access of ships to berths  Harbour master services, which involve directing shipping movements within the port waters.

g

Local government is generally responsible for the infrastructure at local ports. However, the ports of Kingscote, Cape Jervis and Penneshaw are operated by the South Australian Government.

41

Transport The provision of land in the vicinity of berths on which cargoes can be assembled for loading or placed temporarily following discharge, as well as road and rail access and other services within the port environs  The provision of complementary infrastructure, such as cargo storage facilities or specialised cargo handling equipment. 

The location of SA‘s commercial ports is illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: SA’s commercial ports143

Port privatisation Before 2001, the State-owned SA Ports Corporation owned a number of ports in the State. These were privatised, with Flinders Ports Pty Limited acquiring the port infrastructure at Port Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Thevenard, Port Giles, Port Pirie, Wallaroo and Klein Point. Flinders Ports also acquired a 99 year lease over the port and associated land, and an operating licence for these 144 ports. The disposal of the SA Ports Corporation and its assets was intended to meet four major objectives:  Encourage economic development through expanded freight service business and investment opportunities  Encourage improved services for exporters and importers through improvements and cohesion in the transport chain  Enable resources tied up in the corporation to be put to better use such as debt reduction or the provision of government services 145  Remove future risks to government from commercial competition in ports business.

42

Ports An overview of the SA‘s export ports is provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Characteristics of SA’s multi-use ports146 Characteristic

Port Adelaide

Port Giles

Port Lincoln

Port Pirie

Open access facility

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Bulk facilities owner

NA

Viterra

Viterra

NyrStar/ Viterra

Port manager

Flinders Ports

Flinders Ports

Flinders Ports

Flinders Ports

Primary bulk export

Various

Grain

Grain

Zn conc.

Max load‐out rate

1,000 tph

1,000 tph

1,250 – 2,000 tph

600/800 tph

Max ship length (LOA)

Up to 350m

228 m

262 m

180 m

Depth (m)

Up to 16m

14.7 m

14.7 m

6.4m

Max ship size*

Panamax

Panamax

Panamax

Handymax

Infrastructure connection

Rail & road

Road

Rail & road

Rail & road

Characteristic

Thevenard

Wallaroo

Klein Point

Whyalla

Open access facility

Yes

Yes

No

Indentured port

Bulk facilities owner

Viterra

Viterra

Adelaide Brighton

OneSteel

Port manager

Flinders Ports

Flinders Ports

Flinders Ports

OneSteel

Primary bulk export

Grain, Gypsum, Mineral Sands

Grain

Limestone

OneSteel iron ore

Max load‐out rate

500/1,050 tph

800 tph

Max ship length (LOA)

108 m

230 m

150 m (Inner)

Depth (m)

8.2 m

8.7 m

6.5 m (inner)

10.5m (harbour)

Max ship size*

Handymax

Panamax (part load)

Handymax

Panamax (part load)

Infrastructure connection

Road

Road

Road

Rail & road

Handymax, ships weight between 25,000 to 50,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT) Panamax, the largest size of ship that can pass through the Panama Canal, weight between 60,000 to 80,000 DWT Capesize, vessels that cannot pass through either the Panama Canal or Suez Canal and have to pass around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn, weight above 150,000 DWT

Port Adelaide Port Adelaide is SA‘s largest port, however compared to Australia‘s other capital city ports, it is relatively small. It faces strong competition from other transport modes and from other ports, 147 particularly Melbourne.

The port consists of facilities in two locations, the Outer Harbor located on the Gulf St Vincent and the Inner Harbour, located further upstream on the Port Adelaide River. The Outer Harbor consists of six berths equipped to handle specialised cargo, including motor vehicles, livestock, grain and general cargo, as well as a cruise ship passenger terminal. The Outer Harbor also contains the Adelaide Container Terminal. This is the State‘s only dedicated container handling facility. Port 148 Adelaide is the only SA port with regular container shipping services. The container terminal is owned 60% by DP World and 40% by Flinders Ports, and the business has operating rights to the 149 terminal, granted by Flinders Ports, until 2039. The container terminal is operated by DP 150 World. Port Adelaide has experienced growth in container traffic in recent years due to its proximity to key markets, an increasing number of international ports being serviced directly from 151 the port, and an increase in the frequency of container shipping services calling at the port. As a result of increasing container volumes and the arrival of larger ships, DP World has ordered new cranes with greater reach, and Flinders Ports has extended its berths, deepened the channel, 152 increased storage space and improved intermodal connections. Figure 3.2 shows the port of Adelaide.

43

Transport Figure 3.2: Port of Adelaide and key port infrastructure153

In 2002, Flinders Ports unveiled a $400 million plan to redevelop the Outer Harbor industrial precinct. Completed projects include:  Building a new grain berth ($34 million)  Extending the State‘s container terminal by 149 metres, thereby allowing two Panamax size vessels to berth at the same time ($17 million) 2  Building a 20,000m warehouse for Constellation Wines Australia (formerly the Hardy Wine 154 Company) ($15 million).

44

Ports In 2006, Flinders Ports and the State Government jointly funded a $45 million deepening of the 155 shipping channel into Outer Harbor. This operation deepened the channel by an extra 2m to 14.2m and extended it from 9km to 11.7km in length. The channel upgrade enables fully laden Panamax size vessels to enter the Outer Harbor.

In November 2009, the passenger terminal at the Outer Harbor completed a $500,000 redevelopment. The project was funded by both the SA Government and Flinders Ports. The development included a new entry point allowing cars to drop off passengers with luggage at the terminal, and a direct route to the Outer Harbor Railway Station, which cuts the walking distance to 156 the train by 50% to just 150m.

The Inner Harbour is undergoing a $50 million redevelopment to create a common user facility called the Port Adelaide Bulk Precinct. The Bulk Precinct is planned to cover a site of some 160,000 square metres and provide 350,000 tonnes of storage. It will cater for mineral sands, zinc concentrates, copper concentrates, sulphur and fertiliser/phosphate rock. The first element of the redevelopment, a $6 million storage facility, was opened in April 2009. Future elements will include:  A $5 million private rail link and interface with the national rail network  Improved environmental performance, including minimising dust and introducing water conservation and re-use across the site  New materials handling systems, including reclaimed conveyor systems to and from the storage facilities  Upgraded or improved ancillary facilities, including new roadways, site services and 157 environmental systems.

The Inner Harbour services several types of cargo including roll-on roll-off and bulk commodities.

158

TECHPORT Australia On the Port Adelaide River at Osborne is TECHPORT Australia, one of the nation‘s major naval industry hubs. The SA Government has invested over $300 million in infrastructure at the facility which is used by ASC Pty Ltd (formerly Australian Submarine Corporation) to deliver the Royal Australian Navy‘s $8 billion Air Warfare Destroyers, as well as being used for other naval shipbuilding and repair activities. Its key infrastructure includes:  common user shipbuilding facilities, including a 213 metres long wharf  dry berth, transfer system and the largest shiplift in the southern hemisphere, capable of supporting a vessel up to 9,300 tonnes.

Port Lincoln Port Lincoln is situated on the southern tip of the Eyre Peninsula and is 652km by road from Adelaide. The port‘s main export is grain and its main imports are petroleum products and 159 fertilisers. Port Lincoln is a natural deepwater harbour. Key challenges facing the port are:  Insufficient area for mineral storage near the wharf  Ageing rail infrastructure  Grain deliveries causing traffic problems through the city and at the wharf  Difficulty in maintaining efficient grain delivery using long grain trains  Inadequate rail unloading areas  Concern over contamination risks to grain from minerals at the port  Conflicts between port operations and adjacent residential growth 160  Tension between commercial port operations and fishing industry needs.

The 2008 Eyre Peninsula Ports Master Plan recommended the following actions to address the above challenges:  Relocate the fishing fleet to the disused BHP site at Proper Bay  Upgrade the road network to cater for heavy vehicles 45

Transport Upgrade the main wharf to cater for the mining industry Reroute the scenic walk away from the wharf due to OHS issues and risk to the public with traffic 161  Encourage recreational fishing away from the main wharf.  

Centrex Minerals intends to use the port to export iron ore from its Wilgerup mine. Infrastructure work at the port that the company is progressing includes:  Upgrading an existing rail unloading facility  Upgrading the existing Storage Shed 5 for iron ore storage  Installing new in-loading and out-loading conveyor systems  Installing dust control systems 162  Building a new shiploader on Berth 4.

The company anticipates that it will be exporting ore by 2011. Centrex Minerals is building the port infrastructure specifically for the Wilgerup mine, which expected to have a life of between six and 163 seven years. Once the mine is exhausted, the infrastructure may be disposed of.

Port Pirie Port Pirie is situated 223km north of Adelaide on the east coast of the Spencer Gulf. The port is primarily used to service the NyrStar smelter, which is one of the largest lead smelters in the world.

The port mainly exports zinc and lead. Imports into Port Pirie include minerals, coal and ores. New road access at the port was completed in 2008 and upgrades of the rail lines and sheds are anticipated.

Port Giles The port is located on the eastern side of the Yorke Peninsula, 217km by road from Adelaide. The port is used solely for the export of grain from the lower section of the Yorke Peninsula. Just over 0.32 million tonnes of grain were exported from Port Giles during the 2008/09 financial year. In 2005, Flinders Ports completed a $9 million upgrade of Port Giles. This upgrade now allows 164 Panamax-sized vessels to use the port and to depart fully loaded.

Thevenard The port of Thevenard is located beside the town of Ceduna in the West Coast region, 793km west of Adelaide. Thevenard is a bulk port that primarily exports gypsum, mineral sands, salt and grain.

Nearly 2 million tonnes of cargo was exported from Thevenard in the 2008/09 financial year, 165 making it the second largest multi-user port in SA. Key challenges facing the port are:  Ageing rail infrastructure and the need to maintain the existing rail line to sustain existing gypsum volumes over time  Limited mineral sands storage  Concern over contamination risks to grain from minerals at the port  Tension between commercial port operations and fishing industry needs  Limited channel draft of 8.2m 166  Limited ship loader reach.

The 2008 Eyre Peninsula Ports Master Plan recommended the following actions to address the above challenges:  Dredge the Yatala Channel to a depth of 10.7m, so as to allow the loading of Handymax vessels and part-loading of Panamax vessels  Upgrade the Kevin-Thevenard rail line to cater for increased gypsum volumes  Upgrade and expand the ship loading system on the Thevenard wharf. This will address the concern over contamination of grain and various mining products. An option is to have a second ship loading system. As the size of gypsum vessels visiting the port will increase to a 32m beam, it will be necessary to increase the reach of the loader.

46

Ports  

Construct a separate commercial wharf Investigate opportunities for additional export product storage. 167

The capital required for port-related work at Thevenard is estimated to be $73 million. The Eyre Peninsula Economic Development Board is seeking $30 million in public funding with the rest of the 168 investment to be paid by user surcharges.

The Eyre Regional Development Board has also identified a new strategic site for a mineral export hub and port facilities to cater for Capesize vessels. The site is located on the Eastern Coastline between Port Neill and Tumby Bay. The site provides easy access to deep water within 480 metres of the shore line. The new greenfield site will service the emerging mining industry on Lower and Eastern Eyre Peninsula.

Wallaroo The port at Wallaroo is situated 158km northwest of Adelaide on the Yorke Peninsula, on the eastern side of the Spencer Gulf. Principal commodities exported from Wallaroo are grain and vegetables. During 2008/09, 0.587 million tonnes of cargo passed through Wallaroo.

Klein Point Klein Point is located on the south eastern coast of the Yorke Peninsula. It is a single-purpose port used to export limestone. In 2009, over a million tonnes of limestone was exported from Klein Point.

Port Stanvac The port at Port Stanvac ceased active operations in 2003 following the closure of the Mobil Refining Australia oil refinery at Lonsdale. Demolition and remediation of the plant was announced 169 in 2009, Part of the site owned by Mobil was sold to the SA Government and is now the site of the Adelaide Desalination Plant.

Ardrossan The port at Ardrossan is located on the eastern coast of the Yorke Peninsula and is operated by Viterra Ltd (formerly ABB Grain). It has a bulk loading facility with conveyor capacity of 1,100 tonnes per hour for grain. Its jetty is 900 metres long with a Tee wharf of 409 metres. Commodities loaded at Ardrossen include dolomite and grain, however the facility is capable of handling other 170 dry bulk commodities.

Whyalla Port The port at Whyalla is operated by OneSteel and is located in the city of Whyalla on the eastern shore of the Eyre Peninsula. The port is used for the export of a variety of iron products. This port includes a bulk‐loading barge trans‐shipment operation. The port is an indentured port, giving OneSteel exclusive use.

Port Bonython The port at Port Bonython handles the export of petroleum products, principally LPG and crude oil 171 from the Cooper Basin. It has a 2.4 kilometre jetty. The existing port infrastructure cannot be 172 used for bulk commodities, such as iron ore.

47

Transport 3.2.2

Policy and governance Following the privatisation of the SA‘s commercial ports in 2001, the SA Government‘s role in managing ports and building infrastructure has been reduced. The private sector is now principally responsible for port and shipping infrastructure. However, the SA Government, through DTEI, continues to:  Provide policy advice and strategy development on freight, commercial shipping and port related activities  Facilitate improvements to port infrastructure to enhance the State‘s development  Support efficient, sustainable and equitable access to freight services in SA  Provide key information to inform decision makers on logistics and commercial ports and 173 shipping matters.

The major priorities for the SA Government in the port sector are outlined in the Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia. They are to:  Facilitate redevelopment of the State‘s export and import harbours to ensure efficient access to international markets and support for regional industries  Ensure that changes in land use on or near ports and harbours do not preclude current or future 174 transport and harbour activities.

The SA Government is active in ensuring that appropriate zoning and land banking occurs at Port 175 Adelaide so that there is sufficient land around the port for future developments. Another SA Government policy is not to permit a second container stevedore to operate at Outer Harbor until annual throughput at the existing container terminal exceeds 225,000 full TEUs per annum. This is 176 because it considers that a second operator will not be viable for a lesser volume.

Port operations and development are regulated in three main areas. They are:  Economic regulation. The Maritime Services (Access) Act 2000 provides for access to SA port and maritime services on fair commercial terms and regulates the price of essential maritime services. This economic regulation only applies to the ‗proclaimed ports‘ of Port Adelaide, Port 177 Giles, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Wallaroo, Thevenard and Ardossan.

This economic regulation is a light handed form of price regulation, where the port operator can sets its own price for Essential Maritime Services but the prices are made public and the h Essential Services Commission of SA (ESCOSA) monitors them. The current regulatory regime of the seven proclaimed ports will expire on 30 October 2010.  Market competition in stevedoring and freight-forwarding operations. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) reviews stevedoring and freight-forwarding operations to ensure that the market remains competitive.  Development of ports. Proposals for expansion of port facilities are subject to assessment processes under the Development Act 1993 and the Commonwealth‘s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1995.

3.2.3

Sector trends Change in port throughput The throughput of each regulated port is detailed in Table 3.2. Throughput is heavily dependent on the state of the economy, product demand, geographic location and seasonal variations. For instance, grain traffic, notably at Port Giles, is related to harvest yield.

h

Essential Maritime Services consists of providing or allowing for access of vessels to a proclaimed port; or providing port facilities for loading or unloading vessels at a proclaimed port; or providing berths for vessels at a proclaimed port. Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2008, 2008 Ports Price Monitoring, pp. 1-2.

48

Ports Table 3.2: Cargo throughput in mass tonnes178 Port

2004/05

2005/06

Port Adelaide

9,869,714

9,968,759

10,094,427

10,297,070

9,719,610

Port Lincoln

1,568,748

1,776,589

1,214,361

1,076,325

1,434,826

Port Pirie

827,030

767,462

536,751

568,964

711,568

Port Giles

469,142

647,583

189,655

331,348

326,593

Wallaroo Thevenard Klein Point Total

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

526,052

462,579

332,010

315,784

587,025

1,783,654

1,937,726

1,808,629

2,058,598

1,999,638

2,049,272

1,866,091

2,153,628

1,910,079

1,425,748

17,093,612

17,426,789

16,329,461

16,558,168

16,205,008

Table 3.3 identifies the throughput for each regulated port.

Table 3.3: Total throughput for 2008/2009179 Port

Import (mass tonnes)

Port Adelaide

Export (mass tonnes)

Total throughput

Cruise vessel visits

5,233,979

4,485,631

9,719,610

20

Port Lincoln

169,408

1,265,418

1,434,826

3

Port Pirie

407,272

304,296

711,568

0

Port Giles

0

326,593

326,593

0

37,784

549,241

587,025

0

Thevenard

0

1,999,638

1,999,638

0

Klein Point

0

1,425,748

1,425,748

0

5,848,443

10,356,565

16,205,008

23

Wallaroo

Total

A significant component of SA‘s port cargo is destined for overseas markets. During 2008/09, exports increased in volume by 22% to 12.5 million tonnes, but decreased in value by 7% to $8.9 180 billion. China was SA‘s largest export market by volume and this is principally iron ore exports.

Figure 3.3 shows exports by ports.

Figure 3.3: Exports from SA ports from 2004/05 - 2008/09 (million tonnes)181 Whyalla

6

Wallaroo 5

Bonython Adelaide

4

Thevenard 3

Port Pirie Port Lincoln

2

Other SA Ports 1 0 2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Total containerised trade at Adelaide Port is forecast to increase by 5.3 per cent a year over the next twenty years, reaching 475,000 TEUs in 2024-25. Figure 3.4 displays this forecast growth.

49

Transport Figure 3.4: Projected containerised exports and imports for Port Adelaide182 500 Total TEUs ('000) 450

Linear (Total TEUs ('000))

Thousands of TEUs

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Increased minerals exports Exports from mining developments in SA are expected to increase significant in the next few years.

A cross section of key mining projects are identified in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Location of key mining projects in SA along with rail lines and ports183

50

Ports Currently, SA does not have any bulk loading facilities for iron ore except for OneSteel‘s privately 184 operated loading facility at Whyalla, which is unavailable to third parties. There are five ports, Port Adelaide, Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Port Giles and Wallaroo, which are capable of handling Panamax ships. Port Giles and Wallaroo are not suitable for large scale volume as they are only accessed by road. Port Lincoln does not have a rail connection to the north of the State meaning 185 the northern mines cannot access it.

To support the export of mining exports, two new port projects are being pursued:  A multi-user facility at Port Bonython  A multi‐user port at Sheep Hill (near Tumby Bay), 70km north of Port Lincoln.

3.3

Performance 186

Rating port performance is difficult as each has different infrastructure, and cargo to handle. In addition, most port performance measures, such as average ship turnaround time, are likely to be influenced by the efficiency of stevedores rather than the port infrastructure itself.

A 2007 benchmarking exercise of port prices indicated that SA ports are generally more expensive compared to ports in other parts of Australia. The major factor explaining this is that the other ports 187 have greater economies of scale.

Investment in ports is primarily the responsibility of the port owner. Flinders Ports has developed a master plan for its ports and is investing when there is sufficient economic justification to do so.

The State Government has also been facilitating port development by building rail and road access infrastructure, as well as contributing to specific projects such as channel deepening.

3.3.4

Port security All the ports of Flinders Ports are Security Regulated Ports. All have security plans that aim to safeguard maritime transport and facilities against unlawful interference. The security regulatory environment is governed by the Commonwealth‘s Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and Offshore Facilities Security Regulation 2003, which reflect the International Ship and Port Facility and Security (ISPS) Code.

Over the last few years, each port has increased security measures, such as participating in information-sharing forums between government agencies and regulated port users, building new and upgraded fencing and gates, restricting access to sensitive areas, undertaking background checking of port workers through the introduction of the Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC), and increasing the volume of closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance.

Both infrastructure and labour costs continue to rise to meet security regulations. While some costs have been borne by the port, as the cost continues to rise, industry will need to take more of the cost burden. Flinders Ports considers that it is important that a sensible approach is taken with regards to port security to provide a workable balance between adequate security measures and the cost of maintaining secure facilities.

3.3.5

Environmental sustainability Flinders Ports ensures that port users are made aware of their environmental impacts at ports.

Particular risks include:  Noise, dust and water pollution due to the operations of loading, storage and unloading  Cross contamination of products, such as between grain and minerals  Transport impacts, including congestion, pollution and noise  Biodiversity impacts.

51

Transport All parties are actively working to reduce these risks.

Flinders Ports states that environmental sustainability is a key issue in the ongoing operations of its ports. The company states that it continues to invest in infrastructure to ensure protection of the marine environment and maintains an ongoing programme to ensure stakeholders in the port are aware of their obligations.

3.4

Future challenges The challenges in achieving improvements in port infrastructure are:  Ensuring ports can service the growth in mining exports. The growth in mining will require increased export ports capable of handling Capesize and Panamax vessels. These ports will need to be multi-user and will need to have efficient rail and road access.  Urban encroachment. A sensible and pragmatic approach from all parties is required when dealing with community groups with regards to port development.

3.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Ports

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

Not rated

C+

B

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s port infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that the ports are generally fit for their current purpose. However, major expansion of existing ports or the development of new ports will be needed to accommodate any significant increase in mineral exports.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Improvements at Port Adelaide and other SA ports in line with economic projections  Establishment of the new Air Warfare Destroyer ship building and maintenance facilities at Osborne.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Constrained and inadequate road and rail connections with some ports  Uncertainty in the provision of port and connecting road/rail infrastructure to support mining expansion.

52

4

Airports

4.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Airports

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

Not rated

B

B

This rating recognises that there have been continual upgrades at Adelaide Airport and regional airports. However, some smaller airports have limited financial means to provide the improved airport infrastructure required to accommodate heavier aircraft and new security measures.

Since 2005, the major airport developments in SA have been:  The release of final Master Plans for the two Commonwealth-leased airports  The growth in non-aeronautical developments on Commonwealth-leased airports  The growth in passenger and freight traffic at regional airports.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Construction of Terminal One at Adelaide Airport  Upgrades at Mount Gambier Airport  Resurfacing of runways at Adelaide Airport.

Challenges to improving airport infrastructure include:  Meeting long-term passenger and freight growth  Maintaining the financial viability of regional airports.

4.2

Infrastructure overview

4.2.1

Infrastructure description Airport infrastructure consists of fixed assets on airport land, including runways, terminals, buildings (ie. aeronautical and non-aeronautical industrial, commercial and retail buildings), roads, drainage systems and fencing.

In SA, there are over 400 airports and airstrips. These can be divided into the following categories:  One international and major domestic airport – Adelaide Airport  One major general aviation airport – Parafield Airport  Ten regional airports with scheduled passenger services – Ceduna, Challenger, Coober Pedy, Kingscote on Kangaroo Island, Mount Gambier, Olympic Dam, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln, Prominent Hill and Whyalla 188  Minor airports and airstrips.

This section does not address airports owned or operated by the Department of Defence.

Table 4.1 identifies the passenger statistics for SA‘s major airports in the last four years.

53

Transport Table 4.1: Passenger statistics for SA’s airports (total revenue passengers)189 Airport

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Adelaide

5,766,504

6,181,390

6,619,267

6,784,137

6%

17,287

20,677

23,827

24,899

15%

Ceduna Coober Pedy Kingscote Mount Gambier Olympic Dam

8,465

10,548

10,345

9,744

5%

60,252

59,155

63,985

59,587

0%

102,121

109,435

115,365

98,247

-1%

37,112

57,639

74,099

76,118

35%

Port Augusta Port Lincoln Whyalla

Average yearly growth 2005/06 to 2008/09 (%)

3,953

4,987

4,690

9,104

43%

138,547

138,844

149,544

148,435

2%

64,546

76,091

79,425

68,087

2%

In the 2008/09 financial year, SA exported 18,396 tonnes of freight by air with a value of $816.5 million. This was an increase of 849 tonnes or 4.8% from 2007/08 and the first increase after 5 consecutive years of decline. However, the total freight moved from Adelaide Airport increased in each of those years, and in the 2008/09 period it increased by 2,032 tonnes or 23.4%. This equates to 58.2% of SA‘s total air freight being loaded at Adelaide Airport during the 2008/09 financial year. The total tonnage and value of air freight loaded at Adelaide Airport and transhipped to interstate gateways for export over the last five years is displayed in Table 4.2.190 Table 4.2: Freight statistics for Adelaide Airport191 Freight type

Financial year 2004/05

2005/06

Change

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Average per annum

2007/08 to 08/09

Volume (Tonnes) Ex ADL

7,157

7,536

7,936

8,669

10,701

10.6%

23.4%

Transhipped

12,331

11,827

10,635

8,878

7,695

-11.1%

-13.3%

Total

19,488

19,363

18,571

17,547

18,396

-1.4%

4.8%

Ex ADL

313.706

291.824

267.655

292.195

322.341

0.7%

10.3%

Transhipped

414.265

479.095

538.339

495.839

494.155

4.5%

-0.3%

Total

727.971

770.919

805.994

788.034

816.496

2.9%

3.6%

Value (Fob $m)

Adelaide Airport Adelaide Airport is owned and operated by Adelaide Airport Limited (AAL). It was acquired in 1998 and operates under a 50-year lease from the Australian Government, with an option for a further 49 years. Adelaide Airport is the country‘s sixth largest international, and fourth largest domestic, airport and provides the main aviation gateway for SA.192 It is a key component of SA‘s transport infrastructure and contributes to the State‘s economy through tourism, airfreight and business development. Despite the global economic crisis and the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) influenza pandemic, Adelaide Airport‘s 2008/2009 passenger numbers grew by 2.4% as seen in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Adelaide Airport’s passenger figures193 Passenger type

1997/98

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Domestic*

3,379,118

5,331,421

5,694,184

5,861,220

International**

258,488

495,663

541,856

Regional

366,325

473,409

546,177

4,003,931

6,300,493

6,782,217

Total passengers

*Includes Domestic on Carriage, ** Includes Transits

54

Change between 2007/08 and 2008/09 (%)

Change last 11 years (%)

2.9%

73.5%

543,222

0.3%

110.2%

531,461

-2.7%

45.1%

6,935,903

2.3%

73.2%

Airports The principal infrastructure at Adelaide Airport includes:  A two-runway system, comprising the main runway (3,100m) and a secondary runway (1,652m) together with associated taxiways and apron  Multi user terminal serving international, domestic and regional flights  Air freight facilities including a six metre pallet loader and cold storage facilities  Aircraft maintenance hangars and associated facilities  General aviation facilities (including terminals) and helicopter facilities  Rescue and fire fighting facilities  Air traffic control facilities  Aviation fuel facilities.

In 2006, the $260 million development of Terminal One (T1) was completed. The terminal has the capacity to accommodate up to 27 aircraft (A380 capable) simultaneously and has 14 aerobridges linking aircraft directly to the terminal. 194 The airport‘s 2009-14 Master Plan, which was approved in 2009, stated that international passenger movements are expected to increase to between 0.9 and 1.3 million by 2027/28.

Domestic passenger growth has been forecast to grow over the next 20 years to between 9 million and 13 million in 2027/28.

Adelaide Airport operates under a curfew from 11pm to 6am to limit noise impacts. This curfew does allow for freight aircraft and 'quiet' aircraft to operate during curfew hours. The Adelaide Airport is not seeking to have the curfew removed, but believes a more flexible system is required to allow for recognition of technological advances in preventing aircraft noise. 195 i

Adelaide Airport is the first of three airports to have its air traffic control tower replaced under Airservices Australia‘s Stage 1 of the National Towers Program, which involves replacing or upgrading Airservices Australia‘s 26 control towers throughout Australia. This investment is part of a Capital Expenditure Program of almost $900 million over five years and includes upgrading fire stations, communications and navigation infrastructure.

Parafield Airport Adelaide Airport Limited also operates Parafield Airport, which is located 18km north of the Adelaide CBD. Parafield is a General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) airport meaning it operates under a set of procedures designed to cater for high density air traffic operations. Just like Adelaide Airport, Parafield was acquired in 1998 and operates under a 50-year lease from the Australian Government, with an option for a further 49 years.196 Parafield has four runways and has the capacity to handle 450,000 aircraft movements annually. Parafield Airport had 242,384 aircraft movements during control tower operational hours in 2008/09, which was a 4.7% increase from the previous financial year.197 Parafield Airport is home to the SA Country Fire Service Operations Base, as well as being a major centre for international flight training. Flight Training Adelaide is the main trainer at Parafield Airport and has students from Qantas, Cathay Pacific Airlines, China Airlines, Dragonair, JAL Express, Emirates and the Hong Kong Government Flying Service. 198 The recent growth in training operations at Parafield has facilitated the extension of the Flight Training Adelaide apron to double its size, with accommodation for eight additional parking bays for fixed wing training aircraft. 199 Regional airports SA has a network of regional airports that support scheduled passenger services, charter facilities, economic development, mineral exploration, health and social development. The eight regional airports are all owned and managed by local government, except for Olympic Dam which is i

The three are Adelaide, Melbourne and Rockhampton.

55

Transport privately owned. The regular passenger transport airports are Certified and Security Designated Airports, which means they are required to meet minimum safety, risk and security standards.

Key regional airports are:  Port Lincoln Airport. The District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula owns and operates Port Lincoln Airport. The airport is located near the township of North Shields, approximately 10km north of the City of Port Lincoln. Two airlines, Regional Express and Qantas Link, operate services to and from Adelaide.200 Passenger numbers were 148,000 in the 2008/09 financial year, which was a reduction of 0.7% from the previous year‘s figure. The Council has planned for future expansion of the airport with a new $1.2 million taxiway and apron expected to be 201 completed by mid 2010.

The Council also submitted an unsuccessful application for a new terminal building to the Federal Government‘s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure 202 Program. No decision has yet been made on the future of this redevelopment.  Mount Gambier and District Airport. The Mount Gambier and District Airport is owned and operated by the District Council of Grant and is located 12km north of Mount Gambier on the Riddoch Highway.203 Regional Express operates daily services to and from Adelaide and Melbourne. 204 During the 2008/09 financial year, 98,108 passengers passed through Mount Gambier airport, with this being a 16.3% drop from the previous year‘s record figure. The passenger terminal was recently doubled in size. The Council has developed an airport master plan as a key feature of the Council‘s 2009-2013 Strategic Management Plan.  Ceduna Airport. The Ceduna Airport is owned and operated by the District Council of Ceduna and is located 4km east of Ceduna on the Eyre Highway. 205 Regional Express operates a daily service to and from Adelaide. During the 2008/09 financial year 24,899 passengers passed through Ceduna Airport, this being a 4.5% increase from the previous year‘s figure. The Council also submitted an unsuccessful application for a new terminal building to the Federal Government‘s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Another application has been submitted to the second round of this program which has yet to be assessed. The Council has developed an airport master plan and business plan and development of the airport has been identified as a priority in the Council‘s Strategic Business Plan.

Other SA regional airports can be classified into the two groups of:  Registered airports. Cleve, Cowell, Kimba, Loxton, Naracoorte, Port Pirie, Renmark, Streaky Bay, Waikerie, Wudinna  Authorised Landing Areas. These are normally airstrips with no facilities and are designed for emergency services such as the Royal Doctor Flying Service.

Most of these regional airports came into local government ownership following their transfer from the Australian Government during the 1970s to 1990s. A condition of the transfer was that the new owner maintained the land as an airport. Australian Government funding was provided to bring the airports up to an appropriate standard following the transfer. While there have been grant programs since then, there has been no ongoing funding for continued maintenance or capital works.

The cost to local governments of operating airports has increased considerably over the last two decades. This is due to:  Increasing size and weight of aircraft. Aircraft size has increased from small 8 seater aircraft to 34 seater aircraft, with a consequential increase in maximum takeoff weight from 5,700kg to 11,800kg. Aircraft runways, taxiways and aprons were typically designed for 6,000kg aircraft, and the increase in weight is resulting in increased pavement damage. The larger size of the aircraft also means increased apron space, terminal space and car parks are required.  Aviation security measures. Since 2001, aviation security measures have required airports to install fencing, access controls and closed circuit television (CCTV) systems.  Customer demand. Airport customers are expecting high levels of service at a reasonable price that can be difficult to provide given the costs that these impose on the airport.

56

Airports 

Services. A number of local governments have been forced to take over refuelling facilities at their airports.206

Airports have the following sources of revenue for financing their operations:  Head Tax, which is collected by Regular Passenger Transport and Charter operators from each passenger through their ticketing and passed on to the airport operator  Landing Charges, which are collected from general aviation aircraft, usually based on the weight of the aircraft and on landing only  Area leasing, which includes leasing of terminal facilities, hangars, rental car offices and retail space  Advertising and car parking.207 Many of the smaller airports must be subsidised by general revenue from the local government owner as there are insufficient funds generated by the airport to cover operating costs.208 4.2.2

Policy and governance There is no specific aviation strategy in SA. The SA Government has outlined airport infrastructure as a strategic priority in its Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia. In order to achieve the Plan‘s objectives of growing prosperity and building communities, the SA Government has the following priorities:  Maintaining an efficient transport network to Adelaide Airport to support anticipated passenger and freight movements  Ensuring any change in land use on or adjacent to export airports does not preclude future transport development  Providing for the orderly expansion of facilities at regional airports to meet growing visitor and freight activities.209 The State Government has stated in its Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide (2007) that it will:  Protect Adelaide Airport as the principal gateway for domestic and international visitors to Adelaide and SA  Maintain the role of Parafield Airport for aviation and aviation training. 210 Specifically, it states that the goal is to ―protect and manage airports to give priority to freight and passenger movements and ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with airport activities.‖ This is done through:  Encouraging aviation-related activities such as transport, logistics and storage to locate at or near airports while ensuring they do not adversely impact on aviation activities or adjacent residential areas  Confining non-airport related development at airports to a size and type that does not adversely affect or compete with designated activity centres, or constrain expansion of aviation facilities consistent with Airport Master Plans  Improving alternative traffic access to airports.211 All airports are governed by the Commonwealth Air Navigation Act 1920 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Airports leased from the Commonwealth come under the Airports Act 1996.

Airports owned by the Commonwealth are subject to additional Commonwealth legislation provisions, and are not subject to other State legislation.

On-airport planning at Commonwealth-leased airports is defined by an airport‘s master plan.

Master plans must be developed by the new airport operators within a prescribed period to cover the next twenty years, and must be reviewed and updated at no more than five-yearly intervals.

Master plans are required to be approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Infrastructure. Major 57

Transport development plans are also required for certain types and scale of developments, such as runway extensions, terminal expansions and capital works over $10 million. While the use of master plans is the basis for planning considerations on airports, these stop at airport boundaries and have little, 212 if any, influence off-airport.

The regulations and planning policies that influence off-airport planning decisions vary depending on whether or not an airport is a Commonwealth-leased airport, a defence airport or an airport that comes under State planning regimes.

All airports not owned by the Commonwealth are subject to State legislation. Local governments that own airports are responsible for planning their airports. Some of these local governments have developed airport master plans. The SA Government provides guidance to local governments on airport planning.213 In December 2009, the Australian Government released the National Aviation Policy White Paper.

Its policies should improve integrated planning at Commonwealth-leased airports, including Adelaide Airport, by:  Requiring each capital city airport to establish a Planning Coordination Forum that will act as the vehicle to lead the ongoing discussions between the airports and the three levels of government on issues including master plans, the airport‘s program for proposed on-airport developments, regional planning initiatives, off-airport development approvals and significant ground transport developments that could affect the airport and its connections.  Requiring airports to produce more detailed Master Plans that will have to contain:  Additional detail on proposed use of land in the first five years of a master plan, including information on planning for each non-aviation precinct, the number of jobs likely to be created, anticipated traffic flows, and the airport‘s assessment of the potential impacts on the local and regional economy and community  A ground transport plan in the master plan  A more detailed analysis of how the master plan aligns with State, Territory and local government planning laws, as well as justification for any inconsistencies.  Requiring all airports to establish and lead Community Aviation Consultation Groups to ensure that local communities have direct input on airport planning matters, with appropriate arrangements for engagement with other industry stakeholders such as airlines and Airservices Australia where necessary.  Prohibiting incompatible developments on federal airport sites, such as residential developments and schools, unless exceptional circumstances exist.  Developing a number of initiatives to safeguard both airports and communities from inappropriate off-airport developments which could threaten public safety and the future viability 214 of aviation operations.

Key government agencies involved in airports are:  Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). CASA is an independent statutory authority established in 1995 under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to regulate aviation safety in Australia and the safety of Australian aircraft overseas.  Airservices Australia. Airservices Australia is the monopoly provider of air traffic management and fire fighting services at Australia‘s major civil airports.  Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG) (Australian Government). The Department has a policy advisory role in aviation and provides advice to the Government on the Commonwealth‘s aviation agencies‘ strategic direction, their financial and operational performance, and their governance framework. The Department also has a role in leading the development and publishing of major future air traffic policy directions to give effect to the Government‘s decisions, as well as leading and coordinating the implementation review processes.

58

Airports 

4.2.3

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The ACCC is responsible for monitoring financial and service quality at five capital city airports, including Adelaide Airport.

Sector trends Increasing passenger movements and air freight volumes The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Economics predicts that passenger movements through all airports will increase by 4% per annum over the next 20 years resulting in a doubling of passenger movements over the period. Each master plan provides forecasts of passenger demand for their airport.

The Adelaide Airport believes that the existing runway has a capacity that extends well beyond 2029.215 The provision of a parallel runway would extend the time to reach capacity to beyond 2060.216 Adelaide Airport Ltd has outlined that increasing the overall airport capacity to accommodate forecast demands is its main objective.217 At Parafield Airport, aircraft movements are projected to rise to between 269,000 and 431,000 by 2029. Parafield Airport can accommodate this increase through its current capacity. 218 Passenger growth at regional airports is expected to return as Australia rebounds from the global financial crisis. Growth in mining, industry and property development in regional SA is strong and this will result in increased use of air services and additional charter services to and from the regions.

Conflicts between on-airport development and off-airport land-use planning The State Government and local government have no control over land-use planning decisions on Commonwealth-leased airports. This has the potential to lead to on-airport developments that do not mesh with local development and infrastructure plans.

The problem arises because the Airports Act 1996, which applies to the airports, diminishes the ability of the States and local government to ensure that airport developments conform to broader planning strategies. Specifically, the Act results in airport development plans being exempt from State planning legislation. It only requires airport owners to involve State and local governments in airport planning by seeking comments on draft master plans on a five-yearly cycle. This problem is well recognised and can result in the undermining of the State‘s land-use policy to concentrate development in activity centres, and freight and logistics precincts.

However, developments at Adelaide Airport have not caused the same degree of concern to surrounding local governments and the State Government as have similar developments in other States. According to the airport‘s surrounding local government, the City of West Torrens, in recent years there have been no major issues over developments that could not be resolved via discussion and compromise between the airport operator and the Council. 219 This was not the case in the past, as there have been concerns about inappropriate non-aeronautical development and its impact on other commercial activities in the surrounding area. 220 Land use decisions at Adelaide Airport have improved because AAL:  Actively engages with key stakeholders continuously rather than relying on the five yearly planning process, through its Adelaide Airport Consultative Committee (AACC) which meets four times a year, and the Western Adelaide Consultative Group (WACG) which meets no less than three times per year  Uses a planning regime that aligns with the State planning regime. Specifically, it uses the State‘s planning principals and a planning approvals regime that mirrors the State

59

Transport Government‘s regime, allowing alignment and coordination with surrounding land planning and development decisions.

AAL‘s approach has limited the impact of airport developments on the surrounding areas. However, it has not eliminated them. One area of concern for the surrounding local government, City of West Torrens, is the impact of road traffic growth on nearby arterial roads. A number of nearby arterial intersections are at capacity, and future road growth will result in congestion. One option is to upgrade them, which will be very costly and disruptive, and another is to accelerate the construction of the light rail link between the airport and CBD. To specifically address road traffic growth arising from airport developments, Adelaide Airport Ltd, in conjunction with DTEI and in consultation with local governments, produced the confidential Adelaide Airport Access Study Report. This planning document covers the roads immediately adjacent to and in the vicinity of the airport that may be directly affected by airport access.

Major airports becoming Airport Cities A global trend is for major airports to become major business areas that integrate air facilities with business, industrial and commercial developments. This builds on the historical concept that key transport nodes (such as coastal and river ports and railway towns) have become major commercial centres. In SA, this is occurring at Adelaide and Parafield airports. Airports are no longer just a key piece of transport infrastructure; they are becoming destinations in their own right and are becoming Airport Cities. The challenges for airports in achieving this goal include:  Simultaneously meeting both the growing demand for air passengers and freight, and the demand for other non-aeronautical functions due to commercial and retail developments  Ensuring that they have sufficient on-airport infrastructure to meet demand  Ensuring that there is sufficient off-airport infrastructure to allow transport to and from airports to operate efficiently  Preventing or minimising inappropriate creep of residential developments towards the airport boundary, which could compromise the operations of the airport  Minimising noise and other environmental complaints from those living close to the airport because of air, road and rail movements.

4.3

Performance

4.3.1

Aviation safety Table 4.4 provides details on air accidents and fatal accident statistics for SA in the years from 1999 to 2009.

Table 4.4: Non–fatal and fatal air accidents in SA, 1999 to 31 March 2009221

60

SA

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total

Non–fatal accidents

14

8

12

9

7

21

10

9

9

8

0

89

Fatal accidents

3

2

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

8

Fatalities

6

9

1

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

20

Airports 4.3.2

On-time arrivals Only one SA airport is monitored for punctuality and reliability by the Bureau of Infrastructure, j Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), as displayed in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: On-time arrivals and departments for 2009222 Airport Adelaide

Percentage On-time Arrivals 89.8

Percentage On-time Departures 90.3

To put these figures in perspective, in December 2009, Proserpine Airport (Queensland)recorded the highest percentage of on-time arrivals (95.1%), while Coffs Harbour Airport (NSW) recorded the lowest (73.9%). Proserpine Airport also recorded the highest percentage of on-time departures (95.1%), while Coffs Harbour also recorded the lowest (71.1%).

4.3.3

Quality of service Adelaide Airport is the only SA airport required to report on its quality of service to the Australian k Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Quality of service includes subjective measures, such as surveys of airport users‘ perceptions, and objective measures, such as check-in waiting times. As seen in Figure 4.1, Adelaide Airport‘s overall rating decreased slightly from ‗good‘ towards ‗satisfactory‘. A contributing factor to the ratings is the infrastructure at the airport, notably the terminal buildings and carparking facilities.

Figure 4.1: Adelaide Airport—overall quality of service ratings for international and domestic terminal services, and airside services223

4.3.4

Security Following the terrorist incidents on 11 September 2001, the Australian Government introduced the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 which mandated additional security requirements at Australian airports. They required:  Increased Australian Federal Police presence at airports  Screening of 100% of checked bags on all international flights  Screening of all domestic checked bags at major airports l  Limiting liquids, aerosols and gels on international flights.

These additional security measures, notably the requirement to screen 100% of bags checked on international flights, have contributed to an increase in airports‘ costs. Costs incurred included the purchase of equipment to screen passengers and checked baggage, and the installation of overt 224 and covert closed-circuit television (CCTV) security cameras.

j

On-time performance is reported for all routes where the passenger load averages over 8,000 passengers per month, and where two or more airlines operate in competition. k The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) requires seven designated airports to report costs, revenues and profits relating to the supply of aeronautical and aeronautical-related services, and quality of service monitoring. l New legislation, notably Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005.

61

Transport While security requirements are determined by the Australian Government, airports have the ability to enhance their operational effectiveness via coordination with police, security operators and airlines.

In February 2010, the Australian Government announced it would accelerate the implementation of screening at a number of additional regional airports that are currently served by larger passenger turbo-prop aircraft. There is also a requirement for more stringent training and performance requirements for security screening staff at all airports.225 Future security priorities of airports will be to:  Extend security along the supply chain to address the security risk of freight  Increase passenger screening  Increase policing at airports  Implement new passenger security processing measures.

4.3.5

Environmental sustainability Commonwealth-leased airports are required to prepare and maintain an Airport Environment Strategy (AES) which is reviewed and updated every five years. The main intent of an AES is to show how the airport will manage environmental issues over a five-year cycle. The Act requires that an airport undertake consultation with key stakeholders and the community prior to submission of the AES to the Government.

Environmental issues on the leased airports are administered principally by Australian legislation:  The Airports Act 1996  The Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997  The Airport (Building Control) Regulations 1997.

The Airport Building Controller (ABC) and the Airport Environment Officer (AEO) are the on-site regulatory representatives for DITRDLG who administer the Act and Regulations on behalf of the Australian Government.

The AESs prepared for Adelaide and Parafield Airports address the following issues and propose monitoring and mitigation strategies:  Energy  Water resources  Noise  Waste  Stormwater  Soil and groundwater Land and heritage management  Local air quality. 

The smaller airports, including those in rural and remote areas, do not normally prepare such detailed documents for their facilities. However, they have procedures in place for more immediate environmental issues such as fuel spills.

Greenhouse gas mitigation Civil aviation accounts for about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions and this is expected to rise due to growth in the aviation sector. Ways to reduce emissions include improving aircraft fuel efficiency and air traffic management such as continuous descent approaches. A challenge for the aviation sector will be the impact of carbon pricing. If it results in subsidies for alternative modes of travel (e.g. fuel credit for heavy on-road transport businesses), there is a risk that the exclusion of 62

Airports the aviation industry from comparable assistance may have the effect of creating a structural competitive distortion in the market for passenger travel and freight.

Major airports are actively involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by enhancing energy efficiency, working to provide increased public transport and reducing road congestion. Adelaide Airport‘s objectives for managing greenhouse emissions are to:  Minimise Adelaide Airport Limited‘s carbon footprint  Be influential in reducing greenhouse gas emission levels from other airport users  Be adaptive to future climate change impacts on the airport.226 No work specifically targeted at climate change adaptation has been identified by SA airports.

Noise Noise concerns from airports have resulted in the imposition of a curfew at Adelaide Airport. The SA Government supports the continuation of Adelaide‘s curfew despite the desire of AAL to see a more flexible system installed that allows for recognition of technological advances in preventing aircraft noise.227

4.4

Future challenges The challenges in achieving improvements in airport infrastructure in SA are:  Meeting long-term passenger and freight growth at Adelaide Airport. In the short and medium term, there is sufficient capacity at Adelaide Airport to meet expected growth. To guarantee its ability to expand, the airport and governments need to protect airport sites to avoid incompatible use of surrounding land.  Maintaining the financial viability of regional airports. Larger regional airports have the capacity to meet the growing regional passenger and freight needs. However, for other regional airports, funding the maintenance of ageing infrastructure and upgrading of infrastructure is a challenge. There is a growing gap between the funding need and the airport revenue. The longterm viability of smaller regional airports will depend on ongoing government financial support.

An additional challenging is meeting the requirements of larger aircraft and the new security requirements.

4.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Airports

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

Not rated

B

B

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s airport infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that there have been continual upgrades at Adelaide Airport and regional airports. However, some smaller airports have limited financial means to provide the improved airport infrastructure required to accommodate heavier aircraft and new security measures.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Upgrades at Adelaide Airport and regional airports  Sustained growth in exploration and mining is stimulating associated aviation infrastructure  Additional airline operators entering the market for the provision of regular passenger transport and charter operations.

63

Transport Negatives that have contributed to the rating are: ď‚ť Limitations to the use Adelaide Airport because of curfew arrangements ď‚ť Financial challenges in maintaining appropriate infrastructure at some smaller regional airports.

64

WATER Integrated water cycle policy and practice SA has been experiencing a drought for most of the last decade. Rainfall has been below average (ie. under 30% of historical averages) in parts of the State since 1997 and the Murray–Darling Basin has experienced below average rainfalls since 2002. 228 These challenges, along with continued population growth, have forced the SA Government to implement water restrictions, conservation measures and supply augmentation projects.

The crisis has also accelerated the need to manage all water resources in an integrated manner.

Water resources consist of surface water, including the River Murray, groundwater, wastewater, stormwater, recycled water and to some degree, seawater. An integrated approach delivers economic, social and environmental benefits such as increased security of supply, savings in water and wastewater treatment, and ecological restoration. It does this by using different water types (e.g. recycled water) for their highest value use and reducing reliance on single sources.

In SA, an integrated approach has been adopted in the State‘s water strategies. This integration is evident in the Water for Good plan (2009) and other key water policies and documents in the table below.

Policies and strategies

Description

Water for Good (2009)

The plan provides an over-arching framework of reforms and commitments to achieve the SA Government‘s water security aims for the State, which are to ensure its water supplies are secure, safe and reliable for at least the next 40 years, to diversify water supplies and reduce reliance on the River Murray.

South Australia’s Strategic Plan (2004 and updated in 2007)

This plan sets out State-wide goals. It defines the objective for infrastructure as the facilitation of economic growth and productivity improvement.229 Its key water target is to manage water supplies within sustainable limits.

Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia (2005)

This plan provides the overarching State framework for the planning and delivery of infrastructure by all government and private sector infrastructure providers. Strategic priorities for the period between 2005/06 and 2014/15 are identified for 14 infrastructure sectors.

Water Proofing Adelaide (2005)

This plan identified actions for the management, conservation and development of Adelaide‘s water resources to 2025. It has been superseded by the Water for Good plan.

SA Water regional water infrastructure plans

These plans identify the current and projected potable water demand and supply, the state of water resources from which the potable supply is drawn and options for the future to ensure demand can be met. Plans have been developed to cover: Kangaroo Island (2009) Eyre Peninsula (2008) Yorke Peninsula (planning started in December 2008)

The allocation of water for environmental and consumptive purposes from water resources is defined in Water Allocation Plans. These plans are developed for each of eight Natural Resources Management (NRM) regions in the State.230 These plans provide the following information:  Environmental provisions  Definition of prescribed resources  Legal water entitlements frameworks  Volume of water available from the prescribed resource for consumptive use  Current usage 65

Water  

Future demand Mechanisms to address over-allocation and overuse.

A new series of planning documents have been proposed in the Water for Good. Called the Regional Water Security Plans (also known as the Regional Demand and Supply Plans), the plans will include:  The status of all available water resources within the region  Demand and supply forecasts  An action plan, which will include demand management and augmentation options where appropriate.231 RDS Plans will be based on the existing Natural Resources Management Regions, and will link with other plans and water planning processes. They are designed to ensure secure water supply and management options for a 40 year period.232 Key government agencies in the water sector are:  Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). The MDBA is responsible for planning integrated management of the water resources of the Murray–Darling Basin.233 In 2008, the MDBA assumed responsibility for all of the functions of the former Murray–Darling Basin Commission.

Its key functions include:  Preparing the Basin Plan for approval by the Minister for Climate Change and Water, including setting sustainable limits on water that can be taken from surface and groundwater systems across the Basin (due in 2011)  Advising the Minister on the accreditation of State water resource plans  Developing a water rights information service which facilitates water trading across the Murray–Darling Basin  Measuring and monitoring water resources in the Basin.234  National Water Commission (NWC). The NWC is an Australian Government agency responsible for driving progress towards the sustainable management and use of Australia‘s water resources under its blueprint for water reform, the National Water Initiative. The Commission advises the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and the Australian Government on national water issues and the progress of the National Water Initiative.  Office for Water Security (SA Government). The Office is headed by the Commissioner for Water Security and co-ordinates water policy development across government, focusing on:  SA‘s negotiations on the National Plan for Water Security  Driving SA‘s commitments under the National Water Initiative  Developing a comprehensive State-wide water security plan that builds on and incorporates Water Proofing Adelaide235  Water Security Council (SA Government). Formed from the merger of the Water Security Advisory Group and Task Force, the Council provides an ongoing formal vehicle for issues of strategic importance on water security, including supporting an integrated approach to natural m resources management.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (SA Government). The EPA is SA‘s environmental regulator, responsible for the protection of air and water quality, and the control of pollution, waste, noise and radiation. It administers the Environment Protection Act 1993.  Natural Resource Management Boards (SA Government). These boards have superseded the Catchment Water Management Boards.

m

Its membership consist of Chief Executives of key State Government agencies including the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, SA Water, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Department of Treasury and Finance, Department of Environment and Heritage, Primary Industries and Resources SA and DTEI.

66

Water Key legislation in the water sector consists of:  Natural Resources Management Act 2004. This Act establishes eight regional boards across SA. Each is responsible for developing a Natural Resources Management Plan for its region.

Where a water resource is prescribed, the Boards are required to prepare a Water Allocation Plan, which deals with the allocation of the available resource.236  Public Corporations Act. This Act, which applies to SA Water, requires it to provide services in accordance with prudent commercial principles and to strive to provide a commercial return to Government. It states that non-commercial operations may be carried out, but must be provided in an efficient and effective manner.237  South Australian Water Corporation Act 1994. This Act establishes SA Water and makes it subject to the Public Corporations Act. The Act defines SA Water‘s functions as:  Supply of water by means of reticulated systems  Storage, treatment and supply of bulk water  Removal and treatment of wastewater by means of sewerage systems  Additional functions of: - Carrying out research and works to improve water quality and wastewater disposal and treatment methods - Providing consultancy and other services within areas of the Corporation's expertise - Developing and marketing commercial products, processes and intellectual property produced or created in the course of the Corporation's operations - Advising water users in the efficient and effective use of water - Encouraging and facilitating private or public sector investment and participation, whether from within or outside the State, in the provision of water and wastewater services and facilities.238  Sewerage Act 1929. This Act empowers SA Water to construct and operate sewerage systems.  Waterworks Act 1932. This Act empowers SA Water to construct and operate water supply systems.  Metropolitan Drainage Act 1935. This Act provides for flood mitigation works on the River Torrens, Sturt River, and the Brownhill and Keswick Creeks. SA Water administers this Act on behalf of the Minister for Water Security.239  Environment Protection Act 1993. This Act provides the regulatory framework to protect SA‘s environment by providing for the development of the Environmental Protection Authority, which also administers and enforces the Act. It also provides for the development of environmental protection policies and issuing of licences.

New water legislation is planned for 2010. Called the Water Industry Act, it aims to provide a single legislative focus for water planning and service delivery and also to provide a comprehensive regulatory framework to promote efficiency, public safety and effective environmental protection.240 The new legislation is not expected to result in major changes to the Natural Resources Management Act which will remain the main piece of legislation that guides the work of the NRM Council and the Regional NRM Boards.241 The NRM Council‘s key role is to advise the Minister for Environment and Conservation on the management of the State‘s natural resources. In addition, the Council audits, monitors and evaluates the condition of natural resources across the State by reporting on the performance of the eight Regional NRM Boards and reviewing the State NRM Plan. This also includes reviewing Regional NRM Board policies and regional NRM plans to assist in ensuring they are consistent with the State NRM Plan.242 The new Act is expected to clarify pricing and ownership of stormwater and recycled water, to allow new entrants into the water sector, and to encourage deployment of new water technologies.

SA’s dependence on the River Murray/Murray Darling Basin SA is very dependent on the River Murray/Murray Darling Basin for irrigation and potable water. In certain areas of the State, River Murray water is the sole supply of potable water.

67

Water SA’s water consumption n SA uses about 1200GL/year of water from all sources. Agriculture is the largest water user accounting for 78% of the total.243 The figure below shows how potable water is used in Greater Adelaide.

Greater Adelaide’s mains water uses244

7%

Residential

5%

Primary Production

8%

Industrial Commercial Other

17% 63%

Water and wastewater service providers The State‘s largest participant in the water and wastewater industry is SA Water. It supplies 98%245 of the State‘s population with potable water, and reticulated wastewater services to metropolitan Adelaide and major regional centres and towns. It also provides recycled water and other nonpotable water supplies to various communities across the State. It is a publicly owned company established under the South Australian Water Corporation Act 1994. It owns more than $8.6 billion worth of assets including:  26,000km of water mains  8,500km of wastewater mains  30 water treatment plants  25 wastewater treatment plants.246 SA Water contracts the following companies to manage, operate and maintain its water infrastructure:  United Water for water and wastewater services in Adelaide  AdelaideAqua for the design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) contract of the Adelaide Desalination Plant  Riverland Water for 10 plants treating River Murray water to supply towns in the Riverland and Adelaide Hills  United Utilities Australia for the Victor Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant  United Group International for 10 plants treating River Murray water supplies to small towns.

Local government provides water and wastewater services for the non-metropolitan areas not covered by SA Water. It primarily provides local groundwater supply systems and community wastewater management systems.247 There are also several private water and wastewater schemes in SA. These include the Roxby Downs, Skye water supply scheme (where there are five private companies supplying water),248 and the Hindmarsh Island marina wastewater system.249

n

Figures for 2007/08.

68

Water Case study: Adelaide Desalination Plant - Fast tracking major infrastructure The persistence of the drought across the Murray Darling Basin to 2007 prompted the SA Government to commit to a desalination plant to create a water source independent of rainfall. Initially planned to have a capacity of 50GL per annum, the construction was expected to take around three years. However, during the bidding process, a two year project was proposed with the first water to be delivered by the end of 2010.

The plant is located 25km south of Adelaide CBD on the site of the old Port Stanvac oil refinery. Federal funding was obtained in 2009 to double the capacity to 100GL per annum with the project cost rising to $1.8 billion. Water is drawn from Gulf St Vincent through a 1.5km long intake tunnel and pumped up to the plant approximately 60 metres above sea level. Desalinated water is pumped through a transfer pipeline to the nearby Happy Valley treatment works where it mixes with treated water and enters the main reticulation system. Further works are underway to balance the water supply system, in particular to transfer water from the southern parts to the north.

The output from the desalination plant will vary depending on the seasonal demand. Initially the capacity will deliver at a low rate, rising to full capacity by 2012. The energy used for desalination is expected to be in the range of 4 to 5kWh per kilolitre, meaning that at peak output, over 45MW of power will be required from the electricity grid. A contract has been awarded to provide this power from renewable sources.

Significant environmental issues had to be considered in this project. The most important and controversial was the disposal of the waste stream of brine of roughly the same volume as the plant output. A second tunnel is used to discharge the brine stream through an outfall structure sited to maximise the rate of dispersal and mixing with the tidal flows in the Gulf approximately 1km from the intake. Both the 150 tonne tunnel boring machines, named Cora the Bora and Nessie by local school children, were launched from the base of access shafts and abandoned under the sea bed after reaching their respective destinations.

As the largest infrastructure investment in recent times in SA, the project has been a model of fast track contracting. It will provide insurance for Adelaide‘s water supply to the extent of up to 25% of the current consumption.

The Desalination Plant under construction250

69

Water

70

5

Potable water

5.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Potable water

SA 2010 B

SA 2005 B- Metropolitan C Non-metropolitan

National 2005

National 2001

B-

C

This rating recognises that country water supply has improved due to the Country Water Quality Improvement Program, as will metropolitan supply reliability with the completion of the Adelaide Desalination Plant. However, there is a need to continue to increase the diversity of supply in both rural and metropolitan areas, so as to reduce reliance on River Murray water and groundwater, and to reduce demand.

Since the last Report Card, the major potable water developments in SA have been:  Ongoing reduction in average rainfall  Implementation of a number of water augmentation projects  A significant increase in the cost of water for consumers.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Adelaide Desalination Plant  Country Water Quality Improvement Program  Iron Knob to Kimba pipeline.

Challenges to improving potable water infrastructure include:  Understanding and managing climate change impacts on water  Setting an appropriate water cost regime to ensure a sustainable use of water  Understanding and managing the State‘s aquifer resources  Protecting the River Murray.

This section does not address the use of wastewater or stormwater as a substitute for non-potable water, as these issues are discussed in the Wastewater and the Stormwater sections. Salt interception schemes and other River Murray water issues are discussed in the Irrigation section.

5.2

Infrastructure overview

5.2.1

System description SA‘s potable water infrastructure comprises:  Raw water sources and storages  Transfer pipelines  Treatment facilities  Reticulated water network.

Raw water sources and storages SA has four main water sources. These are:  The River Murray. The River Murray provides the main potable water supply for 25 drinking water supply systems along the SA stretch of the River Murray (including transfer pipelines), and provides a significant source of supplementation to metropolitan Adelaide‘s water supplies.

71

Water In an average year, some 40% of metropolitan Adelaide‘s water is sourced from the River Murray, and in a drought year this increases to over 85%.251  Groundwater. Groundwater, extracted from aquifers using bores, is the main source of potable water for 32 water supply systems across the State.252 Groundwater varies in quality and in many places requires significant treatment to bring it up to drinking water quality.  Surface water. Surface water is captured in catchments and stored in reservoirs. In nondrought years, the Mount Lofty Ranges reservoirs are the main source of supply for Adelaide.

However, they have two main limitations; they provide relatively little storage to carry over water from year to year, and their inflow is highly variable. 253Ten reservoirs supply metropolitan Adelaide‘s water supply systems and surrounding areas. There are 6 regional reservoirs. Most SA Water catchment areas are privately owned and intensively developed,254 meaning that reservoir water needs to be extensively treated.  Seawater. Desalinated seawater is a small but growing source of water.

The proportion of water from each source varies each year due to climatic variation. Table 5.1 shows the percentage of water derived from each source over the last five years.

Table 5.1: The percentage of potable water derived from different sources for SA, 2004/05 - 2008/09255 Water source

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Total water (ML)

251 347

234 142

245 587

218 965

218 170

% provided by the River Murray

44

48.7

90.99

85.04

85.7

% provided by surface water

50

44.8

2.92

8.11

7.7

% provided by ground water

6

6.5

6.07

6.83

6.3

% provided by sea water

-

-

-

0.02

0.03

Desalination plants SA has over 50256 desalination plants in operation across the State. The majority desalinate saline groundwater to provide water for non-potable purposes such as irrigation and industrial uses.

There are a few plants providing potable water, including those at:  Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island, operated by SA Water, which uses seawater to produce 300 kL/day  Coober Pedy, which uses bore water and supplies treated water for the town‘s reticulation network. It is managed by the District Council of Coober Pedy  Marion Bay on the Yorke Peninsula, funded by the District Council of Yorke Peninsula and the SA Government  Roxby Downs, which uses treated water for potable and industrial processes. 257 The Adelaide Desalination Plant at Port Stanvac, which is currently under construction, will produce 100GL/year of water and be the largest desalination plant in SA. This volume of water is equivalent to over 70% of Adelaide‘s yearly water consumption under Level 3 restrictions or about 50% of the 200GL/year consumption in the early 2000s. The key dates in the project are:  December 2007, the SA Government announced it would construct a 50GL/year plant to address the water shortage being experienced at that time. The Government specified that the plant must have the capacity to expand to produce 100GL/year if required. The cost of the plant was to be $1.37 billion.258  November 2008, the project‘s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was released. 259  February 2009, the AdelaideAqua consortium is named as the preferred bidder260 to design, build operate and maintain the plant for 20 years. The consortium comprises Spanish firm ACCIONA Agua, United Utilities, McConnell Dowell and Abigroup Contractors.261  May 2009, the SA Government announces the plant‘s output is to increase to 100GL/year following funding commitment from the Federal Government. The cost of the plant is now estimated to be $1.8 billion.262

72

Potable water     

May 2009, construction starts on the transfer pipeline to deliver water from the plant to the Happy Valley water treatment storage (scheduled for completion in mid-2010).263 September 2009, AGL is selected to supply 100% renewable energy to supply the plant.264 December 2010, expected date when the plant will produce first water.

Mid 2011, expected date when the plant will be producing 50GL/year.

End of 2012, expected date when the plant will be producing 100GL/year (full capacity). 265

Desalination plants are proposed for other areas, including:  Eyre Peninsula. Due to the declining availability of ground water on the Peninsula, desalination has become the preferred option to provide new water.  Upper Spencer Gulf. The proposed plant would supply Olympic Dam mining developments and possibly local governments.266 Non-metropolitan water infrastructure Figure 5.1 shows the location of bore fields, reservoirs and water treatment plants, principally along the River Murray, which provides an appreciation of the source of water for each area.

Figure 5.1: Non-metropolitan water supply infrastructure267

73

Water Major pipeline and distribution network SA has a substantial network of major pipelines that transfer water from the River Murray and reservoirs to supply other reservoirs and water distribution networks. The pipeline network is seen in Figure 5.1. Some of these pipelines are approaching capacity, such as the Mannum to Adelaide pipeline, while others have additional capacity available, such as the Murray Bridge to Onkaparinga pipeline.268 Adelaide‘s distribution network is split into a north and south component, and it does not currently have the capability for large volume intra-system transfer. The network is illustrated in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Adelaide’s distribution network (includes Adelaide Desalination Plant and related pipeline)269

With the decision to increase the output of the Adelaide Desalination Plant to 100GL/year, it has become necessary to connect the two components to enable large scale transfer. The desalination plant will transfer its water to the Happy Valley Reservoir. Initially, SA Water proposed constructing a large diameter pipeline to connect Happy Valley Reservoir with the Hope Valley Reservoir.

However, the current proposal is to construct smaller pipelines and additional booster pumping stations, and expand storage capacity. This interconnection project, called the Network Water Security Program, was budgeted at $403 million when it was announced in 2007. Design of the works is expected to be completed in mid 2011.270 The lengths of water mains in SA are detailed in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Lengths of water mains in SA, 2004/05 - 2008/09271 Length of mains (km)

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Adelaide

8 854

8 826

8 854

8 889

8 933

Country

16 749

16 867

16 941

17 004

17 217

SA Water operates 6 metropolitan and 24 regional water treatment plans. Major recent water infrastructure projects include:

74

Potable water 









Upgrading River Murray pump stations below Lock 1. Due to the drought-induced decrease in the river level, the pumping stations at Mannum, Swan Reach, Murray Bridge and Tailem Bend required modifications to allow them to operate at lower water levels. Projects completed and underway include constructing a temporary low lift pump station at Mannum, upgrading the current pump infrastructure at Murray Bridge, and installing a temporary low lift pump station at Swan Reach and Tailem Bend. Investigations have also been undertaken at other inlets below Lock 1 including Swan Reach, Cowirra-Neeta, Wall Flat, Pompoota, Mypolonga and Jervois.272 Extending potable water pipelines to the communities of Point Sturt and Hindmarsh Island. The $7.34 million project involved constructing an 11km extension branching from the Milang-Clayton pipeline to Point Sturt on Lake Alexandrina, and a 12.6km extension from an existing main servicing the Hindmarsh Island marina precinct in the south-west to the eastern side of the Island.273 This project was completed in December 2009. 274 Upgrading the quality of water to a number of River Murray communities. In 2009, SA Water completed Stage 3 of its Country Water Quality Improvement Program. This program resulted in the delivery of filtered water to a number of River Murray communities that were previously supplied with chlorinated unfiltered River Murray water. The project involved constructing nine new membrane filtration plants and six pipelines.275 Commissioning of the Iron Knob to Kimba pipeline. The pipeline was completed in late 2007 and enables River Murray water (pumped via the Morgan-Whyalla system) to be used to supplement the current water supply sources for the Eyre Peninsula Water Supply Scheme.

The pipeline has increased the available resource to the Eyre Region by 15%. 276 Undertaking preliminary works to allow a temporary weir to be rapidly built near Pomanda Island below Wellington. The weir may be required at some stage in the future to prevent the inflow of saline water into the River Murray from the Lower Lakes. Due to the drought and excessive extractions from the river, the water in the Lower Lakes has become more saline and is at risk of contamination from acid sulfate soils. If the level of the River Murray drops, this water may enter the river up to Lock 1 at Blanchetown. If this occurs, a key water supply for Adelaide and other towns will be threatened. Building the weir is seen as a last resort by the SA Government and it will only be constructed if it is absolutely necessary to protect SA‘s water supplies.277

SA’s water consumption SA‘s water consumption has decreased considerably in the last few years due to water restrictions, increases in water efficient practices and the rising cost of water. This is illustrated in a 30% decrease in yearly water consumption in 2009 compared to the severe drought year of 2002 (ie.

137.351GL in 2009 compared to 194.666GL in 2002).278 Table 5.3 shows SA‘s water consumption statistics over the last few years.

Table 5.3: Water consumption in Adelaide and country SA (excluding Council systems)279 Statistic Volume delivered (ML) - Adelaide Average daily volume delivered (ML) Adelaide Estimated population served - Adelaide Consumption per person per year (KL) - Adelaide Volume delivered (ML) - Country

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

165,640

150,504

156,014

139,352

138,300

454

426

427

381

378

1,079,000

1,087,000

1,095,000

1,103,000

1,117,000

153.5

138.5

142.5

126.3

123.8

85,707

83,655

89,572

79,613

79,900

Estimated population served - Country

394,000

397,000

400,000

403,000

408,000

Consumption per person per year (KL) - Country

217.5

210.7

223.9

197.6

195.8

251,347

234,159

245,586

218,965

218,200

1,473,000

1,484,000

1,495,000

1,506,000

1,525,000

170.6

157.8

164.3

145.4

143.1

Volume delivered (ML) - State Estimated population served - State Consumption per person per year (KL) -State

75

Water The longer term trend for water consumption in Adelaide is illustrated in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: Historical mains water consumption for Greater Adelaide to 2008280

Despite the decrease, SA‘s average water use per population is higher than a number of other States. This is partly explained by the larger housing blocks in SA, and its warmer and drier climate.281 There are two categories of water restrictions in SA:  Water restrictions that are designed to have immediate water saving impacts  Permanent Water Conservation Measures that are designed to reduce consumption in the longterm and promote water efficiency across the community.282 The history of SA water restrictions is given below:  December 2002 – Eyre Peninsula Water Restrictions  1 July 2003 – Level 2 Water Restrictions introduced  26 October 2003 – Permanent Water Conservation Measures introduced  3 October 2006 – Enhanced Level 2 Water Restrictions  1 January 2007 – Enhanced Level 3 Water Restrictions  1 July 2007 – Enhanced Level 3 Restrictions with a temporary cessation of outside watering 283  1 July 2009 – Enhanced Level 3 Restrictions apply to Eyre Peninsula 284  16 November 2009 – Increased watering hours (5 hours per week) under Enhanced Level 3 Restrictions.285  1 May 2010 – Further increase (7 hours per week) of Enhanced Level 3 Restrictions. 286 It is the SA Government‘s intention that once the Adelaide Desalination Plant becomes fully operational in 2012, water restrictions will be lifted. However, permanent water conservation measures will be maintained.287 Water costs In SA, the SA Government determines the prices for drinking water charged by SA Water and Cabinet approves the decision. The Essential Services Commission of SA (ESCOSA) is tasked with reviewing the processes by which the State Government sets the urban and regional potable water prices to be charged by SA Water. Its review for the last few years has consistently held the view that there is insufficient information made available to Cabinet on forward costs, and thus the water cost increases may not be appropriate. 288 76

Potable water Table 5.4 shows the increase in water prices in SA over the last 4 years. In 2008, the SA Government foreshadowed significant increases in water pricing for the following five years to fund water security projects.289 Specific projects the SA Government has used to explain the increase include the:  Adelaide Desalination Plant  Purchase of an additional 30GL of River Murray water entitlements  Reduction in SA Water‘s revenue as a result of the decline in water consumption. 290 Table 5.4: SA urban potable water prices increases in real terms (inflation adjusted) 2007/08291

Price increases in real terms (inflation adjusted) (charges apply on 1 July at the end of the period) Increase (%)

3.3

2008/09292 12.7

2009/10293 17.9

2010/11294 21.7

SA‘s water tariff is a three tier usage charge for residential customers and a two tier usage charge for non-residential customers. Changes to the tariff and billing in recent years have included:  Increase in usage charges and decrease in fixed changes to reduce consumption 295  Introduction of quarterly water bills where customers are now charged the water use charge every quarter, compared to the past when customers received four bills per year but only two contained water use charges  Smart bills that provide customers with more information on their water use, including a table on the water consumption by similar households.296 A comparison of water charges across Australia is shown in Figure 5.4.297 Figure 5.4: Annual water charges across Australia (annual water consumption 250kL) for 2008/09298

Hunter Perth Adelaide Melbourne CWW Australian average* Sydney Brisbane *** ACTEW **

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$ *Australian average is calculated from the average of all regional bills displayed on graph. **ACTEW prices include the water abstraction charge and Utility Network Facilities Tax. ***Includes South East Queensland surcharge.

5.2.2

Policy and governance The SA Government's vision for its potable water supply system is that it should provide a secure water supply to the point where water restrictions are not needed more than once every 100 years.299 Relevant water policy documents and legislation are detailed in the front of this chapter. Upcoming policy developments of importance are:  A decision on introducing competition to the water sector.  Providing a State-wide desalination policy to guide future desalination plant proposals, including the identification of additional suitable sites in case they are needed in the future. This is 77

Water becoming increasingly important as desalination becomes the preferred solution to addressing the declining quality and quantity of groundwater in a number of areas, and the uncertainty of the River Murray water supply.300  Transferring the power to set SA Water‘s pricing from the SA Government to ESCOSA.301 The Water for Good plan proposes that the water and wastewater industry become a regulated industry for the purposes of the Essential Services Commission Act 2002. This would allow ESCOSA to undertake regulatory functions including licensing, pricing and performance monitoring for the water supply industry.302  Providing more clarity on how the requirement that drinking water is fit for purpose should be achieved and how it should be measured. A Safe Drinking Water Bill has been proposed to address this.303 5.2.3

Sector trends Significant increase in capital expenditure on water projects The next few years will see a massive increase in the capital expenditure on water projects. In the five years to 2008/09, SA Water‘s total capital expenditure increased by 60% over the expenditure of the preceding 5 years, to nearly $841 million. Over the years to 2012-13, capital expenditure is expected to increase by 332%. From 2009/10 to 2012/13, SA Water expects to invest more $2.95 billion.304 Much of the spending is due to the $1.8 billion Adelaide Desalination Plant. Table 5.5 details the water supply capital expenditure in the last five years and the forecast expenditure over the next four years.

Table 5.5: SA Water’s actual and forecasted capital expenditure on water supply from 2004/05 to 2012/13 ($millions)305 2004/05

2005/06

60.637

78.568

2006/07 109.296

2007/08 154.081

2008/09 536.000

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

710

464

207

479

Climate change impacts on inflows Climate change is predicted to significantly worsen the water availability in SA due to changes in rainfall, runoff and evaporation rates. For example, over the next 40 years, a 41% reduction in inflows to the Mount Lofty Ranges reservoirs is being planned for.306 Climate change may already be having an impact on inflows into the River Murray system and the Mount Lofty Ranges catchments. See the Report Card Overview for information on climate change uncertainties.

Figure 5.5 shows the average inflows to the Mount Lofty Ranges reservoirs for the period 18922006. The average over the long term was 177GL/year but in the last 10 years, the average was 36% less at 113GL/year.

78

Potable water Figure 5.5: Annual inflows to the Mount Lofty Ranges reservoirs for the period 1892-2006307

For the River Murray, a similar step change in average inflows is observed in the last decade, as displayed in Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.6: River Murray System inflows308

Developing new sources of water Increasing water security involves either increasing supply or reducing demand. New potable water can be provided from a number of different sources and approaches, and these can be categorised in three main ways. ď‚ť Major augmentation versus micro-solutions. Investments can be focused on a few largescale investments, such as desalination plants, or on numerous small-scale investments, such as household rainwater tanks.

79

Water Rainfall-dependent versus manufactured water supplies. Most water is derived from rainfalldependent sources such as reservoirs and rivers, whereas manufactured water supplies, such as desalination, have little or no reliance on rainfall.  Substitution of non-potable supplies. Non-potable water can be used as a substitute for potable water, for purposes such as watering gardens or industrial processes, thus freeing up 309 potable water for higher value uses such as washing and cooking. 

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, many of which vary with location and situation. Figure 5.7 provides a rough comparison of the costs of different supply and demand options available.

Figure 5.7: Direct costs of different water supply and demand optionso $10.00 $8.00

$/kL

$6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00

To date, the SA Government has pursued:  Desalination  Increasing the use of recycled wastewater and stormwater as a substitute for potable water  Reducing demand  Increasing access to River Murray water, for example by negotiating access to storage in the Hume and Dartmouth dams in the upper reaches of the River Murray.310 Figure 5.8 provides a cost comparison of each water source. The unit of measure is the net present value (NPV) per GL which measures the triple bottom line of each option (ie. its economic, environmental and social impacts). As such, the values do not reflect the price per kL that customers pay for water as they incorporate more than the direct costs of the water production.311

o

Marsden Jacob Associates, 2006, Securing Australia’s Urban Water Supplies: Opportunities and Impediments, p. iv. The figure is based on water supply plans for Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Newcastle. Lower bound of indirect potable reuse estimate based on Toowoomba. Comparable costings for Melbourne are not available and no costings are available for Queensland.

80

Potable water Figure 5.8: Comparative cost of supply options (net present value (NPV) per GL over 40 years312 1 0.5 NPV ($million/GL)

0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 Demand Management

Permanent Purchase River Murray

Mt Lofty Storage

Greenfield Stormwater Recycle

Greenfield Wastewater Recycle

* Federal funding contributions recently announced for the doubling of the Adelaide Desalination Plant have not been included in the sustainability assessment, but would improve the financial viability of this option. External funding for other options would also improve their financial viability.

The anticipated relative components of each source of supply for Greater Adelaide over the next 40 years are shown in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9: Anticipated changing water supply components for Greater Adelaide313

Volume (GL)

450

Groundwater

400

Recycled wastewater

350

Recycled stormwater

300

Desalination

250

Reservoirs

200

River Murray

150 100 50 0 Now

5.3

2013

2025

2050

Performance Key parameters to assess infrastructure performance are the levels of services, financial indicators (notably capital and maintenance expenditure), and water quality indicators. Key potable water supply service targets for SA Water are shown in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Key service targets314 Performance measure

Area

Target

Number of properties with greater than or equal to 3 unplanned water interruptions per year

metro

2000315

country

830

metro

1.1

country

1.9316

Infrastructure Leakage Index. This measure takes into account factors such as accuracy of meters, water used for fire fighting, theft, length of mains, number of connections and system pressure

Figure 5.10 shows the number of unplanned interruptions to water supply services per 1,000 properties, excluding failures in customers‘ water service pipes.

81

Water Figure 5.10: Number of properties with greater than or equal to 3 unplanned water interruptions per year 317 2205

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2830 1848

2008/09

Target

Table 5.7 provides details on the Infrastructure Leakage index over the last 5 years.

Table 5.7: SA Water’s Infrastructure Leakage Index between 2004/05 and 2008/09318 2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.3

SA Water estimates that it loses 7% of the water supplied by its metropolitan system, excluding evaporation losses from the surfaces of water supply reservoirs.319 To reduce this, SA Water has undertaken an $8 million project to detect leaks within the metropolitan Adelaide region. The goal of the project, which will run to 2010/11, is to achieve savings of between 1 and 5GL/year by repairing pipe leaks.320 This approach is more proactive than the normal asset management approach for much of the reticulation network, which is best described as run to failure. A run to failure strategy is generally employed because it is not economic to undertake condition assessment and preventive maintenance of reticulation mains. However, for larger distribution and bulk mains, condition assessment is appropriate.

Figure 5.11 details water losses per connection for water utilities with more than 100,000 connected properties.

Figure 5.11: Water losses for utilities with 100,000+ connected properties (litres/service connection/day)321

Figure 5.12 shows the water main breaks per 100km for similar sized utilities.

82

Potable water Figure 5.12: Water main breaks (per 100km of water main) for utilities with 100,000+ connected properties322

Key service performance indicators for SA Water are displayed in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8: Key service performance indicators for SA Water 323 Performance indicator

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Metropolitan Adelaide Service calls per 1000 customers

149

83

99

94

92

Number of priority calls, bursts, leaks per 1000 customers

2.5

2.2

3.5

2

2.21

Service interruptions restored in 5 hours (target 80%)

96

95

92

92

91

Mainbreaks per 1000 customers

8.7

8.1

5.8

5.6

4.9

Mainbreaks per 100km of main

9.3

8.8

6.5

6.3

5.5

77.6

57

61.9

95

93.5

Country

% interruptions responded to within 1 hour

SA Water conducts regular tests and monitors the quality of the State‘s water in accordance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG). SA Water monitoring measures biological, microbiological, physical and chemical parameters of the water supplied, using samples from dams, treatment plants, local reservoirs, and the garden taps of consumers. The key performance measure for microbiological water quality is the bacteria count of Escherichia coli (E. coli). The presence of E. coli means that water may be contaminated with faecal material. The ADWG‘s requirement for E. coli is that ‗at least 98% of scheduled samples contain no E. coli‘.324 A limitation of using the E. coli indicator is that while total coliforms are the most sensitive, they are the least specific indicator group for faecal contamination. Water recently contaminated by faeces will always contain coliforms, but as some coliforms also occur naturally in soil and vegetation, coliforms may sometimes be present in water in the absence of faecal contamination. Coliforms other than those of faecal origin can be present in drinking water as a result of the presence of biofilms on pipes and fixtures or contact with soil as a result of fractures or repair works.325 Figure 5.13 shows SA Water‘s compliance for E. Coli. An important milestone was achieved during 2007/08 when it achieved 100% E. coli compliance in its country systems.326

83

Water Figure 5.13: E. coli compliance at metropolitan and country supply system customer taps since 2002 (customer tap samples free from E. coli):327 2008-09

Metropolitan County

Reporting Period

2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 2004-05 2003-04 2002-03 99.85

99.9

99.95

100

Compliance %

SA Water has a five year, $19 million plan to install and upgrade security measures for 94 assets or systems. It is also improving its business continuity plans for major operational infrastructure and systems.328 5.3.1

Environmental sustainability SA Water and the SA Government are actively promoting the sustainable use of water through demand reduction and efficiency improvement programs. Water restrictions, permanent water measures and water efficiency rebates are examples of these. The SA Government requires that all SA Water customers using more than 25ML a year must complete a water efficiency plan.329 SA Water is also active in reducing its carbon footprint, principally through improving its energy efficiency. In 2007, it initiated an Energy Efficiency program. It has Sustainable Future targets established as part of its key performance indicators.

The expanded use of desalination could have a significant impact on carbon dioxide production.

330 Desalination water typically generates 6.52kg of carbon dioxide per cubic metre of water.

However, as the Adelaide Desalination Plant will be powered by green energy, it will have a smaller greenhouse gas footprint than would otherwise be expected. However, there appears to have been limited focus on minimising total energy consumption in the plant.

In 2008/09, SA Water released its Climate Change Strategy which has three themes:  Adapting to climate change  Reducing emissions. SA Water aims to constrain its emissions to 108% of 1990 emissions between 2008 and 2012 and then to reduce emissions by 60% to an amount equal to or less than 40% of 1990 levels by 2050331  Supporting research.

5.4

Future challenges The challenges in achieving improvements in potable water infrastructure in SA are:  Understanding and managing climate change impacts on water. Climate change is creating significant risks to potable water supply, notably through lower rainfall and runoff, and increased frequency of droughts and bushfires. Managing these risks requires a better understanding of their potential impacts.  Setting an appropriate water pricing regime to ensure a sustainable use of water. While supply augmentation since the mid-2000s has improved water supply, more needs to be done to ensure demand continues to remain lower than it was a decade ago. Key to moderating

84

Potable water demand will be establishing an appropriate water pricing regime that ensures the sustainable use of water without having to continually augment water supply.  Understanding and managing the State’s aquifer resources. Water in aquifers can be a significant source of water. However, aquifers need to be controlled to ensure that they are not over exploited or polluted.  Protecting the River Murray. River Murray water is a critical potable water supply for many SA communities, despite the Adelaide Desalination Plant. Protecting the river may become more challenging due to the problems of developing a sustainable plan for water across the entire Murray-Darling Basin.

5.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Potable water

SA 2010 B

SA 2005 B- Metropolitan C Non-metropolitan

National 2005

National 2001

B-

C

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s potable water infrastructure has been rated B. This rating recognises that country water supply has improved due to the Country Water Quality Improvement Program, as will metropolitan supply reliability with the completion of the Adelaide Desalination Plant. However, there is a need to continue to increase the diversity of supply in both rural and metropolitan areas, so as to reduce reliance on River Murray water and groundwater, and to reduce demand.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Good quality of the water reticulation system  An increase in the security of potable water supply through the Adelaide Desalination Plant  Reduced reliance on River Murray water  Improvements in the quality of water supplied to rural areas  Increases in the substitution of recycled water for potable water  Effective water conservation and efficiency programs  An intention to reform water legislation  Future water pricing reflecting the scarcity value and production costs of water  Significant investment in water infrastructure.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  The high operational cost of the Adelaide Desalination Plant  Over reliance on ground water in some areas  Water pricing currently failing to reflect the scarcity value and production costs of water  Inadequate public discussion to gain support for utilising recycled (wastewater/stormwater) water for indirect potable use.

85

Water

86

6

Wastewater

6.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Wastewater

SA 2010 B-

SA 2005 C+ Metropolitan C- Non-metropolitan

National 2005

National 2001

C+

C-

This rating recognises that there have been improvements in the funding and asset quality of sewerage networks in both metropolitan and rural areas, a reduction in environmental impacts from sewage, and a continual growth in the reuse of wastewater.

Since the last Report Card, the major sewerage and recycled water sector developments in SA have been:  A significant increase in the use of recycled water  A reduction in the environmental impact of sewage.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade  Glenelg to Parklands project bringing recycled water into Adelaide‘s CBD  Southern Urban Reuse Project to increase the use of recycled water  Virginia Angle Vale Reuse Scheme.

Challenges to improving wastewater and recycled water infrastructure include:  Addressing climate change risks to sewerage infrastructure  Reducing the frequency and impact of sewerage system blockages and overflows due to stormwater infiltration.

6.2

Infrastructure overview

6.2.1

Sewerage system description SA‘s sewerage infrastructure consists of:  Sewers  Pump stations  Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP).

Wastewater treatment in the State is undertaken by:  The State Government via SA Water, which provides full sewage collection, treatment and disposal services for metropolitan Adelaide and the major provincial cities. It services about 90% of the State‘s population.  Local government, which provides effluent and some sewage collection, treatment and disposal services for country towns. It services about 10% of the State‘s population.

This section mainly focuses on SA Water‘s wastewater infrastructure. There are also a number of privately owned and operated sewerage systems, but due to their small number, they are not addressed in this section.

Sewage is produced by domestic households and by businesses/industrial operations (where it is known as trade waste). Sewerage systems are made up of reticulation mains, service branch lines, 87

Water maintenance holes (manholes), pump stations, trunk sewers and sewage treatment plants. Most sewers flow under gravity, with these sewers designed so that there is sufficient slope to stop buildup that may lead to blockages. Key sewerage system facts are:  The Metropolitan Adelaide sewerage system collects 91.2GL/year332  In Metropolitan Adelaide, industrial and commercial trade wastes contribute 25% of the sewer flow, and 30-40% of the pollutant load  The total assets of the sewerage system are valued in excess of $2 billion333  The local government managed Community Wastewater Management Systems in country SA generate about 10.2GL/year of effluent.334 Table 6.1 summarises SA‘s wastewater customer base and output.

Table 6.1: SA Water’s sewage customer base and output, 2004/05 to 2008/09 Element

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Estimated population served Adelaide335

1,022,000

1,028,000

1,036,000

1,043,000

1,057,000

Estimated population served Country

155,000

156,000

157,000

157,500

159,000

Volume of waste collected – Residential sewage, non-residential sewage and non-trade waste (ML)336

76,397

76,369

78,485

74,2852

Sewage received for Metropolitan WWTP (ML)337

97,155

97,516

88,964

83,418

83,484

Sewage received for Country WWTP (ML)338

11,934

11,988

10,756

11,232

11,652

Not available

There has been a moderate reduction in sewage volume per customer over the last decade. This is primarily due to the reduction in water use as a result of water restrictions and reduced groundwater infiltration into the sewers as a result of the drought.

Table 6.2 provides details on SA‘s sewerage infrastructure. SA Water also has 20 wastewater treatment plants. It manages all of them, except for the Victor Harbor WWTP which is privately operated under contract. 339 The major components of Adelaide‘s sewerage infrastructure are:  Three major wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in the metropolitan area - Bolivar, Glenelg and Christies Beach  A minor WWTP at Aldinga  Over 400 pump stations in the metropolitan area.340 Table 6.2: SA Water’s sewerage infrastructure, 2004/05 to 2008/09341 Element

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

3

4

4

4

4

6,973

7,025

7,070

7,099

7,147

19

19

20

20

19

1,341

1,358

1,384

1,402

1,418

Adelaide Number of wastewater treatment plants Length of sewers (km) Country Number of wastewater treatment plants Length of sewers

88

Wastewater There are three levels of wastewater treatment:  Primary treatment. This treatment consists of sedimentation (sometimes preceded by screening and grit removal) to remove gross and settleable solids. The remaining settled solids, referred to as ‗sludge‘, are removed and treated separately.  Secondary treatment. This treatment removes 85% of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids via biological or chemical treatment processes. Secondary treated reclaimed water usually has a BOD of <20 mg/L and suspended solids of <30 mg/L, but this can increase to >100 mg/L due to algal solids in lagoon systems.  Tertiary treatment. This treatment removes a high percentage of suspended solids and/or nutrients, and is followed by disinfection. It may include processes such as coagulation, 342 flocculation and filtration.

Table 6.3 provides details on SA‘s treatment plants. All country and metropolitan wastewater treatment plants have at least secondary treatment. There is at least some further treatment and/or reuse from all metropolitan plants and 12 country plants Table 6.3: SA’s wastewater treatment plants Number of primary treatment plants

Number of secondary treatment plants

Number of tertiary treatment plants

Adelaide

0

4

4

Country

0

20

12

Current major sewerage infrastructure upgrade projects include:  Christies Beach WWTP Upgrade. This $272 million project involves upgrading the plant to meet demand until 2030. It also allows for the closing of the Noarlunga Downs sludge lagoons, will increase water recycled from the plant, and reduce the nutrient load discharged into Gulf St Vincent. The project should be completed by mid 2011.343 Table 6.4 details capital expenditure on sewerage infrastructure in the last five years in SA and the forecast expenditure over the next four years.

Table 6.4: SA Water’s actual and forecasted capital expenditure on sewerage infrastructure from 2004/05 to 2012/13 ($millions)344 2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

45.510

30.639

30.915

36.950

2008/09 142.798

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

182

172

121

56

Community Wastewater Management Schemes Community Wastewater Management Schemes (CWMS) are systems that collect, treat, re-use and/or dispose of primary treated effluent from septic tanks on individual properties. They are usually owned and operated by local government for their communities. The infrastructure typically consists of pipes and pumping stations that transport the effluent from the septic tanks to the treatment site. Treatment systems can be by either:  Facultative (oxidation) lagoons, where effluent is stored and treated by aerobic action, with mechanical aeration sometimes installed to speed up the process and/or reduce the size of the lagoon system  Mechanical treatment plants, where aerobic action is undertaken in a series of aerated tanks.

Many of the older systems are lagoon systems, while the newer systems generally comprise mechanical treatment plants, a storage pond and an irrigation system onto parklands, golf courses or crops.345

89

Water There are 172 CWMS operating across 45 local governments346 and unincorporated areas (as of March 2010) with another 60 new schemes proposed. Three of these are under construction and 17 were in the investigation and preliminary design phase as at March 2010.

CWMS vary in size from settlements with 10 connections to large townships with in excess of 4,000 connections. The average system has about 400 connections. In 2009, CWMS served approximately 200,000 people, had approximately 65,000 connections347 and generated about 10.2GL/year of effluent.348 The responsibility for the billing, operation, maintenance, upgrading and replacement of existing CWMS rest with the relevant local government. The planning for new CWMS is administered by the Local Government Association and managed by the joint State Government, Local Government Association CWMS Management Committee, which is responsible for determining project priorities and which projects meet the subsidy eligibility criteria.

Following subsidy approval, the Local Government Association works with the relevant local government to ensure that subsidy guidelines and construction standards are met. The State Government is responsible for the regulation of CWMS. The Department of Health sets the standards by which CWMS must operate and is the approving authority for new schemes. The Environment Protection Authority issues operating licences for CWMS (where schemes service a population greater than 1000, or where schemes service a population of more than 100 in a water protection zone).349 The cost of constructing new schemes is primarily met by local governments and is partly funded by the State Government‘s annual subsidy payment of $3.2 million (indexed for inflation) which is administered by the Local Government Association.350 This subsidy is expected to result in the accelerated rollout of new CWMS in nearly 40 townships over the next 10 years. A requirement for all new schemes is that they must assess the potential opportunities for cost effective delivery of recycled water.351 6.2.2

Recycled water system description SA‘s recycled water infrastructure consists of:  Recycled water treatment plants  Reservoirs  Pump stations  Recycled water trunk mains  Third pipe reticulation mains.

Recycled water is water derived from sewerage systems that is treated to a standard appropriate for its intended use. There are four classes of recycled water quality, with Class A being the highest quality. The categories are:  Class A, which uses a tertiary treatment process combined with pathogen removal. Uses include residential garden watering, toilet flushing, irrigation of municipal parks and sportsgrounds, and food crops that are consumed raw or sold to consumers uncooked or unprocessed.  Class B, which uses a secondary treatment process, combined with some pathogen reduction.

Uses include irrigation of dairy cattle grazing fodder, urban (non-potable) uses with restricted public access and closed industrial systems.  Class C, which uses a secondary treatment process combined with minor pathogen reduction.

Uses include water for cooked/processed human food crops, grazing/fodder for cattle, sheep and horses, and urban (non-potable) uses with restricted public access.  Class D, which uses a secondary treatment process. Uses include water for non-food crops 352 such as woodlots, turf growing and flowers.

90

Wastewater Recycled water can be used as a source of potable water, typically by injecting it into a water reservoir. This is called indirect potable reuse. The SA Government currently has no plans to use recycled water for this purpose, but aims to use recycled water to replace potable water supply used for non-drinking purposes by industrial, agricultural and to a smaller extent, domestic customers. Recycled water can also be injected into underground aquifers where it can be extracted during periods of high demand. Aquifer recharge is also used to deliver environmental benefits such as displacing saltwater that has infiltrated into coastal aquifers or preserving the water levels in wetlands that are maintained by groundwater.

Uses for recycled water include irrigation, industrial processes and non-potable domestic uses.

Benefits of recycled water include reducing the volume of nutrient-rich water entering coastal and riverine ecosystems, and supplying nutrient-rich solids for agricultural purposes.

Adelaide has the highest rate of wastewater recycling of all Australian capital cities at 31.3% compared to the national average of about 13%.353 Figure 6.1 shows the growth in recycling for Metropolitan WWTPs, and Figure 6.2 for country WWTPs.

Percent Annual Reuse

Figure 6.1: Metropolitan WWTPs recycling percentage354 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 6.2 shows the growth in recycling for country WWTPs.

Percent Annual Reuse

Figure 6.2: Annual Country WWTPs recycling percentage355 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

The major wastewater reuse projects in SA are: ď&#x201A;ť Virginia Angle Vale Reuse Extension. The Virginia scheme was established in 1999 and an extension was commissioned in 2009. This resulted in water reuse from Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant increasing from about 29% to 35%. The extension involved installing a small booster pumping station and more than 20km of pipelines of various sizes. 356 ď&#x201A;ť Mawson Lakes Recycled Water System. This third pipe scheme distributes a mixture of wastewater from the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant and stormwater harvested in Salisbury to 4,000 homes in the Mawson Lakes suburb, 11km north of Adelaide. The scheme consists of a pumping station at Bolivar, a gas chlorination station, 12km of pumping mains, a

91

Water 2.6ML concrete tank and a pump station at Greenfields, and the Mawson Lakes third pipe reticulation network.357  State-wide Wastewater Recycling Project. This project started in 2007 and involves providing funding assistance to local government owned Community Wastewater Management Systems to increase their recycled water output. This $80 million project, funded by $60 million from local governments and $20 million from the Australian Government, provides assistance to local governments for the capital costs of upgrading up to 63 existing CWMS. The project aims to:  Address groundwater and surface water contamination and other environmental impacts of ageing CWMS by upgrading existing treatment and storage systems that will facilitate the reuse of treated wastewater  Reduce the drawdown on the River Murray, subterranean and other existing water supplies through increased recycling of reclaimed wastewater  Improve the environmental, operational and financial sustainability of community wastewater management systems.

Up to 8.4GL per annum of recycled water will be made available as a result of the project. All of the projects are scheduled to be completed by 30 June 2010, however a wet winter may result in the need to extend the completion date for some projects.358  Willunga Basin Water Scheme. The Willunga Basin Water Company runs a large reclaimed water scheme in SA that is owned and operated by its water users. 359 This scheme takes treated water from the Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant, 10km north of the Willunga Basin and pumps it via 120km of pipeline to many growers in the McLaren Vale region.  Port Augusta Sewer Mining Project. Sewer mining is the process of extracting wastewater as it flows towards the treatment plants, treating it to produce recycled water that is used locally, and discharging the wastewater, including sludge and screenings, back to the sewerage system. In SA, there is limited sewer mining with the most significant being at Port Augusta. It takes wastewater from a SA Water sewage pump station, treats it, and uses the water to irrigate parks and ovals.360 Wastewater pricing SA Water‘s wastewater tariff structure is based on property value, with no volumetric wastewater component. It is the only State to still base its wastewater charge on property values. In 2009/10, the minimum charge was set at $298.361 SA Government policy is for metropolitan and country customers to pay similar amounts.362 As country customers have lower average property rates, there are separate tariffs for metropolitan and country customers. Despite the higher regional wastewater tariff, regional customers pay lower average charges than metropolitan customers. 363 In SA, the SA Government determines the prices for wastewater services provided by SA Water and Cabinet approves the decision. As discussed in the Potable Water section, this is to change, with ESCOSA taking on this responsibility. Table 6.5 shows the increase in wastewater prices in SA since 2006/07.

Table 6.5: SA urban wastewater water prices increases in real terms (inflation adjusted)364 Price increases in real terms (inflation adjusted) (%) (charges apply on 1 July at the end of the period)

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Metropolitan

0%

-0.5%

0%

Regional

0%

0%

Figure 6.3 provides a comparison of sewerage bills by city.

92

0.5%

2009/10

2010/11

0%

0.8%

0.5%

1.3%

Wastewater Figure 6.3: Annual sewerage bill comparison (annual water consumption 250 kL) for 2008/09365 Brisbane

$534.06

Perth

$520.19

Sydney

$480.31

Australian Ave

$475.54

Melbourne (CWW)

$469.32

Adelaide

$447.12

ACTEW

$443.82

Hunter

$433.51

p

Trade waste pollutant charges are typically based on total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), inorganic total q dissolved solids (ITDS), suspended solids, and biological oxygen demand. In SA, charges apply to customers who exceed thresholds relating to flow, biological oxygen demand, suspended solids or salinity/total dissolved solids.366 The largest trade waste dischargers (currently around 40) face volumetric trade waste charges. The setting of trade waste charges is also done by the SA Government, but will also move to ESCOSA.367 6.2.3

Policy and governance There is no formal SA Government sewerage strategy. Instead, the Government‘s objectives for sewerage are expressed through a number of policy, legislative and operational documents, with the principal ones being the Sewerage Act 1928 and the Water for Good plan. These are detailed at the front of this Water chapter. A significant change to the governance arrangements for sewerage will be the replacement of the Sewerage Act 1929 with the proposed Water Industry Act. The SA Government has an objective of increasing wastewater reuse to 45% of urban wastewater by 2013, 50GL/year of wastewater across the State by 2025 and a minimum of 75GL/year of wastewater across the State by 2050.368 To achieve this, the SA Government has committed to:  Developing State guidelines for greywater recycling, consistent with Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling, by 2010  Developing a master plan for effectively managing wastewater in Adelaide, in concert with the stormwater recycling master plan, to ensure optimum use of both water sources369  Encouraging decentralised wastewater recycling schemes in new developments, in partnership with the implementation of the Plan for Greater Adelaide  Expanding recycling of rural Community Wastewater Management Schemes to 12GL/year by 2050370  Enabling increased uptake of sewer mining by providing legislative support. 371

6.2.4

Sector trends Growth in recycled water Recycled water use will increase significantly over the next decade as new projects are commissioned, and recycled water-friendly governance frameworks are implemented. New recycled water projects currently underway include:  Southern Urban Reuse Project. This $62.6 million project will bring recycled water to residential areas south of the Onkaparinga River. It involves:  Construction of a pump station at the Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant to transfer the water to the Aldinga WWTP site

p

The Kjeldahl method in analytical chemistry is a method for the quantitative determination of nitrogen in chemical substances developed by Johan Kjeldahl in 1883. q This is instead of total nitrogen (TN) and total dissolved solids (TDS).

93

Water Construction of a transfer pipeline from Christies Beach WWTP to the Aldinga WWTP site Construction of a bulk water storage at the Aldinga site  Construction of a tertiary water treatment process at the Aldinga Wastewater Treatment Plant  Construction of a pumping station and a third reticulation pipeline from Aldinga to the Seaford Meadows urban development.

This project overlaps with the following key projects in the area:  Aldinga WWTP Upgrade, which aims to cater for future growth of the region  Aldinga Water Farm, which will supply recycled water for irrigation  Managed Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, which is investigating the use of the Port Noarlunga aquifer for recycled water storage.372 Glenelg to Adelaide Park Lands Recycled Water Project. This $74.9 million project has a completion date of mid-2010373 and involves using recycled water from the Glenelg WWTP to provide 1.3GL/year to irrigate the Adelaide Park Lands. The plant has the capacity to produce a total of 5.5GL of recycled water a year.374 The project involves:  Constructing a new recycled water treatment plant at Glenelg  Building three pump stations  Installing 8km of trunk main between Glenelg and the Park Lands and 20km of ring main network encircling the Park Lands.

Victor Harbor. Currently, the Victor Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant produces recycled water which is stored in the nearby Hindmarsh Valley Reservoir for reuse. SA Water and the City of Victor Harbor are developing a master plan for recycled water to be used for city irrigation.375 Aldinga Wastewater Treatment Plant. All treated water from this plant (approximately 328ML a year) is reused, approximately 328ML per year, for irrigation purposes. The plant‘s capacity upgrade is due to be completed by the middle of 2011.

Port Augusta West Sewer Mining Project. The project aims to recycle 180ML a year for irrigation of community parks and gardens. This is a council owned and operated treatment plant. Increasing salinity of the incoming sewage in SA Water‘s system has limited the ability to utilise the treated effluent. SA Water recently initiated a capital project to construct new infrastructure to divert low salinity sewage to the treatment plant. The planned completion date for this infrastructure is October 2010.

Whyalla Wastewater Reuse Project. The project, commissioned in 2005, recycles 600ML a year to irrigate parks, gardens and a golf course.

Berri Barmera Wastewater Reuse Project. The project aims to recycle 600ML a year for irrigation purposes.

Loxton Waikerie Wastewater Reuse Project. The project aims to irrigate the local golf course.376  









  

New residential estates, such as Blakeview, with third pipe systems will become increasingly common. For example, Delfin Lend Lease has said that third pipes will be required for all future projects.377 There are a number of constraints on recycling water. These are:  High salinity of water entering or leaving the treatment plant, meaning it requires additional costly treatment and making it economically unviable for irrigation use. See Figure 6.4 for a graph of the difference in salinity levels of wastewater and potable water.  Use is limited due to a lack of constant, local demand near the source of recycled water production. If demand is seasonal (e.g. high-value crops have a limited irrigation season), the water has to be dumped or stored, which is expensive.

94

Wastewater

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Figure 6.4: Salinity of local water supply and treated wastewater in SA Water wastewater treatment plants378 Treated wastewater

2500

Potable water 2000 1500 1000 500

Whyalla

Port Augusta East

Port Lincoln

Naracoorte

Murray Bridge

Glenelg

Victor Harbor

Bolivar

Nangwarry

Mannum

Port Augusta West

Millicent

Angastion

Christies Beach

Birkenhead

Hahndorf

Myponga

Gumeracha

Heathfield

0

Solutions to these problems include:  Mixing stormwater and recycled water to produce more chemically and biologically acceptable recycled water  Storing water in aquifers or reservoirs  Implementing decentralised schemes to reduce pumping and distribution costs.

6.3

Performance Sewerage performance measures relate to:  Frequency of mains sewer blockages, which are typically caused by fats and tree roots and can lead to sewage spills, particularly during heavy rains  Frequency of sewage spills, which occur when the sewerage system cannot contain the sewage flow, with the result that overflows or leaks happen 379  Responsiveness to service failures, notably sewer spills and chokes  Compliance with discharge licences.

Table 6.6 identifies the service performance measures for metropolitan and country services.

Table 6.6: Performance measures for SA Water, 2004/05 - 2008/09380 Performance measure*

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

53

53

66

58

54.9

Metropolitan Chokes in sewer mains per 100km of main Chokes in sewer mains per 1000 customers

8

7.9

9.8

8.4

8.05

38.6

38.5

41.2

36

34.2

Restoration of service, mains and connections (full loss of service) restored within 5 hours (target >75%)

98

98

97

97

97

Restoration of service, mains and connections (partial loss of service) restored within 18 hours (target >90%)

98

99

97

98

98

100

100

100

100

100

Chokes in connections per 1000 customers

19.2

18.3

23.6

27.5

13.2

Chokes in sewers per 100km of sewer

28.7

30.2

15.2

16.4

18.5

Chokes in property connections per 1000 customers

Wastewater overflows reported, % attended within 4 hours Country

95

Water Performance measure* % internal overflows responded to within one hour * Targets are not available from SA Water.

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

N/A

N/A

N/A

92

100

381

From a national perspective SA Waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s metropolitan performance on the number of sewer main breaks and chokes is poor compared with similar utilities nationwide as seen in Figure 6.5.

However, it is important to note that sewer blockages are not a problem unless they adversely affect customer service levels or result in overflows.

Figure 6.5: Sewer main breaks and chokes per 100km of sewer main382

Figure 6.6 shows the number of overflows compared with similar size utilities nationwide. It is of note that despite the high level of breaks and chokes as seen in the figure above, the number of untreated sewage discharges from SA Waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s sewerage system is mid range nationally.

Figure 6.6: Sewer overflows to the environment per 100km of sewer main383

From an asset management perspective, preventative maintenance is difficult as it requires CCTV inspections or other expensive methods. Priority is given to areas where blockage rates have been high or where critical sewers exist. Due to its high cost, widespread preventative maintenance is impractical so the primary approach for sewerage infrastructure maintenance for reticulation pipes (<300 diameter) is described as run to failure.

96

Wastewater In 2004, SA Water commenced its Sewer Overflow Abatement Program. The program assesses causes of bursts in the various sewer systems, and then addresses the problems.384 The program has contributed to a reduction in environmental incidents as seen in Table 6.7 and Table 6. 8.

Table 6.7: Environmental Incidents that result in emissions to the environment385 Environmental incident type

Result 2006/07

Result 2007/08

Result 2008/09

Wastewater overflow incidents (Types 1 and 2)*

90

71

69

Mains water discharges (unplanned) (Types 1 and 2)

14

22

24

Total wastewater overflows and spills entering water courses or stormwater systems

90

22

24

Overflows from wastewater pumping stations in Adelaide (including ETAA failures)

7

6

8

Overflows from wastewater pumping stations in country (including ESTA failures)

2

2

6

*A Type 1 incident notification is an incident that, without appropriate response or intervention, could cause serious risk to human health.

Cause of the incidents can include overflows due to high rainfall events overloading sewer networks, sewer chokes, valve and level detection failures, and power failures. A Type 2 incident notification is an incident that, without appropriate response or intervention, represents a low risk to human health.

Table 6.8: Environmental incidents 2004/05 to 2008/09 Type of incident

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Total Type 1 Environmental incidents

9

8

15

16

15

Total Type 2 Environmental incidents

120

101

100

82

72

The changes in Type 1 and 2 incidents are illustrated in Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7: Total Type 1 and 2 Environmental incidents over the past five years386 Total Type 1 Environmental Incidents

140 120

Total Type 2 Environmental Incidents

100 80

Total

60 40 20 0 2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

SA Waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s sewage treatment facilities are required to comply with various licences and environmental protection agreements. Performance against these licences is set out in Table 6.9.

The last audit into the level of statutory compliance for CWMS was undertaken in 2004/05. Since then and following the completion of the State-wide Wastewater Recycling Project, the Local Government Association is confident that the level of compliance has significantly improved to the point where the vast majority of CWMS in SA now comply with statutory and licence conditions, although there may still a number with minor issues that need to be resolved. 387

97

Water Table 6.9: SA Waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s environmental performance, 2004/05 - 2008/09388 Performance criterion

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Target

Metropolitan Activated Sludge Plants /Christies Beach, Glenelg, Bolivar HS (mg/L)

3

4

4

3

3.1

<20

Average treated wastewater soluble BOD (Activated Sludge Plant / Bolivar) (mg/L)

4

3

3

2

2.1

<10

Treated Wastewater suspended solids / Bolivar High Salinity, Glenelg, Christies Beach

9

10

9

9

9.1

na

Treated wastewater compliance with internal targets

100

100

100

100

100

na

Treated wastewater compliance with EPA targets (%)

100

100

100

100

100

na

Treated wastewater BOD (activated sludge/extended aeration plant) (mg/L)

3.5

8

3

3

2

na

Treated wastewater soluable BOD (lagoon plants) (mg/L)

2.5

3.9

2

2

2

na

5

17

4

4

3

na

Country

Treated wastewater suspended solids (activated sludge/extended aeration) (mg/L) na = not available

6.3.1

Environmental sustainability A significant environmental challenge for wastewater infrastructure is to reduce the nutrient content in wastewater discharge. Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show the output of nitrogen and phosphorus in Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges. The relative contribution of nutrients from wastewater and stormwater is discussed in the Stormwater section.

Figure 6.8: Nitrogen in Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges (Tonnes per annum: 1996/97 to 2008/09)389 3500

3000

Tonnes per annum

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

98

Wastewater

Tonnes per annum

Figure 6.9: Phosphorus in Country Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges to inland waters (Tonnes per annum: 1996/97 to 2008/09)390 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

An emerging challenge will be reducing the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the generation of recycled water from wastewater. Recycled water is currently generating 1.95 kg of carbon dioxide per cubic metre of water, and if a carbon cap and trade system enters the Australian 391 economy, the cost of recycled water is likely to increase by 20%.

6.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in wastewater and recycled water infrastructure are:  Addressing climate change risks for sewerage infrastructure. SA Water recognises that climate change will have a significant impact on its operations, as discussed in its Climate Change Strategy. Climate change impacts for sewerage infrastructure occur as a result of:  Rising sea levels, which result in seawater ingress into sewerage networks, causing salt load increases in sewage, flow increases, and concrete corrosion  Ongoing drought, which reduces the volume of flow, causing pipe blockages and treatment challenges  Intense rains, which cause capacity problems  Rising temperatures, which can increase odour complaints.  Addressing ageing infrastructure and the consequence of water ingress. Stormwater and saline groundwater entry into sewerage networks can increase costs for wastewater treatment and increase the number of sewer overflows. It can also be a significant contributor to the salinity of treated wastewater. As a sewerage network ages, more water entry points appear due to tree root damage, pipe failures and ground movement. A combination of an ageing network in SA coupled with a return to normal rainfall patterns is likely to result in a significant reduction in system performance.

6.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Wastewater

SA 2010 B-

SA 2005 C+ Metropolitan C- Non-metropolitan

National 2005

National 2001

C+

C-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s wastewater and recycled water infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that there have been improvements in the funding and asset quality of sewerage networks in both metropolitan and rural areas, a reduction in environmental impacts from sewage, and a continual growth in the reuse of wastewater.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Increased reuse of recycled wastewater  Effective and efficient operation of the SA Water‘s sewerage system 99

Water  

Effective and efficient response to sewerage blockages Upgrades to wastewater treatment plants resulting in both decreased discharges to the environment and increased reuse of water.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Ageing of sewerage network  Failure to engage the public to gain their support in using recycled water for indirect potable use.

100

7

Stormwater

7.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Stormwater

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

D

D

C-

D

This rating recognises that while stormwater reuse continues to rise in SA, there are a number of areas in Adelaide that remain flood prone and require improved drainage and stormwater infrastructure. In addition, there is a concern that existing stormwater infrastructure will be more frequently overwhelmed due to increased runoff arising from urban infill that creates larger impervious areas.

Since the last Report Card, the major stormwater sector developments in SA have been:  Increase in the amount of stormwater recycling to 6GL/year  Increased integration of stormwater within the water management cycle  The formation of the Stormwater Management Authority and the implementation of the Stormwater Management Agreement  Definition of the potential for stormwater harvesting across the greater metropolitan area of Adelaide  Commitment to increase the amount of stormwater harvested to at least 60GL/year by 2050.

There has been continued work on a number of drainage and flood mitigation projects, with the major ones being:  Gawler River Flood Mitigation Scheme  Port Road Project  Upgrades to drainage infrastructure and pumping stations in the Port Adelaide Enfield local government area  A number of stormwater harvesting projects that are partially funded by the Australian Government.

Challenges to improving stormwater infrastructure in SA include:  Provision of adequate stormwater infrastructure to ensure that all urban areas have adequate drainage and flood protection  Reducing the volume of stormwater and pollutants entering coastal areas and inland waterways  Maintaining and improving asset quality  Impacts on stormwater volumes arising from increased urban density  Accelerating the implementation of water sensitive urban design principles  Addressing climate change risks  Increasing stormwater use  Working cooperatively where stormwater catchment areas span multiple councils  Providing additional funding for stormwater projects.

7.2

Infrastructure overview

7.2.1

System description SA‘s stormwater infrastructure comprises:  Engineered pipes, culverts, channels and retarding basins

101

Water  

Natural creeks, waterways and wetlands Stormwater water quality management and re-use infrastructure.

Stormwater is rainfall that runs off urban areas, typically roofs, roads and other surfaces. Adelaide‘s stormwater run-off into the coastal area between the Gawler River and Sellicks Beach, based on data between 2001 and 2003, was 114.2GL/year. 392 This is less than potable water consumption of over 190GL/year over this same period. Stormwater volumes vary significantly from year to year, depending on rainfall.

The engineered stormwater system is made up of:  Minor drainage systems, which consist of kerbs and gutters, side entry pits and underground pipes. Except in unusual circumstances, they are designed to convey runoff from streets and properties for rainfalls up to the 10 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). That is, runoff from a rainfall event that only occurs once in every 10 years on average. Within Adelaide, the current accepted design standard for a minor drainage system varies between the 2 and 10 year ARIs, with a 5 year ARI generally being the minimum desirable standard.393  Major drainage paths, which consist of natural river and creek systems, open channels, roadways, and other open areas. They are intended to carry a rare flood, typically up to a 100 year ARI. Within Adelaide, the generally accepted standard for natural watercourses is at least a 20 year ARI, most are 100 years ARI with the exception of the River Torrens, which has a 200 year ARI capacity.394 Adelaide also has a number of constructed stormwater wetlands, particularly on the Adelaide plains. Some of the constructed wetlands include aquifer storage and recovery components to facilitate treated stormwater harvesting for later use by industry and for irrigation.395 Stormwater infrastructure in Adelaide was valued at more than $5 billion in 2005.396 The vast majority of stormwater assets are owned by local governments. There is no consolidated list of assets.397 Pollutants originating from many different sources affect stormwater quality. Sources range from fuel and oil from roads to litter dropped on streets and sediment from building sites. Improving stormwater quality requires effective prevention and management of these pollutants at their source, as well as treatment of stormwater before it enters the waterways.

In urban areas, the increased proportion of impervious areas has reduced the amount of rain that either infiltrates the ground or is retained by vegetation. Consequently, increased volumes of stormwater run-off are entering the drainage system and the receiving waterways. Traditionally, stormwater drainage systems have been constructed to remove stormwater from urban areas as quickly as possible in order to minimise the risk of flooding and to prevent water from becoming stagnant. Generally, the faster the flow of stormwater, the higher the quantities of suspended solids and nutrients it carries, and the more damage it does to the receiving waters. In less modified catchments, the run-off water is released over a longer period of time and has lower peak discharges, thus maintaining healthier water environments.

Growing emphasis on water quality management has seen the increased provision of retention facilities, wetlands, ponds and lakes, and structural devices to improve water quality, such as gross pollutant traps, litter baskets and sediment traps.

Stormwater infrastructure varies with topography. For areas closer to the Adelaide Hills, the stormwater system is generally smaller due to the steeper gradients. Its flows typically discharge into channels and natural watercourses. In the flatter areas to the west and north of the city centre, the lack of gradients means that the systems have to be larger to cope with slower flow rates.

102

Stormwater Nearly all of the stormwater from the north west of Adelaide flows into the Gillman wetlands, which then discharge into the Port River.398 The key purpose of stormwater assets is to provide an effective way of dealing with run-off so that it does not cause flooding. Flooding from urban runoff typically occurs during high intensity storms in summer rather than from lower intensity storms in winter when the majority of the yearly rainfall occurs.399 However, where largely undeveloped rural catchments flow into urban areas (e.g. Brown Hill Creek), large amounts of rural runoff are likely to occur in late winter or early spring when a higher intensity storm falls on a wet catchment. To identify the location of areas that are likely to be flooded, floodplain studies are undertaken. Recent floodplain studies include:  Pedler Creek, completed in 2009  Dry Creek (covering Cities of Tea Tree Gully and Salisbury) completed in 2008  First to Fifth Creeks in the Torrens catchment (covering the Cities of Adelaide, Burnside, Campbelltown and Norwood Payneham & St Peters), released in 2007400  Gawler River  Creeks and rivers through Victor Harbor  Hutt River, Clare.

Floodplain mapping projects currently in progress are:  Light River  Mount Barker.

Ways to reduce flood damage to property include the prevention of inappropriate development in areas that are flood prone, in particular, requiring developments to be clear of the 100 year ARI floodplain. It is estimated that approximately 8,500 buildings across the State at risk of flooding from riverine and stormwater flooding as they are within the inundation areas of 100 year ARI. The locations of these are identified in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Areas in SA vulnerable to 100 year ARI floods 401 Region

Identified Vulnerable Areas

Adelaide & Surrounds

Brownhill and Keswick Creeks

5,000

Urban Stormwater Flooding in Adelaide

1,500

Numbered (1st – 5th) Creeks, Torrens catchment

363

Upper Onkaparinga (Including Lobethal, Oakbank, Balhannah, Verdun, Hahndorf, Mylor, Aldgate, Stirling, Bridgewater and Kangarilla)

156

Lower Gawler River

60

Gawler Township

50

River Sturt (above flood control dam)

50

Angaston

33

Dry Creek

30

Old Noarlunga

30

Christies Creek

20

Strathalbyn

20

Meadows Total in Adelaide and surrounds Other areas of SA

Number of buildings that would be affected by an 1 in 100 year ARI

8 7,400 Buildings

Urban stormwater Flooding in rural SA

250

River Murray Towns

150

Jamestown

100

Victor Harbor

80

Hutt River at Clare

72

Goolwa – Port Elliot

20

103

Water Region

Identified Vulnerable Areas

Number of buildings that would be affected by an 1 in 100 year ARI

Stockport

20

Greenock Township

10

Tatiara Creek

8

Kapunda

7

Hawker

6

Armagh Creek

5

Total in other areas of SA

1,100 Buildings

The majority of buildings that are exposed are in the Brown Hill and Keswick Creek catchments (5,000 premises). To reduce this risk, a $100 million, 10 year program of flood mitigation works is proposed, under the title of the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project.402 Another major project is the Gawler River Flood Mitigation Scheme. This project involves the construction of the Bruce Eastick North Para Flood Control Dam and modifications to the spillway of the South Para Reservoir to improve the reservoirâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s flood mitigation capability. The project is managed by a subsidiary established by six councils (Adelaide Hills Council, Barossa Council, Town of Gawler, Light Regional Council, District Council of Mallala and the City of Playford).

Current stormwater reuse SA harvests more of its stormwater than any other State or Territory. This water is used for irrigation, industrial uses, toilet flushing and watering of park, sports ovals and house gardens. The harvesting is either via larger scale stormwater infrastructure (typically wetlands and then aquifer storage and recovery) or at the household level by rainwater tanks. As of June 2009, some 6GL/year of stormwater was harvested through large scale stormwater harvesting infrastructure schemes, and another 12GL/year of projects are expected to be delivered within three years.403 Table 7.2 lists existing large scale stormwater harvesting schemes.

Table 7.2: Existing large scale stormwater harvesting schemes (June 2009)404 Catchment

Site

Council

Adams Creek

Springbank Park

Salisbury

600

Kaurna Park

Salisbury

600

Edinburgh Parks South

Salisbury

1,360

Greenfields 1&2

Salisbury

650

Paddocks

Salisbury

200

Parafield

Salisbury

1,100

Pooraka (Unity Park)

Salisbury

80

Satsuma

Tea Tree Gully

40

Solandra

Tea Tree Gully

20

Tea Tree Gully Golf Course

Tea Tree Gully

50

Dry Creek

Harvest volume (Ml/year)

Kingfisher

Tea Tree Gully

30

River Torrens

Direct Extraction (Torrens Lake)

City of Adelaide

420

Sturt River

Morphettville Racecourse

Marion

600

Field River

The Vines Golf Course

Onkaparinga

Various

Private Schemes

Various

Total

80 400 6,230

There is currently no standard price for stormwater from large scale stormwater harvesting schemes as the pricing for the water is negotiated by special agreement on a case by case basis.405 Currently, rainwater tanks capture about 1GL/year.406 SA has the highest proportion of households with rainwater tanks in Australia. In Adelaide, over 40% of dwellings have them and in the rest of the State, 75% of dwellings have them.407 The uptake of rainwater tanks has accelerated following the July 2006 State Government requirement that most new homes and home extensions are to 104

Stormwater have a rainwater tank plumbed into the home and to at least one toilet, to all laundry coldwater outlets, or to a hot water service.408 Another reason for tank uptake has been the Rainwater Tank and Plumbing Rebate Scheme which provides up to $1000 to existing home owners to install and plumb in rainwater tanks.409 Between July 2006 and December 2009, there were 9,610 rainwater tank rebates paid to customers.410 Recycled reticulated water systems (also known as third pipe systems), which distribute stormwater and other recycled water, operate in a number of areas in Adelaide including at:  Mawson Lakes  Several developments in Salisbury  Lights View at Northgate  Lochiel Park.

Importance of stormwater to the community While stormwater assets are normally unnoticed by the community, surveys of ratepayers indicate that they are nevertheless viewed as important. A survey carried out for the Local Government Association of SA found that residents gave stormwater drainage a mean score of 4.4, placing it in the top 25% of local government activities. 411 7.2.2

Policy and governance The State‘s stormwater policy is defined in the South Australian Urban Stormwater Management Policy (2005). It has the following goals:  Apply a risk management framework for hazards/flooding based on catchment characteristics and rigorous data collection  Facilitate more productive use of stormwater  Manage the environmental impacts of stormwater as a conveyor of pollution  Manage stormwater as part of the urban water cycle, recognising natural watercourses and ecosystems where feasible  Achieve responsible stormwater management locally by making better use of the statutory development planning system  Gain innovative stormwater policy outcomes through the most effective funding and procurement arrangements.412 The policy requires the development of Stormwater Management Plans for catchments and subcatchments. The purpose of these plans is to ensure that stormwater management is addressed on a total catchment basis in conjunction with the relevant regional Natural Resource Management Board, local government authorities and State government agencies. 413 Below is a list of the Stormwater Management Plans completed or currently under development:  Port Road (Rejuvenation): City of Charles Sturt and City of Port Adelaide Enfield (approved 2007)  Brown Hill and Keswick Creeks: Adelaide City Council, Cities of Burnside, Mitcham, Unley and West Torrens (approved 2008)  Port Pirie  Port Lincoln  Penola  North Arm East Catchment (City of Port Adelaide Enfield)  Torrens Road Catchment (Cities of Charles Sturt and Port Adelaide Enfield)  Truro  Streaky Bay414  Port Elliot  Holdfast Bay & Marion catchments direct to the sea (Cities of Holdfast Bay and Marion). 415

105

Water The SA Urban Stormwater Management Policy led to the establishment of the Stormwater Management Agreement, signed in 2006 between the State Government and the Local Government Association. The agreement sets out the roles and responsibilities of the State Government and local governments, and provides governance arrangements for stormwater management on a catchment basis throughout SA. The Water for Good plan has increased the focus on using stormwater as a substitute for potable water. It has established the following targets:  By 2013, harvesting of 20GL/year for non-drinking purposes in Greater Adelaide  By 2025, harvesting of up to 35GL/year of stormwater in urban SA  By 2050, harvesting at least 60GL/year of stormwater for non-drinking purposes for the State, with a target of up to 15GL/year in regional areas.416 The SA Government does not support the use of recycled stormwater for drinking purposes.417 In addition to key government agencies detailed in the front of this chapter, other ones relating specifically to stormwater in SA are:  Local government. It has the lead role in stormwater management, owns stormwater infrastructure and is responsible for flood mitigation.418  Stormwater Management Authority (SA Government). The Authority was established on 1 July 2007 under the Local Government (Stormwater Management) Amendment Act 2007. The Authority has assumed the role of the former Catchment Management Subsidy Scheme Advisory Committee (to approve projects to be subsidised by the scheme) as well as implementing the Stormwater Management Agreement between the State Government and the Local Government Association. The Authority is responsible for prioritising stormwater planning and infrastructure projects on a catchment wide basis throughout the State as well as managing available funds.419The Authority implements the Stormwater Management Agreement and operates as the planning, prioritising and funding body in accordance with the Agreement. 420  SA Water. SA Water has maintenance responsibility for the bed of River Torrens through the Adelaide metropolitan area, the concrete lined section of the Sturt River, the downstream sections of Brown Hill Creek and Keswick Creek and the River Sturt flood control dam.421  Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) (SA Government). The Department is responsible for constructing and maintaining stormwater infrastructure that is directly associated with draining the arterial road network.422 This infrastructure normally connects into the local government drainage system. The Department is also responsible for constructing and maintaining other road infrastructure (bridges, culverts etc) that protect the arterial road network from flooding. The Department maintains specialist expertise in stormwater engineering and this expertise is made available to the Stormwater Management Authority as required.423  Private land developers. Developers are responsible for constructing the stormwater network within their developments.424 Funding for local stormwater drainage is principally a local government responsibility. Prior to July 2007, where a catchment exceeded 40 hectares, 50% of the costs of stormwater infrastructure would normally be met by the State Government under the Catchment Management Subsidy Scheme.425 This scheme has been superseded by the arrangements specified in the Stormwater Management Agreement. The Agreement contains the commitment by the State Government to contribute $4 million per annum, indexed for a period of 30 years, for stormwater management planning, infrastructure works and associated investment. 426 Between September 2006 and June 2009, a total of $11.34 million has been approved via this scheme. It has contributed funds for 43 projects. These include 13 floodplain mapping and planning projects (7 in metropolitan areas and 6 in regional areas) and 30 infrastructure works projects (21 in metropolitan areas and 9 in regional areas).427 106

Stormwater The SA Government, local governments and other stormwater stakeholders recognise there are problems with existing legislative and governance arrangements for stormwater. These problems include:  The Natural Resource Management Act does not define stormwater, nor does it contain other provisions for dealing with it, except as surface water and water within a watercourse. This causes difficulties in orderly allocation of stormwater where the water resource is prescribed (meaning that a licensing system applies to the water). 428  The Local Government Act 1999 provides general statutory functions and powers to local governments relating to land use planning and development control for floodplain management.

However, the Act does not specify the extent to which local governments should undertake these functions and powers.  In the South Australian Water Corporation Act 1994, the term stormwater is excluded from the definition of wastewater and the Act is silent on the definition of water. While this has not precluded SA Water from participating in a number of stormwater initiatives, it could interfere with the Corporation‘s ability to be more active in this area.429  There is a lack of clarity in the Stormwater Management Agreement around each party‘s role, responsibilities and actions.430  There is currently no pricing policy for stormwater reuse.431 As a result of these issues, the State Government, in consultation with the Local Government Association has committed itself to:  Reviewing the governance arrangements for the Stormwater Management Authority and the Stormwater Management Agreement432  Reflecting relevant changes in the upcoming Water Management Bill  Introducing legislative amendments to remove any prohibition on SA Water proactively taking a role in stormwater reuse433  Developing recycled water pricing principles. 434 7.2.3

Sector trends Changing stormwater flows due to climate change and urban consolidation Both climate change and urban consolidation will change stormwater flows. Climate change is expected to result in a decrease in annual rainfall in SA, thus reducing stormwater flows. Urban consolidation will increase the amount of impervious areas, thus increasing rainfall runoff volume.

Table 7.3 provides projected impacts in Adelaide from these two changes using a nominal harvest amount of 60GL/year.

Table 7.3: Predicted impacts on stormwater harvesting from climate change and urban consolidation

Potential Harvest

Current rainfall with current housing density

Impact of climate change with current housing density

Impact of climate change with 5% increase in impervious area1

Impact of climate change with 10% increase in impervious area2

60GL/year

50GL/year

55.5GL/year

60GL/year

1 5%

increase in impervious area represents approximately 14% of existing properties being redeveloped.

210% increase in impervious area represents approximately 28% of existing properties being redeveloped.

Growth in harvesting stormwater Stormwater could provide a significant source of new water. However, there are a number of challenges to achieving this, including:  Stormwater varies in quality, and in the pollutants that it carries  In Adelaide‘s Mediterranean climate, rain mostly comes in winter but the water is required in summer, hence it has to be stored  Water storage requires large areas if ponds are used, or expensive storage mechanisms such as tanks and aquifers 107

Water 

There is a lack of a framework for the ownership, pricing, treatment, distribution, and health and safety issues associated with stormwater.

As of mid-2009, there were some 32 stormwater harvesting schemes being designed or constructed, with the ability to harvest 12GL per year. A number of these have been grouped under the following initiatives:  Water Proofing Northern Adelaide. This includes more than 20 integrated harvesting schemes, and is expected to be completed in 2010.  Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Reuse Project. This has a capacity of about 800ML per year and the water will replace natural groundwater use in three metropolitan golf courses. It is expected to be completed in 2010.  Cheltenham Park. This has a capacity of 1.2GL per year and the water will be used for irrigation and industrial uses. It is expected to be completed in 2012.435 In November 2009, the Australian Government announced the first round of projects to be funded for the Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse Program. It provided over $66 million to advance a range of projects in SA and together these have a total capacity of over 8GL per year.

To identify the potential for stormwater harvesting in greater Adelaide, the Stormwater Management Authority commissioned the Urban Stormwater Harvesting Options Study (2009). It produced an assessment of the potential to maximise large-scale stormwater capture and storage, with a focus on using existing open space and groundwater systems to harvest and store large volumes of stormwater without significantly affecting existing land uses. The study found that an additional 42GL/year of stormwater could be harvested for some $600 to $700 million. 436 The cost estimate does not include the funds required to purchase land, to develop, operate and maintain the distribution systems, or to establish and maintain the stormwater drainage network.437 The report identified that infrastructure requirements would include more than 200 hectares of wetlands for harvesting and treating stormwater, and more than 600 bores for injecting stormwater into aquifers for temporary storage prior to use.438 As seen in Figure 7.1, the best sites for large-scale storage of stormwater are in the west and north of Adelaide, and south of the Onkaparinga River, where groundwater systems have good storage potential.

Growth in Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is being increasingly applied in the SA as a way of minimising the impacts of urbanisation on waterways. WSUD involves techniques to treat, store, and infiltrate stormwater runoff onsite rather than simply facilitating rapid discharge of stormwater to the environment. WSUD measures include rainwater tanks, green roofs, infiltration systems, permeable pavements, urban water harvesting, swales and constructed wetlands.

In 2009, the SA Government released the WSUD Technical Manual for Greater Adelaide, which provides technical guidelines and information about WSUD measures that can be applied to all types and scales of development. It contains details on 11 WSUD techniques that are suitable for local application. Its target audiences are State and local government planners, and designers, developers and the general community. The manual was an output of the Institutionalising Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) project that started in 2007 and was funded by the SA and Australian Governments as well as the SA Local Government Association. 439 Unlike other jurisdictions, SA has not mandated WSUD in planning policy or development plans, or produced targets for WSUD. This is despite the fact that the State‘s 2005 Urban Stormwater Policy included the following strategies:

108

Stormwater Building rules and codes of practice, as well as considering health, liability and affordable housing factors, are to reflect water sensitive urban design (WSUD) principles based around maximising on-property stormwater use where feasible.  Planning regulations and guidelines are to be strengthened by State Government and local governments to achieve agreed performance based outcomes for WSUD, using a WSUD framework to be developed by Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. 440 

However, WSUD principles and techniques have been incorporated into the State Planning Policy Library (version 4.1, June 2009). This library is a set of development policies produced by Planning SA that can be utilised by local governments in their development plans. 441 In the 2009 Water for Good plan, the SA Government has committed to ensuring that:  By 2010, targets for WSUD will be introduced  By 2013, WSUD will be mandated through new planning regulations that will dovetail with the Plan for Greater Adelaide and apply to new residential and commercial urban development.442

Figure 7.1: Identified potential stormwater harvesting sites443

109

Water

7.3

Performance Performance measures for stormwater systems relate to their:  Ability to convey major storm events and eliminate/minimise flooding and consequential damage to private property or critical infrastructure  Ability to maintain the long-term sustainability of natural systems from a water quality perspective, by minimising the discharge of pollutants and generally improving the quality of stormwater discharge.

Assessing the performance of the stormwater system is difficult for two reasons. Firstly, it cannot be evaluated in isolation as it is affected by land use and building development policies that control building in flood prone areas and the uptake of WSUD. Secondly, there is no consolidated data on stormwater assets and performance, such as the quality of stormwater runoff entering our natural waterways. Inspection of stormwater pipes across the system is an economically prohibitive activity and not normally undertaken except in areas with a relatively high incidence of blockages or other failure.

Stormwater asset failure is linked to two issues:  Firstly, the age of the asset. The design life of most concrete-based stormwater assets is between 20 and 80 years, as seen in Table 7.4. Much of SA‘s stormwater infrastructure has been installed over the last 40 years 444 and large amounts of it are approaching the end of its design life.  Secondly, the design flows of the stormwater systems. In some areas due to urbanisation and other factors, stormwater flows are exceeding design standards, resulting in failure.

Table 7.4: Stormwater asset and design life445 Asset Stormwater pipes Lined channels Stormwater sumps Manholes Dams Weir structures Gross pollutant traps Retarding basins

Design life 50 – 80 years 50 – 80 years 20 – 50 years 20 – 50 years 50 – 80 years 50 – 80 years 20 – 50 years 50 – 100 years

While it is difficult to assess the performance of the stormwater system, the following observations can be made about the quality of the assets:  In some parts of Adelaide, the local drainage system has not been constructed to its fullest possible extent, resulting in isolated areas of flooding.  Adequate systems need to be put in place to monitor the condition and performance of this infrastructure properly.  In other parts of Adelaide, natural watercourses pose a significant, if less frequent risk of flooding, due to the role that these watercourses play in conveying runoff from the hills across the Adelaide Plains to the sea.  In 2005, the cost of significant remaining stormwater drainage and flood mitigation works in metropolitan Adelaide was estimated to be $160 million, excluding projects required for catchment areas less than 40 hectares and the cost of land acquisition.446 The figure today is likely to be significantly in excess of this but the Stormwater Management Authority cannot provide a accurate figure.

110

Stormwater 7.3.1

Environmental sustainability Effective stormwater management can contribute to environmental sustainability by improving both water quality and environmental flows. Low quality stormwater can have deleterious effects on the receiving water, which in SA includes both coastal areas and river systems.

Adelaide‘s stormwater runoff has contributed to the significant degradation of the coastal waterways. Prior to large scale settlement in Adelaide, stormwater runoff was insignificant. Today, however, due to the diversion of the Torrens River, the construction of numerous stormwater drains, the lining of Sturt River, and the Barcoo outlet (which takes stormwater from the Patawonga catchment directly out to sea via an outfall), the volume has increased to some 115GL/year. 447 Adelaide‘s stormwater carries with it high levels of suspended sediments, dissolved organic material and nutrients and has resulted in a high volume of turbid, highly coloured, nutrient-rich water being delivered to coastal waters.

The impact of the pollutants from stormwater, coupled with wastewater and other pollutant sources, has resulted in broad scale loss of near-shore seagrass. This loss has reduced seafloor stability and ecosystem health. The seagrass traps one metre or more of sediment under it, which provides a sediment platform that protects the shoreline from the full force of waves, and hence reduces coastal erosion. The loss of the seagrass also reduces local biodiversity. An approximately 40-fold difference exists between biodiversity in seagrass and bare–sand communities.448 The key stormwater pollutants are nitrogen and suspended solids. Prior to human impact, the amount of nitrogen delivered to Adelaide‘s coastal waters was 50 to 80 tonnes/year. Today, it is between 30 and 50 times as much.449 Seagrass evolved in a low nutrient environment, and cannot grow normally in the new environment. The suspended solids increase turbidity, which impedes the penetration of sunlight, thus affecting the seagrasses‘ ability to photosynthesise.450 Each year, stormwater delivers some 153 tonnes of nitrogen, 20 tonnes of phosphorus, 1.3 tonnes of copper, 1.5 tonnes of lead and 7,000 tonnes of sediment to Adelaide‘s coast between the Gawler River and Sellicks Beach.451 The relative importance of stormwater as a source of pollutants can be seen in Table 7.5. It shows that stormwater only contributes 6% of the nitrogen but some 67% of particulates.

Table 7.5: Sources of nitrogen and particulates into the10km-wide strip along Adelaide’s coast from the Gawler River to Sellicks Beach452 Source WWTP Rain

Total nitrogen (tonnes)

Percentage source of total nitrogen (%)

1204.2

49

Particulates (tonnes) 1579

Percentage source of particulates (%) 15

32.8

1

0

0

Stormwater

150.7

6

6849

67

Penrice

1,000

41

0

0

15.3

1

1852

18

Dust Groundwater

50.0

2

0

0

Total

2453

100

10,337

100

As a result of concern about the degradation of Adelaide‘s coastal water, the SA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned the CSIRO to undertake the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study. The study‘s final report in 2007 recommended that it was essential to reduce the volumes of wastewater, stormwater, and industrial inputs into Adelaide‘s coastal environment so as to remediate and protect the metropolitan coastal ecosystem. It recommended that the total load of nitrogen discharged to the marine environment should be reduced by 75% to around 600 tonnes.453

111

Water The Water for Good plan committed the SA Government to developing a master plan for effectively managing stormwater in Adelaide that would include interim milestones and water quality targets to support recommendations in the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Final Report. The Water for Good plan stated that a key way to achieve this would be to reduce stormwater flows in the coastal areas by providing up to 60GL/year of recycled stormwater in Greater Adelaide by 2050.454 Since changes to wastewater treatment in the mid 1990s, seagrass loss has appeared to slow and some recolonisation is occurring. However, in some areas, recolonisation is not occurring and the seagrass meadows remain fragmented.455 The 2007 report of the River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment risk assessment for water quality project identified that stormwater also poses a risk to inland waterways.456 The 2008 SA State of the Environment Report noted that the nutrient and turbidity levels of rivers and creeks, while stable, are generally moderate to poor.457

7.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in stormwater infrastructure are:  Provision of adequate stormwater infrastructure to ensure that all urban areas have adequate drainage and flood protection. Not all parts of Adelaide and not all country towns have adequate stormwater drainage and protection from flooding. This will require an increase in funding to ensure that these remaining areas have adequate stormwater infrastructure provision. In part, this can be accomplished when older, inadequate stormwater assets are due for renewal and can be replaced to a higher standard.  Reducing the volume of stormwater and pollutants entering coastal areas and inland waterways. Stormwater carries a significant volume of nitrogen into waterways which can lead to toxic blue-green algal blooms in freshwater and degrade seagrass in coastal waterways.  Maintaining and improving asset quality. The volume of stormwater assets continues to increase, as do problems arising from the increase in impervious areas in older suburbs, and the approaching end of life for many assets. This will require an increase in funding for stormwater maintenance and renewal. A particular problem that needs to be addressed is the failure to provide a maintenance budget with the installation of new gross pollutant traps.

Without continual cleaning, these traps are ineffective. The amount of investment in stormwater assets needs to reflect the fact that construction costs are rising faster than CPI.  Impact on stormwater volumes arising from increased urban density. With increasing urban density arising from the infill policy of the 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide, the amount of impervious areas will also increase. This will result in higher volumes of stormwater runoff.

This has the potential to overwhelm the existing infrastructure, which has been designed for the current level of runoff. It also has the potential to erode waterways and destroy ecological habitats, as well as increasing the total volume of pollutants such as nutrients, sediment and litter, carried into local waterways, ponds and lakes. The stormwater implications of infill projects need to be given higher priority during project development.  Accelerating the implementation of water sensitive urban design principles. Reducing stormwater runoff is one of the benefits of water sensitive urban design (WSUD). The use of WSUD needs to be accelerated.  Addressing climate change risks. Climate change science indicates that more extreme rainfall events, resulting in more frequent and severe instances of overland flooding, particularly due to both the heavier rainfall and the large amount of blockage-causing debris that builds up due to less frequent flushings. Managing this risk involves identifying future rainfall patterns, locating areas that are vulnerable to overland flooding, and changing the design specifications of stormwater systems to accommodate the changed rainfall pattern.  Increasing stormwater use. Stormwater has considerable potential as a new water source.

Water businesses and developers have implemented projects to capitalise on it. However, the projects can be expensive and are only viable in certain circumstances, making their

112

Stormwater widespread use uneconomic and impractical. A challenge will be to maintain the focus on identifying viable stormwater projects and to continue the application of WSUD principles.  Working cooperatively where stormwater catchment areas span multiple local government areas. Stormwater management across catchments that span several local government areas requires cooperation. It can be difficult to achieve consensus as each solution imposes different costs and benefits on different groups.  Providing additional funding for stormwater projects. While the indexed $4 million/year funding to supplement Council stormwater projects is welcome, this quantum of funding may be insufficient. Large projects, such as the Brownhill Keswick Project (requiring more than $100 million) and the Port Road project (requiring more than $50 million) will be difficult to fund without additional large grants.

7.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Stormwater

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

D

D

C-

D

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s stormwater infrastructure has been rated D. This rating recognises that while stormwater reuse continues to rise in SA, there are a number of areas in Adelaide that remain flood prone and require improved drainage and stormwater infrastructure. In addition, there is a concern that existing stormwater infrastructure will be more frequently overwhelmed due to increased runoff arising from urban infill that creates larger impervious areas.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Existence of the Stormwater Management Authority  Plans for increased use of stormwater  Commitment to revise legislation and governance around stormwater management and pricing.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Failure to mandate water sensitive urban design (WSUD)  Limited consideration about the consequence of increase urban infill on stormwater  Limited funds provided for stormwater infrastructure renewals and replacements  Lack of ownership and pricing policy for stormwater  Lack of coordination in stormwater policy and program between water stakeholders.

113

Water

114

8

Irrigation

8.1

Summary Infrastructure type Irrigation

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

C+

Not rated

C-

D-

This rating recognises that while there has been improvement in irrigation infrastructure, such as replacing open channels with pipes, constructing salt interception schemes and increasing the use of recycled water, there is concern about the long-term viability of much irrigation infrastructure due to poor management of the total Murray-Darling water resource.

Since 2005, the major irrigation sector developments in SA have been:  Continued efforts to improve the efficiency of irrigation infrastructure  Continual reduction in water availability for irrigators using water from the River Murray  Progress towards developing the Murray–Darling Basin Plan, which will set limits on water that can be taken from surface and groundwater systems across the Basin.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  110km Lower Lakes Irrigation Pipeline to supply the Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek regions  Loxton and Murtho salt interception schemes  Rehabilitation of the Lower Murray reclaimed irrigation area.

Challenges to improving irrigation infrastructure in SA include:  Sustainability of the water supply from the Murray River  Increasing salinity of the Murray River  Improving irrigation performance information  Ensuring the continual modernisation of irrigation infrastructure  Retiring less valuable irrigation land.

8.2

Infrastructure overview

8.2.1

System description SA‘s irrigation infrastructure extracts, stores, distributes and drains irrigation water, and comprises:  Water supply (River Murray, recycled water, ground water, surface water)  Off-farm water delivery and drainage systems  On-farm watering and drainage systems  Salt interception schemes.

For the purposes of this section, irrigation covers application of water to cultivated land or open space for the growth of vegetation or crops. It does not include garden and park irrigation, as this type of use is addressed under the Stormwater or Wastewater section. Nor does this section address on-farm watering systems.

Irrigated production in SA is of considerable economic importance to the nation, and generates some 11% of the total gross value of Australian agricultural production.458 In SA, there are approximately 6,500 irrigators, and 201,000ha of available irrigated land,459 however the area actually irrigated varies yearly, depending on commodity prices, climate, the production potential of 115

Water the land and water availability. Irrigation in SA is principally used for grapevines, fruit, vegetables, cereals and pasture.

Irrigated agricultural land comprises less than 0.5% of all agricultural land in Australia, yet the gross value of irrigated agricultural production (GVIAP) represents 34% of the total gross value of agricultural production.460 The value of agricultural produce per ML varies significantly between different agricultural activities and over time. The value of irrigated products is detailed in Figure 8.1, and shows that the most valuable use of water is in the production of nurseries products, followed by vegetables.

Figure 8.1: Gross value of irrigated agricultural production (GVIAP) per megalitre of water applied for selected products ($/ML)461

(a) Nurseries grow cut flowers and cultivated turf. (b) Vegetables for human consumption or seed.

The main types of irrigation in SA are:  Flooding irrigation, which is used mainly for pasture and fodder crops  Furrows irrigation, which is used for horticultural and field crops, and in the older schemes, for vines and tree crops  Sprinkler irrigation, which include fixed and portable systems for overhead or under-tree watering, including centre pivot systems  Trickle/drip hose irrigation  Sub-surface drip system irrigation.462 The irrigation system actually employed in any area depends on geography, water availability, the crop being grown, and legacy infrastructure. Generally, flood and furrow methods are the least water efficient. The trend for decades has been towards travelling sprinklers, under tree sprinklers, drippers and in some cases subsurface irrigation (combined with soil moisture measurement instruments) to apply water only where and when it is needed and to the water holding capacity of the soil. The more efficient application of irrigation reduces drainage past the root zone that wastes water, raises groundwater tables and exacerbates salinity problems off site. However, a key water efficiency driver is the management skill of the irrigator, regardless of the irrigation system used.463 About 75% of all consumptive water in SA is used in irrigation.464 The sources of the irrigation water are:  River Murray (providing 40%465 of all irrigation water). In a drought year, about 63% of all water extracted from the river is used for irrigation and in a non-drought it is about 78%466  Groundwater (50% in the south east of the State, and 10% from the Mount Lofty Ranges, areas in the mid north and the Eyre Peninsula) 467 116

Irrigation 

Recycled water is used in the Northern Adelaide Plains and McLaren Vale.

SA‘s main irrigation areas are illustrated in Figure 8.2. There are additional irrigated areas, such as on the Eyre Peninsula, but these are not as significant as the identified ones.

Figure 8.2: Key SA irrigation districts468

Water costs for irrigators are made up of the cost of the water right, levies, licence fees and the price of the storage and delivery services provided by the irrigation trusts or other providers under bulk water transport arrangements. The price of a water right from the Murray–Darling Basin is determined by the Murray–Darling Basin water market and is subject to the water market rules derived from the Water Act 2007.469 Water licence holders, under the Natural Resource Management Act 2004, are charged an annual levy that is paid to the regional Natural Resource Management Board and contributes to the activities undertaken by the Board for water planning and management.470 Table 8.1 describes the irrigation areas.

117

Water Table 8.1: Description of SA’s irrigation areas Location

Description

Riverland

This area was one of Australia's first irrigation settlements where furrow and flood irrigation was used.

Its source of water is the River Murray. Today there are many independent private and corporate irrigators with the majority of smaller irrigators being part of one of the following trusts: The Central Irrigation Trust (CIT). CIT is the largest trust and manages the nine irrigation districts of Mypolonga, Cadell, Waikerie, Kingston, Moorook, Cobdogla, Berri, Loxton and Chaffey. Each of the nine irrigation districts is owned by its irrigators, with the CIT managing and operating the irrigation systems on behalf of the districts.471 CIT pumps water from the River Murray through large diameter pipeline systems to 1,600 growers who irrigate 13,000ha of horticultural crops.472 Golden Heights Irrigation Trust. This trust has 778ha of available irrigated land and about 50 growers.

Renmark Irrigation Trust (RIT). RIT has 4,518ha of available irrigated land and about 610 growers.

It delivers water through underground pipelines from a main pumping station on the River Murray, and three re-lift pumping stations. In 2009, the Renmark Irrigation Trust was funded by the Australian Government to produce a study into making irrigation systems more efficient. The modernisation report was produced by ARUP and the implementation of its recommendations depends on government funds.r Sunlands Irrigation Trust. This Trust has 796ha of available irrigated land and about 50 growers.

Greenways Irrigation Trust. This Trust has 253ha of available irrigated land and about 21 growers.473 All the Trusts‘ systems are fully piped. The Sunlands Irrigation Trust and Golden Heights Irrigation Trust are currently in discussion with Central Irrigation Trust about a possible merger. The irrigated areas primarily produce horticultural crops, particularly vine fruits, citrus and stone fruits, and root vegetable crops. The area also has a large number of direct diverters – irrigators who draw water directly onto their properties without going through an irrigation trust.474

Lower Murray

The irrigation areas in the Lower Murray were originally swamp and wetland areas which were drained.

The land is flood irrigated and the principal crops are pasture and fodder. It is a major dairy area. The water is sourced from the Lower Lakes or from the River Murray via the Lower Lakes Irrigation Pipeline owned by the Langhorne Creek Pipeline Company.

Clare Valley

The main irrigated crop in the Clare Valley is wine grapes (5,400 hectares of grapes).475 Water is sourced from ground and surface water,476 and some water from the SA Water Clare Valley Water Supply Scheme pipeline, which sources its supply from the River Murray.477

Barossa

The main irrigated crop in the Barossa Valley is wine grapes (7,031 hectares of grapes were irrigated in 2007/08).478 Water is sourced from ground and surface water,479 and from the River Murray, transported via an SA Water pipeline. Barossa Infrastructure Limited owns the River Murray water licence and it has constructed some 189km of buried pipeline, including 960mm diameter trunk main and 150mm diameter distribution mains to deliver the water to its customers.480

Northern Adelaide Plains

The Northern Adelaide Plains, 30km to the north of Adelaide, is a market garden area. Water is sourced from groundwater and recycled water from Bolivar Wastewater Treatment plant via the Virginia Pipeline Scheme.481 The Virginia Pipeline scheme was established in 1999 and an extension was commissioned in 2009. This resulted in water reuse from Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant increasing from about 29% to 35%.482

South East

The main water source in the South East is groundwater and the irrigation method is predominantly spray using centre pivot systems.483 The main irrigated purpose is pasture and fodder. Surface irrigation is applied to 40% of the irrigated pasture area and 70% of the irrigated lucerne seed area.484

McLaren Vale

The McLaren Vale area is irrigated by water sourced from the Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. A 10km pipeline takes the water from the plant and distributes it via 120km of pipeline to 4,000 acres of vines and other fruit and flower gardens which use on-farm drip irrigation systems.485

Salt interception schemes Rising salinity in the River Murray is a growing problem. The problem occurs because the regional aquifers along the River Murray are highly saline and this water drains from the aquifers into the river. The River Murray is the natural drain for the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin, and the inflow of saline water is a natural phenomenon. However, due to extensive irrigation along the River Murray, coupled with clearing of natural vegetation, more water is entering the aquifers, resulting in r

This acreage does not include holdings under 0.5ha. Information supplied by the Renmark Irrigation Trust.

118

Irrigation a greater volume of saline water entering the river. Over 1,000 tonnes of salt a day enters the river in SA from the aquifers, and this increases considerably when water covers the flood plain and mobilises more salt. To reduce saline water inflow into the river, SA Water operates five large salt interception schemes on behalf of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and several more are under construction. These operate by capturing saline groundwater using bores near the river, and pumping the water away to disposal basins located out of the river valley. These basins evaporate a large percentage of the water with the remaining concentrated brine infiltrating into the naturally saline regional aquifers that are used for the long term storage of the intercepted salt. The water in these aquifers moves very slowly and it will be a century or more before it will begin to have a significant adverse impact on the River.

Salt interception schemes are located at:  Woolpunda (commissioned in 1990), Waikerie (commissioned in 1992, with expansions in 2003 and 2009). Water from these bores is pumped to the disposal basin at Stockyard Plain, 15km south west of Waikerie. These schemes prevent some 350 tonnes of salt per day entering the river.  Bookpurnong (commissioned in 2005) and Loxton (commissioned in 2007 with highland borefields to be commissioned in 2010). Water from these bores is pumped to the disposal basin at Noora Basin, 20km east of Loxton. These schemes prevent some 130 tonnes of salt per day entering the river.  Rufus River (commissioned in 1984). This Scheme is adjacent to Lake Victoria in the southwest corner of New South Wales.486 Salt interception schemes are planned or under construction at:  Pike River (awaiting a decision from the Murray–Darling Basin Authority)  Murtho (commissioning expected 2012)  Chowilla. This scheme is on hold as there is no disposal infrastructure available.

The 2008 Riverland Salt Disposal Management Plan identified that current inflows to the Stockyard Plain disposal basin are at its maximum design capacity. With inflows expected to increase over the coming decades due to the impacts of new irrigation developments, it recommended that either the existing disposal basin will need to be expanded, or a new disposal site established. 487 Interestingly, as a result of the current severe drought, water quality in terms of salinity has actually been very good over the last five to ten years with average salinity levels around historic lows. This is because, with the lack of rainfall, groundwater levels across the basin are falling and consequently saline groundwater inflows into the river systems have likewise reduced. Similarly lack of runoff in upland catchments and lack of flooding across floodplains is leaving vast amounts of salt still accumulating and being temporarily held in landscapes. This salt will be mobilised once wetter times return with consequent increases in river salinities. The processes causing long term salinity rise in the Murray are still in place, meaning that once heavy rainfall occurs, large qualities of salt will again enter waterways.

8.2.2

Policy and governance The State Government has identified improving irrigation as a key priority within the Strategic Infrastructure Plan for SA. Strategic priorities identified include:  Ensuring that future irrigation developments offset their salinity impact or are located in low salinity impact areas to reduce the incremental salt effects of further irrigation development along the River Murray.  Identifying further salt interception schemes, ranked by area of most effectiveness in reducing saline water flows into the River Murray.

119

Water 

Educating irrigators on the best use of water, identifying suitable crop types and efficient applications of irrigation water to reduce the level of irrigation drainage water returning to the River Murray.488

The main State initiative to improve the River Murray is known as Murray Futures. This 10 year program funded the Lower Lakes Irrigation Pipeline and the River Industry Renewal initiative, which provides funding to irrigators to introduce smarter irrigation technology.489 The strategy document to address salinity in the river is the River Murray Salinity Strategy 20012015 (2001). The key salinity target is to maintain salinity at less than 800 EC for 95% of the time, measured at Morgan.490 To guide development, a Riverland saline and drainage waters disposal management plan was published in 2008.

In addition to the legislation and policy documents detailed in the front of this chapter, others relating specifically to irrigation in SA are:  Irrigation Act 2009. The Act enables SA‘s irrigation trusts to impose a water supply charge to recover the costs of supplying water, which includes the management and operation of shared infrastructure for irrigation or drainage purposes.  Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 2009. The Act enables the RIT to impose a water supply charge to recover the costs of supplying water.491  Ground Water (Qualco-Sunlands) Control Act 2000. This Act was enacted to reduce the risk of waterlogging and salinisation of land and increased levels of salinity in the River Murray caused by irrigating land in the Qualco-Sunlands irrigation area.492  South East Water Conservation and Drainage Act 1992. The Act provides for the conservation and management of water and the prevention of flooding of rural land in the south east of the State.  The Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002. The Act enables infrastructure, environmental management programmes and other initiatives to be undertaken to enhance water conservation, drainage or management and to protect the productive capacity of land in the upper south east. 493 8.2.3

Sector trends Improvements in irrigation infrastructure Much of SA‘s irrigation infrastructure was built many decades ago. Originally, the mostly government-owned systems used open, mainly earthen but some mortar or concrete lined channels, and flooding techniques. These gravity systems were wasteful due to leakage, seepage and evaporation from channels, overflows from channels, inflexible scheduling of water delivery and little or no accurate metering of water delivered to properties. These factors led to inefficient use of water, rising groundwater levels, water logging and salination of low lying land, which increased mobilisation of saline groundwater into the River Murray.

Since the early 1970‘s, there have been considerable improvements in irrigation infrastructure such as the replacement of channels with pipes, the introduction of delivery methods that enable irrigators to schedule water application in a more flexible manner better suited to crop requirements and accurate metering of water delivered to each property. This has been driven not only by changes in water availability and cost, but also by the transfer of ownership of irrigation assets from government to growers. An example of a large area upgrade is the $35 million Loxton Irrigation District Rehabilitation scheme, completed in 2006. Prior to these works, the district contained about 3,200 hectares of irrigated vineyards and orchards supplied by a combination of 17.5km of open channels, 47.7km of pipe mains, and a relift pumping station.494 Following the works, the area is supplied by a high-pressure water delivery system, comprising 73km of pipelines that can deliver

120

Irrigation water to all irrigators on demand during the irrigation season. The infrastructure has an economic life of 40 years.495 A current project underway is the $24.5 million Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Areas (LMRIA) upgrade. This involves restructuring and rehabilitating flood-irrigated farms over 5,200 hectares of the River Murray flood plains between Mannum and Wellington. It will involve constructing new water delivery channels, installing water meters and building run-off reuse systems to prevent the return of pollutants to the river. The project will result in the rehabilitation of 4,000 hectares and retirement of the remaining 1,200 hectares from irrigation. 496 The project aims to improve irrigation efficiency by up to 64GL/year.497 Another major irrigation infrastructure project was the construction of the Lower Lakes Irrigation Pipeline. This $100 million project, completed in 2009, involved building a 110km irrigation pipeline and three pumping stations to extract River Murray water at Jervois and supply it to the Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek region. The project was funded by the Australian Government's Water for the Future program. Traditionally, the Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek region drew its irrigation water from the Lower Lakes but the quality and quantity of water from this source is unreliable due to drought and reduced river flows.498 The pipeline, owned by the Creeks Pipeline Company, can deliver 13.5GL of irrigation water over a 150 day irrigation period.499 The SA Government and its agencies are also facilitating on-farm improvements in irrigation by:  Developing tools to help manage and monitor salinity under increasingly saline conditions  Identifying approaches that maintain optimal production and quality under restricted irrigation regimes500  Producing an irrigator toolkit that includes an extensive collection of local information and tools from interstate and overseas to help irrigators use their water resources more effectively, and to nurse plants through the current dry conditions501  Providing financial assistance to upgrade the irrigation meters in the Central Irrigation Trust system in the Riverland to state-of-the art magnetic flow meters502  Running the Irrigation Efficiency Project in south east SA, which is a three year project to improve irrigation efficiency and management, by running workshops, providing grants and identifying the best incentives to encourage adoption of best practice in irrigation. 503 A new initiative, starting in 2010, is the Private Irrigation Infrastructure Program. This $110 million program provides funding for improving the efficiency and environmental benefits of irrigation water use in the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin. In exchange for funding, recipients will transfer their water entitlements to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) to use for environmental watering purposes. The program is funded by the Australian Government. The Program focuses on off-farm infrastructure. On-farm irrigation efficiency improvements are funded under the Australian Government‘s On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program.504 Increasing use of recycled water for irrigation The last decade has seen a significant increase in the use of recycled water for irrigation in the Greater Adelaide area. Currently, recycled water is being used in the Northern Adelaide Plains and McLaren Vale horticultural areas. Over time, as pressure on potable water and ground water increases in the Greater Adelaide area, the comparative cost advantage of recycled water will improve, resulting in further uptake.505 Stormwater may also be used in greater volume. A policy objective of the Water for Good plan is to encourage the uptake of stormwater and recycled water for primary production in lieu of mains water. A enabling action for this will be to install irrigation meters in the Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Areas by 2014, once water users are licensed.506

121

Water

8.3

Performance There are a number of performance measures for irrigation that are categorised into:  Financial management  Customer service  Environment management  Asset management.

From an infrastructure perspective, key performance measures include:  Delivery system efficiency and unaccounted for irrigation water  Availability of assets used to hold, supply and distribute water.

While there is no consolidated and comprehensive set of performance indicators on SA‘s irrigation infrastructure, it is apparent that the last decade has seen continued improvement in delivery systems and water asset infrastructure. Due to a lack of water, this infrastructure has generally been under-utilised.

Environmental sustainability The sustainability of much of SA‘s irrigation is directly tied to the River Murray and its water quality and available volume. In terms of quality, the salinity of the water in the river is an ongoing and increasing problem. While the irrigation rehabilitation projects and on-farm efficiency improvements have reduced saline water inflows, the vast majority of the reduction achieved to date is due to the salt interception schemes. However, these are expensive to construct and operate and have long term disposal problems in that they do not completely remove the salt, which will eventually reenter the River Murray at a gradually increasing rate over the next century or two.

With the 2003 and 2009 additions to the Waikerie Salt Interception Scheme, the construction of the Bookpurnong and Loxton schemes, the expected commissioning of the Murtho scheme in 2012 and subject to the approval and construction of the Pike River scheme, these combined with other initiatives interstate should enable the 2015 target of the Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001-2015 of a reduction of 118 EC to be achieved.

8.4

Future challenges The challenges in achieving improvements to irrigation infrastructure in SA are:  Sustainability of the water supply from the Murray River. Over-extraction of water from the River Murray upstream of SA, degradation of its ecological systems, and increasing demand for its water for potable uses, will all mean that the quality and volume of water from the river for irrigation in SA is increasingly uncertain. The Garnaut Climate Change Review (2008) estimated that because of climate change, there could be a loss of half the irrigated output from the Murray–Darling by 2050 if agricultural practices do not change.507 While the Basin Plan currently under development is meant to provide certainty in water allocation, it may not achieve this outcome. Even if it does, it may substantially reduce the amount of irrigation water available. Consequently, irrigators may not have the confidence to invest in irrigation infrastructure improvements as they are unsure whether they will obtain a financial return for doing so.  Increasing salinity of the Murray River. Despite the increase in salt interception schemes, salinity is still rising. A significant contributor to this is reduced flows in the river that result in less dilution and higher salt concentrations. Increased infrastructure is likely to be required to maintain salinity at acceptable levels.  Improving irrigation performance information. There is a need for much better performance measurement and reporting so as to enable better resource allocation for asset replacement and maintenance.

122

Irrigation 



8.5

Ensuring the continual modernisation of irrigation infrastructure. Improvements in irrigation infrastructure will rely on the rollout of automated technology that has the flexibility to adapt to changing water availability and shifting customer demand. A challenge to achieving this is to ensure that water organisations price their services so that the technology can be maintained and adapted over its service life.

Retiring less valuable irrigation land. Not all land that is currently irrigated should continue to be so. Changing water availability, environmental degradation and climate changes affecting plant growth mean that the water can be used for higher value purposes elsewhere. While over 1,000ha508 of land in the Lower Murray area has been retired recently, more will need to be taken out of service. As this will have social and economic impacts, large scale land retirement needs to be handled sensitively.

Report Card rating Infrastructure type Irrigation

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

C+

Not rated

C-

D-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s irrigation infrastructure has been rated C+. This rating recognises that while there has been improvement in irrigation infrastructure, such as replacing open channels with pipes, constructing salt interception schemes and increasing the use of recycled water, there is concern about the long-term viability of much irrigation infrastructure due to poor management of the total MurrayDarling water resource.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Ongoing irrigation rehabilitation and efficiency improvement projects  Expansion of the salt interception schemes on the River Murray  Increased use of recycled water for irrigation.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Uncertainty about the management, water quality and volume for River Murray dependent irrigators  Uncertainty about the achievement of salinity targets for the River Murray.

123

Water

124

ENERGY Energy policy The SA Government has three key elements to its energy policy.

Firstly, to facilitate the transition from a State-based regime to a national one. The aim of the new regime is to provide national consistency in energy market rules, regulation, operations, governance and policy. The outcome of this will be more efficient investment in, and operation of, energy production and provision, with the aim of improved outcomes for consumers. Recent developments illustrating this include the:  Transfer from State-based economic regulation of gas and electricity to the Australian Energy Regulator  Transfer of State-based electricity transmission planning to the Australian Energy Market Operator  Participation in a range of national energy policy developments, including the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency (NSEE).

Secondly, to facilitate energy provision in areas where market incentives fail to provide energy at an acceptable quality and price. Examples of initiatives to do this include the:  Remote Areas Energy Supplies Scheme, which subsidises the cost of electricity to 13 remote off-grid townships  Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, which provides rebates for the installation of renewable energy systems to remote townships.

Thirdly, to shape the production and use of energy so as to achieve the State‘s sustainability objective. This sustainability objective is identified as one of six objectives in South Australia’s Strategic Plan, and it aims to reduce overall energy consumption and increase the proportion of energy produced from renewable sources. Recent developments illustrating this include the:  Provision of an energy advisory service for the general community  Establishment of the Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme, which provides a rebate of $500 on the cost of a new solar or electric heat pump water heater system, and the Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme (REES), which requires energy providers to offer householders incentives to adopt energy saving measures  Development of the strategic and regulatory framework that supports the deployment of renewable energy, including wind, geothermal, wave and tidal, and solar energy  Increasing the State‘s renewables target from 20% to 33% of all electricity generated to come from renewable sources by 2020  Establishment of the Renewables SA Board, Renewable Energy Commission and Renewable Energy Fund. The $20m Fund was established in 2009, to be administered over 2 years, and aims to foster innovation and investment in renewable technologies 509  Requiring the energy efficiency of government buildings to increase by 25% from 2001/02 levels, by 2014.

125

Energy SA‘s energy sector is governed by a combination of State and national organisations. The key ones are:  Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC). The AEMC became responsible for rulemaking, market development and policy advice on the National Electricity Market (NEM) and natural gas pipelines services and elements of the broader natural gas markets from 1 July 2009.  Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER has responsibility for the enforcement of and compliance with the National Electricity Rules, as well as responsibility for the economic regulation of electricity transmission and distribution. The AER issues infringement notices for certain breaches of the National Electricity Law and Rules, and is the body responsible for bringing court proceedings in respect of breaches. 510 The AER is also the economic regulator for National Gas Law covering natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines in all States and Territories and enforces the National Gas Law and National Gas Rules. The AER took responsibility for economic regulation of the gas distribution networks from 1 July 2008. The AER is part of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). The AEMO operates the National Electricity Market (NEM) as well as the retail and wholesale gas markets of south-eastern Australia from 1 July 2009. For the electricity network, AEMO‘s priority is the management of power system security and reliability. Security of supply is a measure of the power system's capacity to continue operating within defined technical limits even in the event of the disconnection of a major system element such as an interconnector or large generator. Reliability is a measure of the power system's capacity to continue to supply sufficient power to satisfy customer demand, allowing for the loss of generation capacity.511  Essential Services Commission of SA (ESCOSA). Until 30 June 2010, ESCOSA will administer ETSA Utilities‘ electricity distribution price determination, which involves monitoring revenue earned and costs incurred by ETSA Utilities. From July 2010, AER will be responsible for making and administering a new price control regime. ESCOSA will continue to have a role in non-price regulation of ETSA Utilities (including licensing, determination of service standards and performance monitoring)512 until at least 30 June 2015. Since the responsibility for administering ElectraNet‘s price control regime moved from ESCOSA to AER in 2001, ESCOSA has been responsible for setting and regulating the service standards with which ElectraNet must comply. 513 ESCOSA also manages the licensing regime for generators, which requires them to comply with appropriate technical standards. It has recently established a specific licensing regime for wind generators due to the risk they pose to the stability of the network.514 ESCOSA is the economic regulator for the Standing Contract element of the gas supply and electricity industries in SA, as well as being responsible for licensing of distribution and retail market administration functions. 515  The Office of the Technical Regulator. The primary role of the Technical Regulator is to ensure the safety of workers, consumers and property, and to ensure compliance with legislation and technical standards and codes throughout the electricity generation, transmission and distribution sectors, and the gas distribution sector.516 The Technical Regulator is responsible for overseeing the natural gas transmission and distribution reticulation pipeline network. It monitors gas supplies to ensure that gas is available in the required quantities and quality for the metropolitan and regional distribution networks and for general use in gas appliances. It is responsible for gas supplied from the Moomba and Katnook plants. 517  Energy Industry Ombudsman of SA (EIOSA). EIOSA investigates and resolves disputes between customers and electricity and gas companies. 518  Energy Division of the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) (SA Government). The Division provides policy advice on energy issues, energy program delivery and energy regulatory services.519

126

Energy Case study: Embedded Generation within the Adelaide CBD Increasingly, new public and private developments are looking to incorporate embedded generation as a means of improving environmental sustainability and to reduce whole of life costs.

Embedded generation, such as co-generation and tri-generation, is considered to be environmentally sustainable in that it is able to: ď&#x201A;ť Reduce peak energy demand thereby reducing the required network and generation capacity, and reducing the demand on older, low efficiency peaking plants520 ď&#x201A;ť Generate power that has a lower carbon emissions to that of grid power, and in the case of co-generation by also using the waste heat for heating and/or cooling (through absorption chillers).

Gas powered co-generation is the most cost effective form of large scale embedded generation. To be effective, co-generation plants need to operate continuously near capacity so that high grade heat is generated for the associated heating/cooling systems. In practice, this can only be achieved where the engine is grid connected and therefore able to provide its full capacity into the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s electrical network.

The feasibility of co-generation systems for developments within the Adelaide CBD are currently being adversely impacted by the constrained fault capacity of the CBD distribution network. The distribution network within the Adelaide CBD is near the maximum safe fault level of both existing customer and ETSA Utilities high voltage equipment.521 As a result, ETSA Utilities will not allow any additional short circuit fault sources (such as embedded co-generation) to be connected to the Adelaide CBD distribution network. Proposals that install fault current eliminating devices will be considered, however this is generally not considered to be cost effective or reliable.

Co-generation systems that operate in 'island' mode will also be considered. However, 'island ' systems, such as at the SA Water building on Victoria Square, have proven to be problematic as building loads are not steady, resulting in the co-generation engines running well below full load for extended periods.

There are many current opportunities for large scale embedded generation within the Adelaide CBD such as the new hospital precinct and the various proposed Green Star commercial buildings. Without a better solution for grid connection, many of these systems are unlikely to be viable or reliable.

127

Energy

128

9

Electricity

9.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Electricity

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

B-

C+

B-

This rating recognises that SA has sufficient generation capacity to meet demand until 2012/13.

However, peak demand growth needs to be moderated to prevent high cost, low utilisation infrastructure being required. While the present significant expansion in transmission and distribution network infrastructure is important to rectify key limitations, ongoing growth in wind power and the development of distributed generation will require significant additional investment.

Since the last Report Card, the major electricity sector developments in SA have been:  Transfer of economic regulation for electricity transmission and distribution from ESCOSA to the AER  The transfer of planning and other functions from SA‘s Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council to the AEMO  Rising electricity prices  A significant increase in wind generation  An increase in geothermal and wave power development projects  Volatile wholesale electricity prices in the last two years, with prices persistently higher than observed in other regions of the National Electricity Market (NEM) 522  An increase in the State‘s renewable target from 20% to 33% of all electricity generated to come from renewable sources by 2020. This target is higher than required by the Australian Government‘s Expanded Renewable Energy Target scheme, which was introduced in August 2009 and aims for 20% by 2020  The introduction of a net photovoltaic feed-in tariff  Major reinforcement to the electricity supply to the Adelaide Central Business District, which includes new underground transmission lines, and construction of the Mt Barker South and Templers substations.

Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Wind farms - 70MW Mount Millar Wind Farm, 94.5MW Hallett Stage 1 - Brown Hill Wind Farm, 98.7MW Snowtown Stage 1 Wind Farm, 71MW Hallett, Stage 2 - Hallett Hill Wind Farm, 56.7MW Clements Gap Wind Farm and the 111MW Waterloo Wind Farm  Gas powered - 126MW open cycle gas turbine adjacent to the Quarantine Power Station on Torrens Island.

Challenges to improving electricity infrastructure include:  Renewing ageing infrastructure  Implementing significant demand management measures  Meeting changing electricity demand  Converting the potential of geothermal power generation into reality  Integrating wind generation into the network  Providing reliable supply in the face of extreme weather events  Capturing the opportunities of smart network technology  Addressing the inability to add embedded generation in the Adelaide CBD.

129

Energy

9.2

Infrastructure overview

9.2.1

System description Electricity infrastructure refers to stationary electricity networks that comprise interconnected electricity transmission and distribution systems, together with connected generating systems, facilities and loads. It includes non-renewable and renewable generation. It excludes mobile generators and non-grid connected electricity systems. SA‘s physical electricity infrastructure comprises:  Generation  Transmission networks  Distribution networks  Retail companies.

The physical elements work within a market structure called the National Electricity Market (NEM).

The NEM spans SA, Victoria, Queensland, NSW, ACT and Tasmania. Over 275 registered generators across the NEM offer to supply power and their production is bought by retailers. The central coordination of the dispatch of electricity from generators is the responsibility of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). While generation and retail has been opened to competition, due to the nature of transmission and distribution networks, these are regulated monopolies.

Generation Power is generated or supplied from the following sources in SA and in the following percentages for 2008/09:  Coal fired power stations, 34%  Gas fired power stations, 50%  Wind farms, 14%  Interconnectors, 1%  Other (including distillate and photovoltaic), 1%. 523 The proportion of power generated from each source changes yearly in response to new generation sources being deployed, the relative cost of each source, and technical constraints on the network. The major changes in the sources of generation over the last decade have been:  A small increase in coal fired generation  A reduction mid-decade in gas fired generation due to gas shortages caused by damage to the Moomba gas production facility, followed by another decline in 2008/09 as wind generation increased  A significant increase in wind generation  An increase in interconnector supply mid-decade to compensate for the reduction in gas fired generation, followed by a recent decline due to the higher costs of east coast electricity supply.

In 2008/09, nearly 100% of the State‘s electricity requirement was provided by local generation.

Table 9.1 identifies the main conventional thermal generation plants in SA. The generators that provide baseload are Torrens Island, Pelican Point, Port Augusta and Osborne (a cogeneration station that supplies steam as well as power).524 Smaller power stations at Dry Creek, Snuggery, Mintaro, Port Lincoln, Hallett, Quarantine (on Torrens Island) and one near Penola are mainly used to provide peak loads.525

130

Electricity Table 9.1: Conventional thermal generation capacity in SA526 Registered NEM Participant

Power Station

Units and NamePlate Rating

Station Capacity (MW)

Plant Type

Fuel

AGL Energy

Torrens A

4 x 120

480

Conventional steam

Natural gas

AGL Energy

Torrens B

4 x 200

800

Conventional steam

Natural gas/ oil

Infratil

Angaston

30 x 1.67

50

Reciprocating diesel

Distillate

International Power

Dry Creek

3 x 52

156

Gas turbine

Natural gas

International Power

Mintaro

International Power

Pelican Point

International Power International Power

1 x 90

90

Gas turbine

Natural gas

1 x 48714

487

Combined

Natural gas

Port Lincoln

2 x 24

48

Gas turbine

Distillate

Snuggery

3 x 26

78

Gas turbine

Distillate

NRG Flinders

Northern

2 x 260

520

Conventional steam

Coal

NRG Flinders

Osborne

1 x 190

190

Cogeneration

Natural gas

NRG Flinders

Playford

4 x 60

240

Conventional steam

Coal

Origin Energy

Ladbroke Grove

2 x 43

86

Gas turbine

Natural gas

Origin Energy

Quarantine

4 x 24.6 1 x 128.4

226.8

Gas turbine

Natural gas

TRUEnergy

Hallett

11 units

192

Gas turbine

Natural gas / distillate

Total name-plate capacity

3,644

SA has the highest percentage of wind generation to electricity sales in Australia and one of the highest in the world.527 By the beginning of 2010, wind accounted for 14%528 of generated electricity compared with 6% in Victoria.529 Table 9.2 identifies SA‘s operational wind farms.

Table 9.2: Existing wind generation capacity in SA530 Registered NEM Participant

Wind Farm

AGL Energy

Hallett Stage 1Brown Hill

45 x 2.10

94.50

Semi-scheduled

AGL Hydro

Wattle Point

55 x 1.65

90.75

Non-scheduled

Infigen Energy

Lake Bonney Stage 1

46 x 1.75

80.50

Non-scheduled

Infigen Energy

Lake Bonney Stage 2

53 x 3.00

159.00

Roaring 40s

Cathedral Rocks

33 x 2.00

66.00

Non-scheduled

International Power

Canunda

23 x 2.00

46.00

Non-scheduled

Transfield Services

Mt Millar

35 x 2.00

70.00

Non-scheduled

Transfield Services

Starfish Hill

23 x 1.50

34.50

Non-scheduled

TrustPower Ltd

Snowtown Stage 1

47 x 2.10

98.70

Scheduled

Total

Units and Turbine Rating (MW)

Capacity (MW)

Dispatch Type

Scheduled

739.95

Rooftop photovoltaic (PV) generators are increasing in number, although their total capacity at 10MW is small relative to all other power sources. As of 30 June 2009, there were 7,127 PV generators installed,531 and on average, each system exports to the grid some 1,150kWh annually.532 By June 2010, it is estimated that there will be over 15,500 PV installations connected to ETSA Utilities‘ network.533 SA is home to Australia‘s largest PV array, located at the Adelaide showgrounds, which supplies approximately 1,400MWh annually.534 A major reason for the growth in PV has been the introduction of a feed-in tariff from 1 July 2008. The net tariff (ie. gross production minus household consumption) is designed to encourage investment in small-scale renewable electricity generation by paying small-scale generators a premium rate for the amount of electricity they generate and export to the grid. The premium rate is currently set at 44c/kWh. The feed-in tariff applies to customers who:  Consume less than 160MWh of electricity per annum, and 131

Energy Have a PV system with capacity up to 10kVA for a single phase connection and up to 30kVA for a three phase connection.535 Details of feed-in tariff schemes for other jurisdictions are listed in Table 9.3. 

Table 9.3: Feed-in tariff rates in Australian jurisdictions536 Jurisdiction

Current status

Nature of scheme

Rate

Duration

SA

Commenced on 1 July 2008

Net

44c/kWh

20 years

NSW

Commenced in January 2010

Gross

60c/kWh

7 years

VIC

Commenced 1 November 2009

Net

60c/kWh

15 years

QLD

Commenced 1 July 2008

Net

44c/kWh

20 years (subject to review)

WA

Commencing 1 July 2010

Net

To be determined (submissions closed on 20 November 2009)

To be determined

NT

Commenced 1 July 2009 in Alice Springs only

Net

45.76c/kWh.(capped at $5 per day, then reverts to 23.11c/kWh)

To be determined

ACT

Commenced in March 2009

Gross

Reducing to 45.7c/kWh in July 2010

5 years

The payments to customers associated with the feed-in tariff are made by ETSA Utilities. It determines the amount of electricity the PV owner generates and exports to the grid, and details the monetary credit to the owner‘s electricity retailer. 537 The retailer then reduces the customer‘s electricity account or makes payments to the customer detailed on their electricity bill. ETSA Utilities’ credits over 2009/10 are estimated to be $7 million, rising to $11.7 million by 2014/15.538 This payment is levied on all SA electricity customers and translates to an additional $8.70 per customer per year. Retailers may offer to purchase the power from the producers for between 6 and 8 cents/KWh.539 Transmission SA‘s transmission network can be divided into:  The intrastate network that consists of over 6,500km of lines, linking generators to distribution networks s  Interconnectors that link SA‘s intrastate network with the transmission network of Victoria.

Intrastate transmission network SA‘s intrastate transmission network is owned and managed by ElectraNet Pty Limited trading as ElectraNet SA, a private limited liability company.

The network was designed to connect the major generators around Adelaide with the city via a high capacity 275kV grid. Other demand centres were connected with a 132kV lightly meshed network.

It also has a number of long radial lines, meaning they only have one point of supply. Parts of the network are over 50 years old.540 The network has 76 switching stations, of which most are exit connection point substations that step down voltage to lower levels and are the sources of supply for customers.541 The network‘s control centre is located in Adelaide. 542 SA‘s intrastate transmission network is illustrated in Figure 9.1.

s

There are also a number of other small transmission networks including one operated by BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd and OZ Minerals Prominent Hill Operations Pty Ltd, both to support mining activities. These are not addressed in this chapter.

132

Electricity Figure 9.1: SAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intrastate electricity transmission network543

133

Energy Being a monopoly service, electricity transmission networks are regulated. ElectraNet‘s current regulatory period runs from 1 July 2008 through to 30 June 2013. ESCOSA set the revenue cap that must operate within this period.544 From 1 July 2013, the AER will assume responsibility for economic regulation of ElectraNet. Interconnectors Interconnectors connect the transmission networks of different NEM regions. They enhance competition by allowing multiple generators to compete to supply as well as improving security and reliability of supply. There are two interconnectors in SA.  Murraylink, which connects ElectraNet‘s Monash 132kV substation in SA‘s Riverland (Berri) with SP Ausnet‘s Red Cliffs 220kV terminal station. Murraylink is a bi-directional facility (DC current flows along one cable and back along the second cable) with a steady state transfer capability of 220MW at the receiving end.545  Heywood Interconnector, which connects SA‘s transmission network with Victoria‘s 500 kV transmission network at the Heywood terminal station. It consists of two AC circuits operating at 275kV, and enabling up to 460MW of transfer. 546 Historically, the interconnectors have imported power from Victoria into SA, and this reached a peak following a reduction in gas fired generation in SA, which was due to a shortage of gas supplies after the Moomba gas processing plant fire in 2004. In recent years, the volume of imported electricity has reduced as power prices for State-based generation reached parity, and on occasions, below that of Victoria.547 Exports from SA have increased as the volume of wind power generation has increased. Due to the need for increasing transfer capability between SA and the other States, arising partly from SA‘s increased wind generation, a study commenced in early 2010 to examine options in this area.548 Distribution ETSA Utilities operates SA‘s distribution network under a 200 year lease from the SA Government, t which commenced in January 2000. ETSA Utilities is 51% owned by Cheung Kong Group of companies based in Hong Kong and 49% owned by Spark Infrastructure Group. Table 9.4 provides details of its line assets. ETSA Utilities also has:  86,931km of overhead and underground lines  402 zone substations  1,513 sub-transmission transformers  69,413 distribution transformers  About 723,000 stobie poles 549  812,529 customers.

ETSA Utilities also owns the majority of meters550 and undertakes meter reading on behalf of electricity retailers.551 However, billing is the responsibility of retailers.552 Table 9.4: ETSA Utilities’ distribution network length (as at December 2009)553 Operating voltage 132kV

t

Overhead (km)

Underground (km) 11

0

66kV

1,426

41

33kV

3,988

161

19kV (SWER)

28,870

52

11kV (includes 7,6kV)

17,814

3,561

Low voltage (<1,000V)

19,107

11,899

Total

71,216

15,714

There are also a number of smaller distribution entities covering remote areas but these are not covered in this Report Card.

134

Electricity Key high voltage components of the network are:  66kV sub-transmission lines within the metropolitan area, Eastern Hills, Fleurieu Peninsula, Eyre Peninsula and Riverland regions  33kV lines for country long distance sub-transmission  33kV lines for some metropolitan and Adelaide city areas  11kV lines for general distribution in built-up areas with some pockets of 7.6 kV network distribution in the metropolitan region  19kV SWER (single wire earth return) lines for sparse rural distribution.554 Much of the network was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s and is reaching its design life, which is typically between 40 and 50 years.

Being a monopoly service, electricity distribution networks are regulated. ETSA Utilities‘ current regulatory period runs from 1 July 2005 until 30 June 2010. AER will be responsibility for economic regulation from 1 July 2010.

Retail Full retail competition for SA electricity customers was introduced in January 2003, meaning that all customers can choose a retailer from which to buy their electricity. There are 19 licensed electricity retailers in the SA, 11 of which sell to small customers.555 The tariffs offered by these retailers are unregulated. However, the SA Government has not mandated that customers must choose a retail tariff, as customers can choose to be on the regulated Standing Tariff. A review of retail energy competition in the State in 2008 found that competition was effective for small customers and recommended that direct price control via the Standing Contract not continue. In April 2009, the SA Minister for Energy rejected this recommendation on the basis that the Standing Contract is an important mechanism to maintain public confidence and safeguard consumer interests during price volatility. ESCOSA determines the Standing Contract price. In 2010, ESCOSA will reset the Standing Contract price and one of its key challenges will be to determine how much of the costs associated with climate change response policies should be passed on to electricity and gas customers.556 Historically, the Standing Contract price was a ceiling pricing and market price contracts offered by retailers typically offered savings of between 3% and 7%. However, by September 2009, the Standing Contract price was near the lowest price. The Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council expects that there will be a continual reduction in the number of retail contracts offering a 'discount' below the level of the Standing Contract price.557 Electricity prices Electricity prices in SA are made up of two components:  Network charges, which are set by the economic regulator (ESCOSA/AER) of ETSA Utilities  Retail costs, which are set by the retailers or ESCOSA for the Standing Contract.

Between 2001/02, the Standing Contract price increased by 18% and 22% in real terms for residential and small business customers.558 Since the introduction of full retail competition in 2003, the price for residential customers has decreased by 6% in real terms, however it has increased by about 7% for small business customers.559 In both cases, the retail component of the price has increased while the distribution component has decreased or remained static.

Electricity demand Demand over the last few years is listed in Table 9.5. Between 2004/05 and 2008/09 the growth rate of electricity consumption averaged 3.4% per annum. Peak demand growth has been increasing faster than average growth, due to the increasing use of reverse cycle air-conditioning in homes, and a growing increase in commercial loads.

135

Energy Table 9.5: Electricity customer numbers and demand560 Total sales (GWh)

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Residential customers

3,751

4,070

4,154

4,108

4,474

Small business electricity customers

1,269

1,363

1,324

1,281

1,268

Large electricity customer

6,451

6,559

6,625

6,637

7,299

11,471

11,992

12,103

12,026

13,041

All customers

There is a direct correlation between electricity prices and sales. The price elasticity of annual sales is estimated to be -0.25, with slightly less than half of this elasticity applying to peak demand levels.561 9.2.2

Policy and governance A key component of the SA Government‘s vision for the electricity sector is reflected in its agreement to the national electricity objective. This objective is to promote efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, electricity services for the long-term interests of consumers of electricity with respect to price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of electricity; and the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system.562 The overarching regulatory framework for SA‘s network is provided through the National Electricity Rules, which are made under the National Electricity Law. The National Electricity Law is applied as law in SA by the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996. The National Electricity Rules provide the detailed standards that govern participation in, and the operation of, the NEM. They specify a range of technical performance criteria that network service providers must observe while planning, designing and operating their networks. The South Australian jurisdiction expands on the National Electricity Rules through the South Australian Electricity Transmission Code and the South Australia Electricity Distribution Code.563 In July 2008, the new South Australian Electricity Transmission Code (SAETC) came into force. It introduced additional reliability categories, including an important new category requiring higher reliability to the Adelaide central business district. It also identified a number of connection points across the State where growing demand allows for a move to a higher category of reliability.564 The NEM is continuing to evolve, with the most recent change occurring on 1 July 2009, when the management of the electricity spot market and the central coordination of the dispatch of electricity moved from the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO) to the AEMO. Until 2009, SA‘s Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council was the State Government‘s main provider of expertise on the electricity supply industry in SA, including on network planning. As of 1 July 2009, SA‘s Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council becomes part of the AEMO. Economic regulatory functions undertaken by ESCOSA have been transferred to the AER. The role of the SA and Australian Governments in controlling electricity infrastructure is now very constrained compared to the past, as they have transferred control to independent regulators and authorities within a market framework. However, they can indirectly influence both costs and demand through mechanisms such as applying a price to carbon and encouraging energy efficiency.

Key documents to guide the development of electricity networks in SA are summarised in Table 9.6.

136

Electricity Table 9.6: Key electricity planning documents Document

Description

South Australian Annual Planning Report (renamed the South Australia Supply and Demand Outlook from July 2010)565

This document is published annually by AEMO. It was produced previously by the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council (ESIPC). The document describes the current state of SA's electricity supply system. It presents information on SA load forecasts, an assessment of the adequacy of the generation, fuel and transmission network capacity and reviews system augmentation projects.

Electricity Statement of Opportunities (ESOO)

ESOO is published annually by AEMO and provides a 10-year forecast to help market participants to assess the future need for electricity generating capacity, demand side capacity and augmentation of the network to support the operation of the NEM. It includes a year-by-year annual supply-demand balance for SA and other regions as a snapshot forecast of the capacity of generation and distribution.

National Transmission Statement (NTS) & National Transmission Network Development Plan (NTNDP)

These documents are published by AEMO in its role as the National Transmission Planner for the electricity transmission grid. The annual network development plans guide investment in the power system. In 2009, an interim NTS was produced which replaced the previous Annual National Transmission Statement produced by NEMMCO. This document will be superseded by the NTNDP in 2010. The NTNDP will provide historical data and projections of network utilisation and congestion, summarise emerging reliability issues and potential network solutions, and present information on potential network augmentations and non-network alternatives and their ability to address the projected congestion.566

Network 2025 Vision (Transmission)

This document, produced by ElectraNet, sets out its vision for the network to 2025.567

Annual Planning Report (Transmission)

ElectraNet publishes this report annually. It assesses the transmission system‘s likely capacity to meet demand in SA over the next twenty years. It also provides information about ElectraNet‘s possible plans for augmentation of the transmission network.568

Electricity System Development Plan (Distribution)

ETSA Utilities publishes this report annually. Its purpose is to provide information about actual and forecast constraints on ETSA Utilities' distribution network, and details of these constraints, where they are expected to arise within 3 years of publication. The document includes 13 regional development plans and specific plans for metropolitan 66 kV lines and 11/7.6 kV feeder exits.569

Demand Management Compliance Report (Distribution)

ETSA Utilities publishes this report annually. It describes progress to date on the various demand management initiatives being undertaken by ETSA Utilities.

Regulation of the electricity supply industry in SA is based on the:  Electricity Act 1996 (and regulations)  National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 (and the National Electricity Law and National Electricity Rules made under that Act)  Essential Services Commission Act 2002.

9.2.3

Sector trends Growing electricity demand Electricity demand is driven by economic activity, population growth, price, domestic air-conditioner penetration, the comparative cost of natural gas and several less important factors. For residential growth, key drivers are population and hence household numbers. For commercial loads, the most significant drivers are economic activity and population growth. 570 Changes in growth include:  A shift from domestic electric hot water systems to electric-boosted solar units, heat pumps or gas heating will reduce electricity demand  Significant industrial electricity usage increases will occur if an expansion occurs at the Olympic Dam mine site, and a new pulp mill is built in the South East

137

Energy 

An increase in electricity demand for bulk water supply, which will increase from 200GWh in u 2011/12 to 570GWh, with the commissioning of a 100GL desalination plant in 2012/13.

Between 2009/10 and 2018/19, the average yearly growth in SA is expected to be 1.5% under low growth, 1.8% under base growth and 4.8% under high growth. 571 The summer peak electricity demand will grow faster than the average demand. Peak growth is expected to average 2.0% over the next decade.572 Changing supply-demand balance AEMO considers that SA has sufficient capacity to meek both peak and average demand until 2012/13:  Given the:  Committed investment in new generation in SA and Victoria  Increased hydroelectric supply because of the easing of drought conditions  Slowing of economic growth, and  Assuming that the currently committed new generation plant is completed on time.

After 2012/13, additional capacity will be required to meet demand. AEMO 10-year predictions of the supply and demand balance are provided in Figure 9.2.

Figure 9.2: SA supply - demand balance573 4500

Investment Required

4000

Assumed Demand Side Participation

3500

Assumed New Plant South Australia

Megawatts

3000

South Australian Generation 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

2018/19

2017/18

2016/17

2015/16

2014/15

2013/14

2012/13

2011/12

2010/11

2009/10

0

Increasing electricity prices Electricity prices are likely to rise significantly over the next few years.574 Significant increases are already being seen in other States following recent price determination reviews. This increase is due to:  Direct and indirect price impacts of a potential carbon pricing regime  Renewable energy requirements  Increases in the network utilisation component of electricity prices  Increases in wholesale electricity prices due to higher fuel costs. u

Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 31-2. The electricity forecasts also assume commissioning of a new 100 GL desalination plant to service Adelaide‘s water requirements from 2012-13. A desalination plant of this size would consume an estimated 500 GWh per annum or around 3.7% of South Australian customer sales if it operated at maximum output for the full year. The operation of the desalination plant could also substantially reduce the energy used for water pumping, with the net increase in sales estimated at around 350 GWh. The desalination plant is expected to have a maximum demand of 80MW. The effect on electricity peak demand and sales is included in the base, high and low growth scenarios. Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 22.

138

Electricity The distribution component of the network utilisation prices will increase by 14% in 2010/11 followed by a 6% yearly increase until 2014/15. This price rise was justified on the basis of the rising costs of labour and materials, the need to replace aging assets and the continuing growth in peak demand. The rise in distribution network costs translates to a 5% increase in the average residential customer‘s annual electricity bill in 2010/11 and a 3% rise each year after that. 575 Increasing extreme events In SA, climate change is forecast to impact on the number and severity of extreme weather events, including risks associated with heatwaves, such as bushfires and drought, as well as wind and lightning storms. While electricity systems are designed to cope with certain aspects of extreme weather, it is not always possible to prevent power disruptions during these events. Recent extreme weather events that caused power disruptions in greater metropolitan Adelaide included windstorms on 15 September 2008, severe thunderstorms on 13-14 November 2008, severe thunderstorms on 30 June 2009,576 and a heatwave in January and February 2009.

Weather is the cause of between 25% and 45% of distribution outages each year. Figure 9.3 presents the causes of outages for 2008/09, and ETSA Utilities considers that the 24% of unknown events were mostly weather related.577 Figure 9.3: Contribution to interruptions (SAIDI) by cause for 2008/09578 Operational, 1%

Other, 1%

Third party, 14%

Weather, 26%

Unknown, 24%

Equipment failure, 24% Planned, 10%

Growing wind generation Wind power is rapidly growing as a source of generation in SA, and its deployment will accelerate due to the Australian Government‘s Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) scheme. The share of the State‘s generated energy that is supplied by wind farms is predicted to rise from 14% in 2008/09 to 15.7% in 2009/10 and to reach 34.1% by 2018/19.579 Table 9.7 lists the total capacity of operating, under construction and under consideration wind power generators in SA. Table 9.7: SA’s wind energy industry (June 2009)580 Status

Capacity (MW)

Operating

740

Under construction

127

Under consideration

880

Figure 9.4 illustrates the actual and forecast growth in wind power generation.

139

Energy Figure 9.4: Actual and forecast wind generation581 7000 Total wind generation

6000

GWh

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 2012/13

2011/12

2010/11

2009/10

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

0

There are two key infrastructure problems with wind generation.

Firstly, wind farms are often located in places that are a considerable distance from existing generation and consumer areas. This means that new grid connections may be required as well as augmentation of existing transmission lines to reduce congestion. The networks in the mid-north and south-east of the State are already struggling to cope with the transfer of the high levels of wind energy being supplied.582 Wind supply is constrained due to network congestion during periods of light loading and high wind conditions.583 Secondly, the intermittent nature of wind generation can cause risks to system reliability and security. This is because wind energy has dispatch priority over scheduled generation that can result in issues of network loading control, and instability following a sudden reduction in wind generation.584 To address this, a range of measures is being implemented in the NEM, including the: ď&#x201A;ť Semi-Dispatch Arrangements. The Semi-Dispatch Arrangements provides AEMO with a degree of control over the output of wind-powered generation through the dispatch process. ď&#x201A;ť Australian Wind Energy Forecasting System. The Australian Wind Energy Forecasting System provides information to all market participants on the likely output, and potential variations in outputs, from wind-powered generators, increasing the ability of the market, and AEMO, to manage the variability in output from wind energy generators. Another approach is to have wind supply paired with confirmed rapid dispatchable generation on standby.

Increasing geothermal and other renewables Geothermal power generation has a huge potential in SA due to the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s large and accessible geothermal deposits. As of February 2010, there are 28 companies in SA that have Geothermal Exploration Licences, with several having undertaken geothermal exploration and test drilling. The most advanced is Geodynamics Limited, which successfully proved in March 2009 that it was able to extract heat from hydraulically stimulated hot fractured rock to create power near Innamincka.

The Company suffered a well control incident at Habanero 3, just days before the commissioning of a 1MW power plant. The result has been the selection of a different casing for Jolokia 1 and future wells, suitable to the reservoir conditions experienced. A decision about the future location of the 1MW plant will be made in 2010. The company anticipates making a final investment decision on its proposed 25MW commercial demonstration plant in December 2011, and if this proceeds, the plant would be commissioned two years later. Geodynamics believes that a successfully operating commercial demonstration plant will allow access to debt markets to finance the commercial expansion and transmission infrastructure required to produce 500MW to the national electricity market by December 2018.

Table 9.8 lists geothermal projects in SA that are well advanced.

140

Electricity

Table 9.8: Geothermal projects in SA that are well advanced 585 Developer

Power Station

Geodynamics Limited

Innamincka

Name-plate Rating (MW)

Geodynamics Limited

Innamincka

25

GreenRock Energy

Olympic Dam

NA

Pacific Hydro

Great Artesian Basin Project, far north SA

400

Petratherm

Paralana/ Beverley Uranium Mine

1

30

The key challenges facing geothermal development are:  The costs and technology needed to locate and prove the resource. Exploration is high risk and deep drilling and in-ground development are both costly and technically challenging. The Australian Government‘s Geothermal Drilling Program has been essential in supporting deep drilling work. Capital raising is difficult for geothermal companies in the current economic climate.  Generating energy from a resource where the conversion efficiency between heat from the ground and electricity is relatively low. The overall cycle efficiency of the generation process can be quite low, particularly on days where the ambient temperature in these remote areas is very high.  Delivering the energy to market. Nearly all of the advanced geothermal projects in SA are remote from grid, meaning that transmission lines will be required to be built between the generators and the existing network. The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has examined this issue and is initiating a rule change in order to effect a ―more efficient framework for connection of clusters of new remote generation to energy networks.‖586 The proposed Scale Efficient Network Extensions (SENE) model requires monopoly Network Service Providers (NSPs) to plan and develop network extensions of optimal size for the expected level of future connections. Full economic cost recovery is intended to be achieved from the connection fees of generators when they ultimately connect to the extensions. Should the actual connections be less or later than expected, customers would fund the shortfall. Alternatives to electricity transmission include co-locating high-energy consumers with the power plant or to convert the energy into another form for shipment.587 An example is to convert it into methane, which can be injected into the existing pipeline from Moomba.588 The SA Government has estimated that geothermal power will cost in the range of $80 -$105/MWh when delivered to regional nodes, which compares to $100-$140/MWh for wind power.589 Wave and tidal power developments in SA are also accelerating. The major developments over the last two years are:  In February 2009, the SA Government approved a licence for Carnegie Corporation to test an offshore site along the Limestone Coast in SA with a view to building a demonstration 50MW wave power station. The site is near Port MacDonnell and is close to the national electricity grid.

While the project was not supported in 2009 by the Federal Government‘s Renewable Energy Development Program, the project‘s proponent is still continuing with its feasibility study into the project during 2010.  In May 2009, the SA Government gave planning approval for Wave Rider Energy to build a $5 million wave energy pilot plant off Elliston on the Eyre Peninsula. The purpose of the plant is to test their Wave Energy Converter (WEC) technology under field conditions. Following the granting of approval for the project under the Commonwealth‘s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in 2010, the company is now fabricating the technology with intended deployment in 2011.

141

Energy Both projects involve having sea-bed mounted infrastructure with the generation facilities on shore.

This reduces the environmental impact and increases storm survivability compared with surface mounted systems.

Increasing capital works expenditure on networks The next few years will see a significant growth in capital works for distribution and transmission networks. The projects constitute the largest investment in networks since the building of the interconnector in 1989.590 ElectraNet‘s major projects include:  New substations at Penola West and Mount Barker  A new underground transmission line into the heart of Adelaide to support the CBD and southern and western suburbs  A number of reinforcements or replacements of aging assets.591 Table 9.9 lists ElectraNet‘s committed large transmission network augmentation projects, and there are a number of others under consideration.592 Table 9.9: Committed large transmission network augmentations593 Project

In service by

Cost estimate ($ millions)

New City West connection point

Dec 2011

$214

Kadina East reinforcement

Dec 2011

$19

Ardrossan West reinforcement

Dec 2012

$22

Cultana/Whyalla reinforcement/rebuild

Dec 2013

$85

Wudinna reinforcement

Dec 2012

$13

Templers reinforcement

Dec 2010

$35

New Mt Barker South connection point

Dec 2011

$35

ETSA Utilities will be spending some $1.6 billion dollars on capital expenditure between 2010/11 and 2014/15.594 This is nearly double the investment made between 2005 and 2010. This investment requirement results from a diverse range of challenges, including:  Electricity Transmission Code changes  Peak demand growth  Aged assets  Increasing security of supply  Changing locations of demand and supply  A huge program of State infrastructure investment  Building in capabilities that allow for future smart network technologies.595 Although the proposed program of capital expenditure will maintain ETSA Utilities‘ overall risk profile, current levels of reliability and network asset utilisation levels, ETSA Utilities notes that it is still a constrained program. ETSA Utilities also notes that not all the new investment needs of the SA distribution network can be addressed in the period to 2015.596 Table 9.10 lists ETSA Utilities‘ proposed major projects:597 Table 9.10: ETSA Utilities major projects

142

Proposed major projects

Benefit

Project Value ($m)

CBD: new City-West connection; new substation (Post Office Place) and safety upgrades

Will improve security of supply for CBD, support major building development around the Waymouth Street precinct, and improve public and staff safety

154

Low voltage line and transformer upgrade

Will improve reliability under severe weather (heatwave) conditions

112

Electricity Proposed major projects

Benefit

Project Value ($m)

New network control centre, network monitoring and communications systems

Will improve security of supply and outage management and provide the platform for introducing future 'smart network' technologies

Metropolitan line and substation replacement and upgrade program

Will replace ageing substations, increase capacity and improve security of supply

250

Regional line and substation replacement and upgrade program

Will replace ageing substations, increase capacity and improve security of supply

190

43

9.3

Performance

9.3.1

NEM reliability and security The performance of the National Electricity Market is based on the criteria of:  Reliability, which is the availability of adequate bulk supply to meet consumer demand. The current standard for reliability is that there should be sufficient generation and bulk transmission capacity so that no more than 0.002% of the annual energy of consumers in any region is at risk of not being supplied; that is, unserved energy (USE) is less than 0.002%.  Security, which is the continuous operation of the power system within its technical limits.

For the SA region of the NEM, the USE reliability criterion for a rolling 10-year average has been 598 met. Over the last decade, the State‘s USE was 0.00051%. However, the criterion was exceeded in 2009 due to load shedding over 29-30 January 2009. On 29 and 30 January 2009, Victoria and SA experienced 43ºC temperatures, creating enormous electricity demand. In addition, supply was diminished when the Basslink Interconnector to Tasmania was shut down and several 599 Victorian generators were unavailable. Load shedding occurred on both days. This resulted in a USE that was greater than 0.002% in both States. 600 The actual load shed was 90MW.601

9.3.2

Generation The key performance measure for a generation plant is its ability to deliver a reliable supply when required. Its availability is affected by the number of internal plant planned outages (e.g. for maintenance and renewals), internal plant forced outages (e.g. plant breakdowns) and external forced outages (e.g. fuel unavailability, third party industrial actions). Internal plant outages usually increase with a plant‘s age, and when major upgrades occur.

Table 9.11 identifies the Equivalent Forced Outage Factor which is the percentage of power (MWh) unavailable over the year due to forced outages, and the Equivalent Availability Factor which is the percentage of power available over the year after outages are subtracted.

Table 9.11: Selected power station performance indicators (2008/09)602 Factor

Planned Outage Factor (%) Equivalent Forced Outage Factor (%) Equivalent Availability Factor (%)

Torrens Island Power Station A Station

Torrens Island Power Station B Station

Pelican Point

Northern

Playford

14.13

12.16

2.20

3.5

4.3

2.46

1.10

0.62

3.7

42.4

80.64

81.58

97.08

92.5

39.3

Table 9.12 contains the most recent national outage and availability figures, which allows a comparison of the above plants with the average for SA and the other jurisdictions.

143

Energy Table 9.12: National generator indicators603 Equivalent availability factor (%) State

9.3.3

2006/07

2007/08

Forced outage factor (%) 2006/07

Planned outage factor (%)

2007/08

2006/07

2007/08

NSW & ACT

86.4

85.2

4.2

4.3

9.4

10.5

Vic

90.3

90.6

4.0

3.5

5.7

6.0

Qld

93.1

88.9

3.3

3.8

3.6

7.3

SA

85.9

95.2

6.9

0.2

7.1

4.6

WA

82.1

81.5

3.3

7.5

14.6

11.0

Tas

90.3

87.0

0.9

4.2

8.8

8.9

NT

84.1

89.7

4.6

3.6

11.3

6.7

Transmission ElectraNet‘s performance targets and their achievements are set out in Table 9.13. Of note are the transmission line availability and outage duration figures. Transmission circuit availability is measured by the hours all circuits are available, expressed as a percentage of the total possible hours they could be available. Availability is strongly influenced by the level of maintenance and capital works. ElectraNet‘s transmission line availability has consistently been above target and is considered to be good industry practice by the Technical Regulator.604 Outage duration figures, while reflecting maintenance quality, vary considerably from year to year due to random external factors and the structure of ElectraNet‘s network which has a number of long radial lines.605 Table 9.13: Performance against service targets — ElectraNet606 607 Performance measure

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Target (2008)

Transmission line availability (%)

99.38

99.57

99.42

99.38

99.39

99.25

Peak critical circuit availability (%)

97.26

99.24

Frequency of lost supply events greater than 0.05 system minutes

3

4

Frequency of lost supply events greater than 0.2 system minutes

7

0

4

1

1

2

Frequency of lost supply events greater than 1 system minute

0

0

0

0

0

2

49

114

88

270

195

78

Average outage duration (minutes) 608

No. of interruptions

19

26

14

11

13

System minutes off supply609

2.1

0.86

1.69

0.71

1.35

The quality of the planning of ElectraNet‘s network is well established and constraints are well recognised. For example, capacity is constrained in the mid-north and the southeast of the State due to increases in wind generation in this region. This will result in increasing congestion of the 132kV system.610 ESCOSA has found that the basic system reliability performance of ElectraNet in 2008/09 was of a high standard611 and there is some evidence that network performance has actually improved over the last four to five years. 612 The reliability of the interconnectors has been high in the last few years, which has been essential to making SA‘s electricity system secure and reliable. 613 9.3.4

144

Distribution Technical performance on the distribution network is measured by reliability and quality of supply.

Performance measures for these are:  System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). The sum of the duration of each sustained customer interruption (in minutes), divided by the total number of distribution customers. SAIDI excludes momentary interruptions (one minute or less duration).

Electricity System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI). The total number of sustained customer interruptions, divided by the total number of distribution customers. SAIFI excludes v momentary interruptions (one minute or less duration).  The time taken to restore supply to customers following an outage. This is expressed as a percentage of customers that have supply restored within a defined time period.  Quality of supply factors. These consist of voltage (e.g. sustained overvoltage and undervoltage) voltage variation (e.g. fluctuations, dips, switching transients), current (e.g. direct current, harmonic content and inter-harmonics) and other qualities (e.g. signalling reliability, noise and interference, level of supply capacity). 

While SA‘s Electricity Distribution Code does not state an explicit State-wide SAIDI target, it can be implied from the regional targets to be 165 minutes.614 Figure 9.5 illustrates this target and the yearly outcomes.

Figure 9.5: Total State-wide SAIDI (minutes) 2000/01 to 2008/09615 250 Minutes 200

Implied target

150 100 50

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

2002/03

2001/02

2000/01

0

The State-wide figures sometimes vary year to year due to random events. For instance, a theft of copper earthing at the Elizabeth Downs substation on 9 October 2008 contributed 9 minutes to Major Metropolitan Area SAIDI in 2008/09.616 Also, both transmission and generation outages can result in an increase in SAIDI figures. For instance, in 2008/09, transmission outages contributed about 6.3% to the total High Voltage SAIDI during 2008/09 and generation outages contributed 4.8%.617 The AER will be establishing targets for unplanned SAIDI and unplanned SAIFI that apply from 1 July 2010, for the calculation of financial incentives to maintain/improve supply reliability. Financial rewards and penalties will apply to ETSA Utilities depending on how performance compares with the respective targets, in accordance with the Service Target Performance Incentive Scheme (STPIS). Distribution Network Service Providers (DNSPs) are also required to make guaranteed service level (GSL) payments to customers if they experience an excessively long sustained supply outage and/or excessive number of sustained outages in a financial year.

Table 9.14 provides Normalised SAIDI figures that exclude severe weather events. This provides a better insight into the underlying quality of the network, and shows that interruptions have not changed markedly over the last decade.

v

AEMC, 2008, Annual Electricity Market Performance Review 2008, p. 66. The Essential Service Commission of Victoria (ESC) sets performance targets for unplanned SAIFI, unplanned SAIDI and MAIFI for the calculation of the financial incentive for improving supply reliability. Financial rewards and penalties apply to DNSPs depending on how their performance compares with their respective performance targets, in accordance with the S-factor scheme. DNSPs are also required to make guaranteed service level (GSL) payments to the worst-served customers if there have been excessive sustained supply outages and momentary interruptions.

145

Energy Table 9.14: Total overall and normalised State-wide SAIDI618 Factor

2000/ 01

2001/ 02

2002/ 03

2003/ 04

2004/ 05

2005/ 06

2006/ 07

2007/ 08

2008/ 09

Average

164

147

184

164

169

199

184

150

161

169.1

State-wide High Voltage SAIDI

158.9

142.9

179

158.8

164.2

193.3

177.6

144.5

155.1

163.8

No. of Severe Weather Events

2

2

6

3

3

7

7

2

4

4

SAIDI for Severe Weather events

12.4

16.6

50.9

15.1

26.8

57.7

37.7

11.9

23.8

28.1

Normalised HV SAIDI

146.5

126.3

128.1

143.7

137.4

135.6

139.9

132.6

131.3

135.7

State-wide SAIDI619 (incl. low voltage)

Figure 9.6 compares SAIDI across the nation.

Average minutes of outages per customer

Figure 9.6: System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) across Australia 620 500

Queensland

450

New South Wales

400

Victoria

350

South Australia

300

Tasmania

250

NEM weighted average

200

Western Australia

150 100 50 0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

There can be considerable variation in SAIDI by region. Table 9.15 shows that SAIDI targets were met in 5 of the 7 regions of the ETSA Utilities network in 2008/09.

Table 9.15: Regional SAIDI performance (minutes) of ETSA Utilities (including low voltage interruptions allowance)621 622 Region

2000/ 01

2001/ 02

2002/ 03

2003/ 04

2004/ 05

2005/ 06

2006/ 07

2007/ 08

2008/ 09

Target

Adelaide Business Area

45

11

15

29

19

10

7

16

23

25

Major Metropolitan Areas

110

109

122

118

108

143

118

109

118

115

Central

234

208

348

186

355

239

267

202

225

240

Eastern Hills and Fleurieu Peninsula

333

296

382

389

379

414

381

252

326

350

Upper North and Eyre Peninsula

399

293

341

303

399

610

481

361

375

370

South-East

524

277

347

345

230

256

489

328

226

330

Kangaroo Island

932

1084

905

1960

290

1354

510

565

232

450

Total

164

147

184

164

169

199

184

150

161

165

While the SAIDI performance in 2008/09 was worse than in 2007/08 (mainly due to a high number of severe weather events), the overall performance was still better than the implied target of 165 minutes. The performance in 2007/08 was also considered to be particularly good (ie. the second best performance on record).623 146

Electricity SAIFI performance over the last decade is shown in Figure 9.7.

Figure 9.7: Total State-wide System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) 2000/01 – 2008/09624

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

2002/03

2001/02

2000/01

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Table 9.16 identifies the national comparisons.

Table 9.16: System average interruption frequency index (SAIFI)625 State

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

Queensland

3.0

2.8

2.7

3.4

2.7

3.1

2.1

2.4

New South Wales

2.5

2.6

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.7

Victoria

2.1

2.0

2.0

2.2

1.9

1.8

1.9

2.1

South Australia

1.7

1.6

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.9

1.8

1.5

Tasmania

2.8

2.3

2.4

3.1

3.1

2.9

2.6

2.6

NEM weighted average

2.4

2.4

1.9

2.2

1.9

2.1

2.0

1.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

3.3

3.3

Western Australia

Quality of supply performance measures are defined in the Electricity Distribution Code. Monitoring and reporting of compliance against these performance factors is based on ETSA Utilities‘ monitoring program and the customer complaints it receives. ESCSOA determined that ETSA Utilities has met these standards in 2008/09. 626 The amount of customer compensation events varies considerably, as seen in Table 9.17. An event is defined as one that results in a breach of power quality standards and results in some damage to a customer.

Table 9.17: ETSA Utilities customer compensation payments for quality of supply (voltage variation)627 Figure

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Number of customer compensation events

174

102

189

130

169

134

Total paid in compensation

$281,685

$219,407

$355,422

$193,656

$503,166

$154,251

Overall, the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council concluded that while capacity limitations in the sub-transmission and distribution networks are emerging, ―there is sufficient inherent capability strength and flexibility embodied within the present sub-transmission and distribution networks.‖628

147

Energy 9.3.5

Environmental sustainability Electricity consumption in SA produces 31 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year.

This is 64% of the State‘s greenhouse gas emissions.629 The SA Government has a range of initiatives to both reduce electricity consumption and increase renewable energy uptake. These include:  Introduction of a feed-in tariff for roof top photovoltaic systems  Requirement that at least 20% of electricity generated in the State is from renewable sources  Rebates for the installation of solar water heaters  A program to support the installation of photovoltaic systems at schools  Rebates and grants to support renewable generation for remote area power systems 630  The residential Energy Efficiency Scheme (REES), which requires energy retailers licensed in SA to assist households to adopt energy efficiency improvements.631 ElectraNet‘s environmental strategy consists of:  Developing environmental impact assessments and management plans that address all issues associated with construction projects and ongoing network operation  Participating in initiatives that contribute to addressing and understanding the impacts of climate change  Displaying social responsibility in network operation and network development projects  Ensuring systems and processes are in place and are tested to prevent insulating oil spills  Conducting ongoing awareness initiatives and training for staff in managing environmental issues affecting the electricity industry  Complying with State and national environmental requirements  Supporting renewable energy connections to the transmission network and exploring connections to other forms of sustainable energy. 632 For ETSA Utilities, key environmental objectives are to:  Reduce water and energy consumption across the organisation  Ensure compliance with ETSA Utilities‘ obligations under the National Greenhouse Energy Reporting System (NGERS)  Ensure that ETSA Utilities is able to maintain levels of network performance, reliability and risk in light of the impacts of climate change  Dispose of all PolyChlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) material and wastes removed from service and responsibly manage any PCBs still in service to minimise the potential for release to the environment  Manage the environmental contamination impacts of historical and current operations  Incorporate all environmental constraints from environmental impact assessments into operational and project management.633

9.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in electricity infrastructure are:  Renewing ageing infrastructure. Much of the distribution network is nearing the end of its design life. A significant rise in the level of upgrades and renewals of network infrastructure will be needed, requiring a large pool of labour resources, which are becoming increasingly scarce.  Implementing significant demand management measures. Peak demand needs to be limited to improve network reliability and security, and contain cost increases. Peak demand is growing faster than average demand. One way to reduce this is by implementing demand management, such as paying large consumers to scale back demand on peak electricity demand days. Achieving significant reduction in demand, particularly given air-conditioning demand on hot days, will be a major challenge.  Converting the potential of geothermal power generation into reality. The next few years will see if geothermal power is a practical technology to deliver baseload generation reliably. If it is proved technically, then it may fail economically due to the cost of building the required

148

Electricity









9.5

infrastructure to connect it to the national transmission networks. A challenge will be to enable geothermal power to contribute its potential in a way that is equitable for other electricity asset owners and electricity consumers.

Integrating wind generation into the network. Wind generation in SA is already reaching capacity constraints, particularly on high wind and low demand days. Locating generators in areas where there is greater network capacity, increasing dynamic control and augmentation of the transmission system (including interconnectors) are all ways to increase wind power generation. Making these changes can have significant cost impacts that must be shared appropriately.

Providing reliable supply in the face of extreme weather events. Climate change may lead to an increase in extreme weather events, such as wind storms and heatwaves. While networks must be planned and maintained in such a way as to take account of weather, increasing reliability in the face of extreme events is very costly. Increased community expectations and an increased number of sensitive electronic devices in households will place pressure on the electricity distributor and governments to reduce interruptions and their duration. There will be greater emphasis on reducing peak demand during heatwaves, restoring networks rapidly and informing customers of problems and rectification times.

Capturing the opportunities of smart network technology. There is a need to prepare for an increasingly intelligent network, with proliferating network-integrated digital technologies, and growing numbers of small and micro-generators such as solar/photo-voltaic and wind linking into the network.

Addressing the inability to add embedded generation in the Adelaide CBD. While embedded generation can reduce the need for network reinforcement projects, provide additional generation and increase energy efficiency, it can also introduce fault sources into a network. Currently, the distribution network within the Adelaide CBD is near the maximum safe fault level of both the Customers‘ and ETSA Utilities‘ existing high voltage equipment. Therefore no additional embedded generating units or other short circuit fault sources can be connected to the Adelaide CBD distribution network. This problem will only be addressed with significant modification to this network.634

Report Card Rating Infrastructure Type Electricity

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

B-

C+

B-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s electricity infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that SA has sufficient generation capacity to meet demand until 2012/13. However, peak demand growth needs to be moderated to prevent high cost, low utilisation infrastructure being required. While the present significant expansion in transmission and distribution network infrastructure is important to rectify key limitations, ongoing growth in wind power and the development of distributed generation will require significant additional investment.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Growth in renewable generation in the State  Significant expansion in investment in network infrastructure  Sound transmission and distribution networks.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Potentially unbalanced generation profile due to high penetration of wind farms  Congestion and network constraints in certain areas of the transmission network

149

Energy Increasing population and increasing electricity demand resulting in a predicted reserve deficit after 2012/13 ď&#x201A;ť Peak demand growth is increasing faster than average demand growth, with inadequate attention given to demand management. ď&#x201A;ť

150

10

Gas

10.1

Summary Infrastructure Type

SA 2010

Gas

B+

B+ B+ AB+

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Overall Transmission Distribution LP Gas

C+

C

This rating recognises that SA‘s two transmission pipelines provide security of supply, and the distribution network is in adequate condition.

Since the last Report Card, the major gas sector developments have been the:  Changing volume of gas required for gas powered generation  Transfer of economic regulation for gas distribution from the ESCOSA to the AER. Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Construction of the Ballera and Moomba pipeline (QSN Link) to allow gas from south-east Queensland to be supplied to SA  Connection of the SEA Gas Pipeline to the South East Gas System  Gas infrastructure projects at Noarlunga and Gillman to improve security and reliability to Adelaide‘s southern suburbs.635 Challenges to improving gas infrastructure include:  Reducing the quantity of unaccounted for gas  Expanding the distribution network.

10.2

Infrastructure overview

10.2.1

System description Gas infrastructure refers to reticulated natural gas infrastructure. SA‘s gas infrastructure comprises the following components:  Production  Transmission  Distribution  Retail companies.

This Report Card does not cover liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biomass and other fuel gases.

Producers extract and refine the gas, and sell gas directly to large customers, retailers or traders.

Supply is also provided from interconnecting pipelines and storage providers. Transmission pipelines carry the gas under high pressure to city gates (also known as gate stations/custody transfer meters) which control and measure the gas flow into the distribution network. An odorant is normally added at the city gates to make the detection of gas leaks easier. The distribution network takes the gas from the gates and distributes it via high, medium and low pressure pipelines to the customer‘s meter/regulator set. The customer pays a retailer for the gas. The retailer buys the gas w from producers, and pays transmission and distribution businesses for transporting the gas.

w

The charges are known as transmission use of system (TUOS) and distribution use of system (DUOS).

151

Energy Retailers must balance their purchase and sale contracts to ensure security of supply. Retailers also operate customer call centres and implement customer demand curtailment in the event of major gas shortages.

Production Natural gas consumed in SA comes from two main basins:  Cooper Basin/Surat-Bowen Basin, which spans the State‘s north east, and into Queensland and NSW  Otway Basin, which spans the State‘s south east and into Victoria.

Prior to 2003, the vast majority of SA‘s gas was supplied solely from the Cooper Basin, processed at the Moomba Production Facility, and transported along the Moomba to Adelaide Pipeline (MAP).

Following the completion of the SEA Gas Pipeline in January 2003, gas now also comes from the Otway Basin. This secondary source of supply averted major economic damage in the State following the loss of gas supplies from the Cooper Basin after an explosion at the Moomba Production Facility in January 2004.

The Moomba Production Facility is fed from about 115 gas fields and 28 oil fields in the Cooper Basin. Its current gas production capacity is 430 TJ/day. 636 The reserves of the Cooper Basin are rapidly decreasing as it has been exporting gas via the MAP since 1969. ABARE expects a significant decline from the basin will occur after 2011. 637 Its remaining proven and probable reserves account for about 1.8% of Australian reserves.638 However, if gas prices increase, the gas producers are confident that the volume of economically recoverable gas will increase six fold. 639 The declining importance of the Cooper Basin supply compared with other gas fields is illustrated in Figure 10.1. Following the completion of the QSN Link pipeline between Queensland‘s gasfields and Moomba, in January 2009,640 gas began flowing into SA from the Bowen/Surat Basin through the MAP. Figure 10.1: Forecast sources of eastern Australia’s natural gas production641

Petajoules

900

Coal seam gas

800

Other

700

Otway

600

Cooper

500

Gippsland

400 300 200 100 0 2006/07 2009/10 2012/13 2015/16 2018/19 2021/22 2024/25 2027/28 2029/30

The other natural gas supply source within SA‘s borders is in the Katnook area in the south east.

This area supplies gas to Mount Gambier, and to industrial plants at Millicent and Snuggery via Epic Energy‘s South East Pipeline System. The area has been producing gas since 1991 and until recently, it was believed that the reserves were depleted. However, following new exploration by the gas field‘s new owners, Adelaide Energy, it appears that production could increase. Adelaide Energy is constructing new pipelines from its wells to the Katnook Processing Plant. The plant is now producing between 1.5 and 4.5TJ/d. It is building pipelines to connect the Jacaranda Ridge and Limestone Ridge wells to the Katnook plant and expects them to be connected in May 2010.

Several new wells will be drilled in 2010 and if these are successful, production could increase up 152

Gas to 10TJ/d - which is the capacity of the Katnook Processing Plant. Extra production from the Katnook area is likely to displace gas supplied into the Mount Gambier area from the SEA Gas Pipeline.642 Transmission and storage Gas is transported through SA via three main transmission pipeline systems as seen in Figure 10.2.  Moomba to Adelaide pipeline (MAP), which transports natural gas from the Cooper Basin/Surat-Bowen Basin into Adelaide and some major regional centres. It has lateral pipelines to Whyalla, Port Pirie, Peterborough and the Barossa Valley (all owned by Epic Energy) and to the Riverland and Murray Bridge (owned by Envestra). 643  SEA Gas Pipeline, which transports natural gas from the Otway and Bass Basins into Adelaide and regional centres.  South East South Australia (SESA) transmission pipeline, which is a 70km pipeline built in 1991 to deliver gas from the Katnook processing plant near Penola in the south east of SA to Snuggery and Mount Gambier.  QSN Link, which is part of the South West Queensland Pipeline, and transports gas from the south west Queensland gas fields to be injected into the MAP. Figure 10.2: SA’s gas transmission network644

Table 10.1 provides details on these pipelines.

153

Energy Table 10.1: SAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transmission gas pipelines645 Pipeline

Owner

Details

Capacity (TD/D)

Moomba to Adelaide Pipeline System

Epic Energy

858km (mainline) with 326km of laterals

250 TJ/d

SEA Gas Pipeline

International Power, APA Group, Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (equal shares)

680km pipeline from Port Campbell to Adelaide

QSN Link (Qld to SA/NSW Link)

Epic Energy

180km pipeline from Ballera to Moomba

South East South Australia (SESA) pipeline646

APA

45km pipeline from Poolaijelo (VIC) to Ladbroke Grove, near Penola (SA)) The pipeline supplies gas to the Envestra owned south east pipeline network around Mt Gambier, Penola and Millicent. Gas enters the Pipeline via the SEA Gas Pipeline

Constructed

Covered

1969

No

314

2003

No

212

2009

No

-

2005

No

The gas flows into SA from the MAP and SEA Gas Pipelines is illustrated in Figure 10.3. In 2008/09, about 61% of the gas entering the distribution system was sourced from the Moomba to Adelaide Pipeline (MAP), while 37% came from the SEA Gas Pipeline. 647 Figure 10.3: Gas flows into SA648

During periods of high demand, reserves can be injected into the MAP from the underground storage facility at Moomba and into the SEA Gas Pipeline from the Iona Underground Gas Storage facility. The compressed gas in the pipelines also provides a reserve, known as linepack, which can be drawn upon during high demand, then recharged during periods of low demand. Within SA, there are no significant gas storages close to the main load centres. 649 In November 2009, AGL announced it would be building a gas storage facility as part of its upgrade to the Torrens Island Power Station. This facility will store gas in a liquefied state, which can be used directly in the power station or re-injected into the gas distribution system when needed.650 None of the transmission pipelines are covered, meaning that access to the pipeline by third parties is not covered under the National Gas Law and consequently, access arrangements are individually negotiated between gas providers and pipeline owners.

154

Gas Distribution SA‘s gas distribution system consists of 7,568km of pipelines and is concentrated in the metropolitan area of Adelaide (7,043km of pipelines). The SA distribution networks and their size in terms of customers are listed in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Gas distribution networks (as of June 2009)651 Network

Customers

Adelaide, including Virginia, Waterloo Corner and Two Wells

370,661

Whyalla

3,515

Port Pirie

5,048

Mount Gambier

7,743

Peterborough

65

Nuriootpa

608

Angaston

283

Berri/Glossop

68

Murray Bridge

95

Freeling/Wasleys

24

The distribution assets are owned by Envestra Ltd. Envestra was formed in 1997 when the natural gas distribution networks of the former South Australian Gas Company (SAGASCO), Gas Corporation of Queensland (GCQ) and Centre Gas Pty Ltd (in the Northern Territory) were combined into one organisation and floated on the Australian Securities Exchange. Envestra‘s major shareholders are the APA Group and Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd. 652 In July 2007, Envestra contracted APA Asset Management to operate, maintain and expand its distribution networks.653 The arrangement between the related companies is detailed in an Operating Agreement.654 Before 1969, Adelaide and some regional centres were receiving a town gas blended from coal gas, LPG and other hydrocarbons.655 With the completion of the MAP, supply was converted to natural gas. Some of the gas pipelines laid at that time are still in service, and today, some 18% of Envestra‘s network is cast iron, 27% steel and 55% polyethylene.656 As cast iron pipes are a major contributor to gas leakages, Envestra is progressively replacing these pipes, with the annual replacement rate detailed in Table 10.3.657 Table 10.3: Gas distribution pipelines replaced by Envestra, 2004/05 – 2008/09658 Pipe material Length of cast iron, unprotected steel and other gas distribution pipelines replaced

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

43km

86km

75km

102km

65km

Investment in gas network infrastructure over the last decade is shown in Figure 10.4.

Figure 10.4: Gas distribution network infrastructure investment659

155

Energy Major capital works are undertaken from time to time, the latest being the duplication of an existing transmission main in River Road, Port Noarlunga, expected to be completed by winter 2010. 660 This project is designed to improve security and reliability to Adelaide‘s southern suburbs.

The SA gas distribution network is a regulated network, and the current regulatory period runs from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2011. A determination at the beginning of the regulatory period sets the price increases over that period, access terms and conditions, tariffs and services, extensions, expansions, trading, capacity management and tariff policies that third parties (retailers) may access. With the commencement of the National Gas Law on 1 July 2008, responsibility for economic regulation was transferred from ESCOSA to the AER. Retail The SA gas retail market became fully contestable on 28 July 2004, 661 meaning that customers can choose their gas supplier. Retail gas prices are not regulated, except for the Standing Contract provided by the host retailer. SA has 11 licensed gas retailers with four active in the residential and small business market.662 The market share of each of these suppliers is seen in Table 10.4.

Table 10.4: Market share for residential and small business gas retailers663 Retailer

Residential (%)

Small business (%)

Origin Energy (Standing Contract as host retailer)

33

78

Origin Energy (market contract)

23

6

AGL SA

21

4

TRUenergy

15

10

8

2

Simply Energy

Demand There are three main markets in SA. They are:  Electricity generation. About 50 to 60% of total gas sales in SA is used for electricity generation. In Adelaide, gas is used for electricity generation in the Pelican Point, Torrens Island, Quarantine, Dry Creek and Osborne power stations. There are also natural gas fired electricity generators at Mintaro and Hallett in the State‘s mid-north and at Ladbroke Grove in the Limestone Coast Region.664 Gas fired generation accounts for 54% of the State‘s installed capacity for electricity generation. In 2008/09, gas fired generation supplied 51% of the State‘s electricity requirements.665 For 2008/09, it took approximately 62% of the natural gas supply into the State to generate approximately 51% of the State‘s electricity needs. 666  Industrial/commercial. Gas is used extensively by commercial and industrial organisations in food production, paper manufacturing, automotive, glass and cement manufacturing, metal smelting, and tyre production667 A number of large customers also use gas for cogeneration, producing onsite power and process heat.  Domestic sales. Gas is used extensively for residential space and water heating, as well as cooking.

The numbers in each customer group are detailed in Table 10.5.

Table 10.5: SA gas customer numbers668 Customer numbers (June 2009)

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Residential gas customer

361,348

360,800

365,077

360,642

370,820

7,204

7,193

7,340

7,344

7,403

806

849

839

813

797

Small business gas customer Large gas customer

Gas sales figures are seen in Table 10.6.

156

Gas Table 10.6: SA gas distribution sales figures 669 Gas sales (TJ)

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Residential gas sales

7,827

7,968

7,853

7,533

8,302

Small business gas sales

1,210

1,279

1,197

1,346

1,612

Large gas sales

33,539

29,121

29,335

24,578

24,084

Total

42,576

38,368

38,385

33,457

33,998

Residential demand has remained relatively constant over the last decade. The key driver of residential demand is winter temperatures. The winter of 2009 was colder than average and contributed to a 10.2% increase compared with the previous year. 670 Summer and winter peak day demands are of a similar magnitude in SA. 671 Figure 10.5 illustrates the gas consumed for electricity generation in SA in the last few years.

Figure 10.5: Gas consumed for electricity generation in SA from 2001/02 to 2008/09672 70 60

PJs

50 40 30 20 10

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

2002/03

2001/02

0

Prices SAâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s retail gas prices were the second highest in Australia in 2008/09 as seen in Figure 10.6. It is not possible to assess the prices paid by industrial and large commercial customers as price information is generally not publicly available. This is because these customers sign confidential, long-term take-or-pay contracts, which can last for up to 30 years, but now more commonly last for 10 to15 years.

$ per gigajoule

Figure 10.6: Retail gas prices for Australian States673 40

NSW

35

Vic

30

Qld SA

25

WA 20

ACT

15 10 5

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

2002/03

2001/02

2000/01

1999/00

1998/99

1997/98

1996/97

0

Note: Data after 1998-99 are estimates based on inflating AGA data by the CPI series for gas and other household fuels for the capital city in each state.

157

Energy Gas prices in SA are made up of two components:  Network charge, which is the cost of distributing gas through low pressure pipelines  Retail charge, which is the operating costs of the retailer, wholesale gas costs, and the costs of transporting the gas through transmission pipelines.

The network charge is currently determined by ESCOSA. The retail charge has been unregulated since full retail contestability was introduced in July 2004.674 The one exception is the Standing Contract for residential and small business customers. The retail component of the Standing Contract is set by ESCOSA. The current price determination runs from 1 July 2008 to 30 July 2011 and cost increases are listed in Table 10.7.

Table 10.7: Retail Component of Gas Standing Contract Price675 Customer type Residential customers Small business customers

1 July 2008 (% increase)

1 July 2009 (% increase)

1 July 2010 (% increase)

8.25%

CPI+1.0%

CPI+1.0%

15.00%

CPI+0.8%

CPI+0.8%

For the average residential customer, real prices (ie. after being adjusted for inflation) have increased by 12.9% between 2003/04 and 2008/09. For a small business customer, the increase has been 2.5%. A major reason for the greater increase in residential prices compared with small business prices has been the removal of cross subsidies paid by small business to residential customers.676 Part of the reason for this is that while initially there was a significant discount between unregulated gas retail prices and Standing Contract prices, the available discount in recent years is between 2 and 6%.677 10.2.2

Policy and governance The SA gas network is part of an interconnected south east Australian network. The overarching regulatory framework for this network is provided through the National Gas Law and National Gas Rules, which took effect on 1 July 2008. The NGL governs third party access to natural gas pipeline services and some broader elements of natural gas markets. The NGRs cover: x  Operation of the National Gas Market Bulletin Board, which publishes pipeline capacity, forecasts of demand and market information, and  The future operation of the Short Term Trading Market, which sets a daily wholesale price for natural gas.678 Planning for gas infrastructure is principally the responsibility of the owners of the infrastructure, rather than the SA Government. To assist owners in developing plans, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) produces the National Gas Statement of Opportunities (NGSOO). This is an annual document that provides demand and supply data so that owners are better able to develop capital investment plans.

The roles of the SA and Australian Governments are limited as their previous controlling powers have been transferred to independent regulators and authorities within a market framework.

However, they can indirectly influence costs and demand through applying a price to carbon and encouraging energy efficiency.

Key SA gas legislation is the:  Gas Act 1997. The Act requires that the owners and operators of gas infrastructure ensure that the relevant safety and technical standards are followed to ensure the safe, secure and reliable supply of gas to customers in SA.

x

The National Gas Market Bulletin Board facilitates trade in gas and tracks capacity flows on all major gas production fields, major demand centres and natural gas transmission pipeline systems.

158

Gas National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008. This Act establishes a framework to enable third parties to gain access to certain natural gas pipeline services, through the NGL and NGR.  Essential Services Commission Act 2002. This Act established ESCOSA. 679 

10.2.3

Sector trends Uncertainty about supply and demand While both total gas consumption and gas consumption by each class of customer over the last few years have been relatively stable, this may not be the case in the future because of:  Changes in residential customer usage. Demand per customer is likely to reduce in winter due to an increased use of solar water heating, an increase in the efficiently of appliances and the reduction in space heating due to climate warming.  Changes in SA gas powered generation (GPG). Future gas demand is uncertain, for while an increase in electricity demand may result in increased gas consumption by power plants, the increase in wind farms may supply much of this additional electricity demand. The introduction of a carbon pricing regime may lead to the replacement of some of the older, less efficient GPG plants with more efficient plants, thus reducing gas consumption per unit of energy produced.  Increasing international demand for gas. Demand for gas worldwide is increasing and exports of natural gas are expected to increase from Queensland. With the development of a gas grid connecting gas fields in the eastern and south-eastern States, increases in overseas prices will result in flow-on price increases for domestic gas.

AEMO in its assessment of future gas demand for SA considers that over the next decade, growth will be about 1.6% per year, assuming medium economic growth. It estimates that by 2011, there will be a drop in winter peak day gas consumption due to renewable generation displacing GPG. The summer peak demand will be more volatile due to summer electricity demands. 680

10.3

Performance

10.3.1

Transmission The asset quality of the SEA Gas Pipeline is high, having only been completed in 2003. The QSN Link pipeline was constructed in 2008 and has an estimated remaining life in excess of 40 years.

The MAP is now over 40 years old but monitoring and inspection work has found no evidence of the stress corrosion cracking identified in the Moomba to Sydney Pipeline in 2004. Technical assessments made in 2004 and 2006 concluded that the remaining life of the asset is in excess of 20 years with good maintenance, while Epic Energy management‘s view is that the asset life expectancy is in excess of 35 years.681 The Australian Energy Market Operator considers that ―combined capacity on the MAP and SEA Gas Pipeline is sufficient under winter and summer 1 in 20 peak day Probability of Exceedance conditions to 2019.‖682 For gas fired generation, the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council considers there is ―adequate physical capacity in both gas sources and pipeline infrastructure to meet the SA electricity industry’s demands for fuel for base-load power.‖683

10.3.2

Distribution In assessing the performance of a gas distributor network, it is necessary to consider multi-year trends rather than single years. This is because gas distribution infrastructure is sensitive to environmental conditions, such as heavy rain entering low pressure pipes, and because renewal programs tend to increase planned interruptions in the short-term, but reduce them significantly in the medium to long term.

159

Energy

Two key factors in assessing the quality of a gas distribution network are reliability and network integrity.

Reliability is measured in terms of the average frequency and duration of supply interruptions, which can be either planned or unplanned. Planned interruptions occur when a supply is deliberately disconnected to undertake maintenance or construction work. Unplanned interruptions mainly occur because of leakages or damaged pipes requiring immediate repair. Unplanned outages are often caused by third parties damaging pipes, or by water entering low pressure pipes.684 Key reliability measures are:  System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). SAIDI measures the total minutes, on average, that a customer could expect to be without gas over the reporting period. Total SAIDI comprises both planned and unplanned minutes-off-supply.  System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI). SAIFI measures the number of occasions per year when each customer could, on average, expect to experience an interruption. It is calculated as the total number of customer interruptions, divided by the total number of connected customers averaged over the reporting period.685 Planned interruptions are mainly due to mains replacements. Unplanned interruptions are due to third party damage, infrastructure failure and inadequate maintenance/installation.

In 2007/08, there were 64 unplanned interruptions across the Envestra network and in 2008/09 there were 70.686 Major interruptions (those affecting more than 5 consumers) in the recent past consisted of:  Mitchell Park, where 40 consumers were affected for approximately 12 hours, when water entered the gas mains via a corroded gas inlet service  Seaford, where 20 consumers were affected for approximately eight hours, when a gas contractor made a mistake during installation work  Whyalla, where more than 3300 domestic, commercial and industrial customers were affected for approximately 2 to 3 days, due to a failure at the Epic Energy owned and operated City Gate station on16 May 2008.687 Figure 10.7. compares SAIFI figures of Envestra‘s network to other distribution networks around Australia.

The number of unplanned interruptions has increased over the last few years and Envestra claims that this reflects more third party damage and better collection of statistics. 688

160

Gas Figure 10.7: SAIFI for distributors around Australiay

Network integrity can be measured by the quantity of leaks (loss of containment) and 'unaccounted for gas'. Their levels generally reflect the distributorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; quality of operational and maintenance activities. Figure 10.8. compares all leaks per kilometre of mains for distributors around Australia.

Figure 10.8: All leaks per km mains for distributors around Australia 689

Unaccounted for gas (UAFG) is a measure of the difference between the gas entering the system and the amount delivered. This difference indicates how much of the gas injected into the network is lost in transit. This can be due to system leaks, theft, inaccurate meters, differences in times that meters are read, accounting errors, gas compressibility factors, temperature or heating value discrepancies, line pack differences and losses in commissioning of new or replacement pipes. 690 It is estimated that approximately 80-90% of the UAFG can be attributed to gas leakage. 691 Table 10.8 identifies the volume of unaccounted for gas for Envestraâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s network and it shows that the volume is increasing.

y

Figures based on unplanned outages for greater than or equal to five customers per 1000 customers. Adapted from ActewAGL, 2009, ActewAGL Gas Network Performance Benchmark Study FY2000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;FY2008, p. 33.

161

Energy Table 10.8: Quantity of gas entering Envestraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s distribution system and unaccounted for gas692 Measurement Gas entering distribution system (TJ) Unaccounted for gas (TJ)z Percentage (%)

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

39,564

37,983

38,917

38,412

37,720

38,003

1,493

1,592

1,630

1,834

1,799

2,009

3.8

4.2

4.2

4.8

4.8

5.3

Figure 10.9. compares UAFG for distributors around Australia.

Figure 10.9: Unaccounted for gas for distributors around Australia 693

The high volume of UAFG in SA can be related to the proportion of cast iron pipes in the network, and their quality. In the case of Envestra, despite the program of replacement of cast iron pipes, which has seen some 950km replaced out of a total of 2400km between 1999/00 and 2008/09,694 leakage volumes are still increasing. This may indicate that the remaining pipes are corroding more quickly.695 Envestraâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Second Access Arrangement, approved by ESCOSA in 2006, identified that 100km of pipe per year would be replaced. Envestra failed to achieve this in 2008-09.696 Envestra has advised ESCOSA that it will be increasing its level of mains replacement such that it expects to exceed the targeted length of mains replacement by the end of the current Access Arrangement period.697 10.3.3

Environmental sustainability Natural gas as an energy source has significant environmental benefits compared with electricity generated from coal. For example, black coal used in producing electricity generates 80% more 698 carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas used in a gas closed cycle gas turbine.

Envestra is actively promoting the environmental benefits of natural gas, referring to it as the most environment friendly fossil fuel. Over 2008/09, Envestra marketing activities to highlight the environmental benefits of natural gas reduced significantly â&#x20AC;&#x2022;in recognition of the fact that governments appreciate the environmental benefits of natural gas and have over the past few

z

UAFG is the difference between gas entering the distribution system and gas delivered to customers (as metered). Envestra advise that, prior to 2005/06, this estimate was made for the 12 month period to the end of April as this was the month when billing factors had least influence. Since 2005/06, UAFG has been calculated by REMCo for the 12 month period to the end of June.

162

Gas years implemented energy polices that promote the use of gas‖. 699 The company anticipates that it will need to increase the promotion of natural gas as a fuel of choice in the medium term as it now has to compete with green energy.700 Gas companies have also sought to minimise the risks of their operations, and in particular to reduce their environmental risk. Examples of this include:  Minimising ground disturbance by using common trenching with other utilities, and directional boring to prevent damage to the root systems of trees  Using long-life materials to minimise the need for future maintenance activities  Minimising line purging operations and, if necessary, using flaring to minimise environmental impacts.

10.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in gas infrastructure are:  Reducing the quantity of unaccounted for gas. The escalating level of UAFG from the Envestra distribution networks needs to be addressed for safety, financial and environmental reasons.  Expanding the distribution network. Currently, certain areas of Adelaide, such as the aa Adelaide Hills, are not connected to the reticulated gas network. Due to the demand for gas, some greenfields property developments, such as such one in the Bluestone Mt Barker precinct,701 are constructing their own self-contained reticulated networks supplied by large LPG tanks. Connection of these to the distribution network and expansion of the network to brownfield sites in the medium term may require government intervention.

10.5 Report Card Rating Infrastructure Type Gas

SA 2010 B+

B+ B+ AB+

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Overall Transmission Distribution LP Gas

C+

C

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s gas infrastructure has been rated B+. This rating recognises that the two transmission pipelines provide security of supply, and the distribution network is in adequate condition.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Two transmission pipelines providing greater security of supply, reflected in the fact that the majority of Adelaide suburbs served by Envestra‘s distribution network now receive a mixture of gas from the MAP and SEA Gas Pipeline  Good condition of transmission pipelines  Adequate condition of distribution networks  Ongoing replacement of aged pipelines  Connection of SA network to Queensland gas reserves via the QSN Link.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  High rates of unaccounted for gas  Decline in SA gas reserves.

aa

The reason for this is that the provision of the network rests with the gas distribution network owner and expanded provision will only be made if there is sufficient demand to make it economically viable.

163

Energy

164

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 11.1

Summary Infrastructure type

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Telecommunications

C

Not rated

Not rated

B

This rating recognises that while telecommunication services are generally available to a high percentage of the population in SA, there are still many blackspots in broadband and mobile coverage, and areas of network vulnerability due to a lack of competitive backhaul.

In 2007, Engineers Australia rated telecommunications in the Telecommunications Infrastructure Report Card 2007. It used Local Government Statistical Divisions as the geographic basis for rating fixed and mobile infrastructure. Below are its ratings.

Statistical Division Name

Fixed Infrastructure Rankings (2007)

Mobile Infrastructure Rankings (2007)

Adelaide

D

C

Outer Adelaide

D

D

Yorke and Lower North

F

E

Murray Lands

D

E

South East

E

E

Eyre

F

F

Northern

F

E

Developments since the 2007 Telecommunications Infrastructure Report Card have included:  Increased demand for high speed broadband services  Continual growth in mobile phone ownership  Increased competition in the provision of telecommunication services  Increased provision of backhaul fibre and microwave links  Increased capability of mobile telephone networks including increases in coverage, reliability, function and capacity  Backhaul Blackspots Initiative projects.

Major in-progress infrastructure projects include:  The Australian Government‘s National Broadband Network (NBN) Project  The SA Government‘s Broadband Development Fund projects.

Challenges to improving telecommunications infrastructure include:  Generating broadband consumer demand  Creating a value proposition for ubiquitous high speed broadband  Selecting optimal technologies  Strengthening resilience of the telecommunications backbone.

165

Telecommunications

11.2

Infrastructure overview

11.2.1

System description SA‘s telecommunications infrastructure consists of infrastructure that delivers customer access networks (CAN) and backhaul transmission networks. The key elements rated in this chapter are:  Fixed line CAN infrastructure  Mobile CAN infrastructure  Backhaul infrastructure.

The provision of telecommunications services operates within a market structure comprised of:  Carriers. The owner of a network used to supply carriage services to the public.  Carriage service providers. The organisations that use a carrier service to supply telecommunications services to the public using a carrier-owned network. Internet service providers (ISPs) are carriage service providers.  Content service providers. The organisations that supply radio and TV broadcasting and online services to the public.

This chapter does not address content service provision or private telecommunication systems that have no impact on public telecommunications.

Table 11.1 lists the infrastructure that this section assesses.

Table 11.1: Infrastructure assessed in the Report Card702 Type

Purpose

Technologies

Customer Access Network (CAN) Fixed line Mobile Fixed wireless

Connects customer to an aggregation point

Copper twisted pairs DSL Access Multiplexers (using twisted pairs, possibly in the form of ULL or LSS) Coaxial access part of hybrid fibre-coaxial (cable TV) systems Access fibre networks (fibre to the premises/home) Cellular 2G, 2.5G and 3G mobile networks WiMAX technologies

Backhaul

Connects aggregation points to major nodes in capital cities or regional centres, and provides high-capacity links between capital cities, or from regional centres to capital cities

Transmission fibre Fibre trunks Microwave links Satellite links

Fixed line CAN infrastructure The fixed line CAN represents the link between the telephone exchange and the customer. Fixed line infrastructure includes twisted pair copper wire, and fibre to the home/premises, and it provides telephony, data transfer and internet connections. Copper wire has been the standard medium for connecting fixed line services to end-user premises but this is being replaced with optical fibre. The fixed line CAN owner in SA is Telstra.

Mobile CAN infrastructure Mobile CAN infrastructure provides mobile telephone, data and multimedia services to mobile handsets. There are four mobile carriers operating in SA. These networks use either 2G/2.5G or 3G services.

2G/2.5G (henceforth known as GSM) networks in SA are operated by:  Telstra  Optus 166

Telecommunications 

Vodafone.

3G networks in SA are operated by:  Telstra‘s Next G Network  Hutchinson ‗3‘ (Hutchinson/Telstra network)  Optus/Vodafone (shared network).

In June 2009, Vodafone and Hutchison 3G Australia merged to form Vodafone Hutchison Australia.

Although these companies now operate as a single entity, as of November 2009 they are yet to announce any plans to merge the ‗Vodafone‘ and ‗3‘ networks or offer roaming between them.

The GSM networks were primarily designed for voice services but are capable of supporting data services at a lower rate than 3G networks. The 3G network allows much higher data transfer rates than the GSM networks, allowing consumers to access a wider range of applications. The 3G technology allows carriers to offer a wider range of service to consumers and achieve a more efficient use of spectrum that allows for greater network capacity. 3G networks provide access to data and the internet through either a mobile handset or a data card that is inserted into a computer. The 3G networks can provide peak download speeds of up to 14.4 Mbps and upload speeds of up to 1.9 Mbps. However, it should be noted that mobile broadband capacity is typically shared amongst multiple simultaneous users and is therefore subject to contention.

Figure 11.1 shows that the growth in mobile phones has been substantial over the last decade. The number of mobile phones has exceeded the number of fixed-line phones from 2000.

Figure 11.1: Take-up of fixed-line and mobile phones (Australia-wide)703

25

Millions of services

20

15 Mobile phone Fixed-line phone

10

5

0 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 200700 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

While the primary use of mobile phones and other devices is voice, increasingly, non-voice services are providing a greater share of total revenue. The main uses of mobile phones are:  Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS)  Email  Web browsing and other data services  Personal aids, including personal digital assistants (PDAs), GPS-enabled navigation and USB drives  Mobile TV and video streaming 704  Mobile commerce, interactive services and location-based services.

The growth in mobile broadband speed is significant and likely to accelerate the update of mobile phones for applications that require large amounts of data in near real-time. It is expected that by

167

Telecommunications 2012, mobile networks will be capable of speeds of 100Mbps. allocation.

705

given sufficient bandwidth

Broadband Broadband is a class of data transmission technologies, including optic-fibre (FTTx), xDSL (such as 706 ADSL, ADSL2+ and VDSL), HFC cable and wireless (such as WiMAX, HSPA and LTE).

Broadband speed is continuing to increase, with the faster speeds being delivered by fixed line, followed by wireless networks. Australia-wide, the percentage of connections using different broadband technologies is shown in Figure 11.2. While there is no public data that is specific for SA, the split is likely to be very similar in the State. The dominant broadband connection is DSL/ADSL, followed by cable and wireless.

Figure 11.2: Type of broadband connection, Australia-wide707

DSL/ADSL

Don't know, 12% Satellite, 1%

Cable

Wireless, 12%

Wireless Don't know Satellite

Cable, 19% DSL/ADSL, 56%

Figure 11.3 illustrates the speed comparisons for different broadband technologies.

Figure 11.3: Digital data speed comparison708

100

Digital Data Speed Mbps

90

NBN Fibre connection connection to 90% of Australians in the future

80 70 60 50

NBN wireless and satellite connection to 10% of Australia

40 30 20 10

Digital Data Service Obligation

ADSL2+ ADSL2

0 Broadband Technologies

The above speeds are peak speeds. The actual speed experienced by users depends on the quality of the line/connection, number of simultaneous users, traffic congestion on the internet, physical location, distance from an exchange/node, and broadband speed caps applied by internet providers. While higher speeds are often in excess of what is needed by customers currently, over time, new applications will invariably be developed that will utilise the high speed.

There is a range of other broadband technologies that can be used, such as broadband over power line (BPL). This involves using the electricity networks for the transmission of data, voice and video.

168

Telecommunications While BPL has potential, particularly in areas that are unserved by other broadband technologies, its greatest limitations are that it will result in leakage of radiofrequency emission into the 709 surrounding environment and this may interfere with radiocommunications services.

Fixed wireless Fixed wireless is a technology that provides broadband and phone services without the use of mobile phone infrastructure or local wireless routers. It involves using a wireless modem or card in a computer to connect to the internet as seen in Figure 11.4. Wireless broadband is usually more affordable than mobile wireless (e.g. 3G phone subscribers), however it has a smaller network coverage. Its quality of service is limited by the spectrum available, radio frequency interference and distance from transmitter.

Figure 11.4: Fixed wireless broadband710

Backhaul infrastructure Backhaul infrastructure connects telecommunication aggregation points to major nodes in capital cities or regional centres, and provides high-capacity links between capital cities, or from regional centres to capital cities. Backhaul is provided by fibre or microwave technologies, and while fibrebased infrastructure provides the highest bandwidth, its construction is more capital intensive.

Figure 11.5 identifies the existing backhaul routes in SA. Significant backhaul projects recently completed include:  The Port Lincoln Broadband project, which involved:  An optical fibre and wireless point-to-multi-point services in Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Port Augusta, and  A new backhaul connection to Adelaide through the construction of new microwave point-topoint links between Port Lincoln and Port Augusta and interconnection with the national 711 inter-capital fibre route.  Microwave connection from Mount Gambier to Bordertown‘s intercapital fibre  Linking of Murray Bridge and Berri with new microwave link, and associated spurs into sections of the region 712  Microwave connection from Adelaide to the Barossa Valley  Microwave backbone connection from Adelaide to Port Wakefield and to the Mindarie sand mine in the Murraylands.

Due for completion in 2010 is a new backbone link from Binnies Hill to Lameroo and Pinnaroo in the Southern Mallee.

169

Telecommunications Figure 11.5: Existing backhaul routes in SA713

11.2.2

170

Policy and governance The Australian Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s strategic vision for telecommunications reflects that while telecommunications can be an enormous contributor to the economy and to the lifestyle, health and safety of the community, telecommunications provision and innovation are primarily driven by market forces. The SA Government, in its Strategic Plan, has outlined the importance of st telecommunications to meeting its challenges and opportunities in the 21 Century. Both governments consider that their major role is to encourage the uptake of telecommunications and the development of telecommunications goods and services. The key to achieving this is a

Telecommunications supportive regulatory framework and selective intervention when markets fail to deliver competition or appropriate services. Key national priorities, as defined in the Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions paper (2009), are to address Australia‘s lower take-up rate of internet use and business adoption of e–commerce compared with international peers, provide national broadband infrastructure via the National Broadband Network, free up spectrum by the switchover to digital television, reallocation/renewal of licenses for various spectrum bands, and refining Australia‘s 714 communications framework.

SA telecommunication documents are:  Information Economy Agenda 2009-2014 (2009). This identifies three key priorities for the State‘s information economy strategy, which are:  Facilitating the provision of broadband infrastructure so as to increase affordable internet connectivity  Creating a digitally literate population  Supporting local creative content and ICT skills.  ICT Blueprint: Information and Communication Technology Driving Growth for South Australia (2007). This recognises the need for affordable and quality broadband as a key infrastructure concern and outlines the following actions to achieve this outcome:  To work with the Australian Government to strengthen SA‘s broadband infrastructure  Review and, if necessary, revise the State Broadband Strategy 715  Continue the operation of the SA Broadband Development Fund.  State Broadband Strategy (2004). This outlined the importance of broadband technology to the future needs of South Australians and set a target of affordable broadband services for all 716 South Australians by 2008. A key component of the strategy was the Broadband Development Fund (BDF), which was created to assist in the achievement of broadband infrastructure development through the funding of strategic projects.  South Australia’s Strategic Plan (2007). This includes a broadband objective (Target 4.8) which states that ―Broadband usage in South Australia (is) to exceed the national average by 2010, and be maintained thereafter.‖ Australia‘s telecommunications industry is subject to a regulatory framework defined by the Telecommunications Act 1997. Its core aim is to promote the long-term interests of end-users of telecommunications services. The framework relies on industry self-regulation to develop codes and standards in all areas that apply to the sector. However, Government regulators have powers to intervene if industry self-regulation is not working effectively in specific instances. The key types of framework documents developed under self-regulation are:  Industry Codes, which are rules or guidelines governing particular aspects of telecommunications, developed by industry  Industry Standards, which are rules or guidelines similar to industry codes, but determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)  Technical Standards that cover the technical parameters of customer equipment, such as 717 cables and networks.

Two other key elements of the regulatory framework are the:  Telecommunications (Consumer Protections and Service Standards) Act 1999, which legislates a number of consumer protection matters, particularly the Universal Service Regime, the National Relay Service, and continued access to untimed local calls  Trade Practices Act 1974, which includes two telecommunications-specific parts, Parts XIB and XIC, covering anti-competitive conduct provisions and a telecommunications-specific access bb regime respectively. bb

The access rules under this legislation provide a framework for determining the services to which content service providers have a right to access for the purpose of providing their own competing services, and the cost at which such services will be provided to them.

171

Telecommunications

The radio spectrum framework is defined in the Radiocommunications Act 1992 that sets out the tools to manage the spectrum including frequency planning, licensing and technical standards.

In September 2009, the Australian Government announced that it would be making major telecommunication reforms, as it stated that the existing telecommunications anti-competitive 718 conduct and access regimes are cumbersome and provide insufficient certainty for investment.

The proposed reforms involve:  A structural separation of Telstra that primarily involves separating the network operations/wholesale functions from the retail functions  Streamlining the competition regime to provide more certain and quicker outcomes for telecommunications companies  Strengthening consumer safeguards, notably the Universal Service obligation, Customer Service Guarantee and Priority Assistance 719  Removing redundant and inefficient regulatory red tape.

The Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997 exempts low-impact and certain other 720 telecommunications facilities from most planning requirements under State legislation. However, for other facilities, State and local government planning schemes apply. In SA, there are no Statespecific guidelines that local governments apply in their planning decisions for telecommunications facilities, so local governments use the national code.

Key multi-jurisdictional bodies and government agencies are:  Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE). The DBCDE has a leading role in outlining the strategic direction of the telecommunications sector, and providing advice on all regulatory policy aspects of the telecommunications and radiocommunications sectors. Its Telecommunications Industry Division also provides advice on legislative and administrative arrangements for Telstra and Australia Post.  Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). ACMA is a regulator of the Australian communications industry, with specific responsibilities for the regulation of broadcasting, the Internet, radiocommunications, and telecommunications consumer and technical matters.  Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The ACCC regulates competition in the telecommunications industry with specific responsibilities for the administration of regulation of anti-competitive conduct, and the approval and arbitration of access codes developed by the industry.  Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). The TIO provides an independent dispute resolution forum for complaints made by residential and small business consumers of telecommunications services. The TIO is funded through charges levied on carriers and service providers on the basis of complaints received against them.  Communications Alliance Ltd. The Communications Alliance is the peak communications industry body and has primary responsibility for developing technical, operational and consumer 721 industry codes and standards for the industry.

The SA Government agencies are:  Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. This Department 722 is responsible for building the research and innovative capacity of SA. A key program area is Broadband SA, which is tasked with providing a coordinated approach to dealing with issues relating to broadband telecommunications services across the State. Its key responsibilities include:  Policy advice on achieving SA‘s Strategic Plan Target 4.8 on broadband usage  Operating the Broadband Development Fund  Mapping the coverage and capacity of broadband infrastructure and access in SA 172

Telecommunications

Identifying broadband drivers and usage across the State 723 ď&#x201A;Ž Providing input and feedback into national broadband policies and initiatives. ď&#x201A;Ž

Sector trends Growth in internet connections The number of SA consumers with internet connections continues to rise as seen in Figure 11.6.

The graph illustrates that in the past year, growth has slowed, which may indicate that the market is reaching saturation given the current price and quality packages. However, the number of consumers is likely to rise as services become available in unserved areas and the rollout of the NBN commences.

Figure 11.6: Total ISP subscriptions in SA724 700 Total ISP Subscriptions ('000)

600 500 400 300 200 100

Jun-09

Apr-09

Feb-09

Dec-08

Oct-08

Jun-08

Aug-08

Apr-08

Feb-08

Dec-07

Oct-07

Aug-07

Jun-07

Apr-07

Feb-07

Dec-06

Oct-06

Aug-06

0 Jun-06

11.2.3

Some 36% of SA residents have an ISP subscription, which is below the national average of 38% as seen in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2: Percentage of population with ISP subscriptions, June 2009.

State

Population (thousands)725

People with ISP subscriptions (thousands)726

Proportion of population with ISP subscriptions

New South Wales

7099.7

2713

38%

Victoria

5427.7

1952

36%

Queensland

4406.8

1746

40%

South Australia

1622.7

584

36%

Western Australia

2236.9

919

41%

Tasmania

502.6

182

36%

Northern Territory

224.8

83

37%

351.2

241

69%

21874.9

8420

38%

Australian Capital Territory Australia

The availability of reasonably priced fourth generation (4G) cellular and wireless telecommunication technology and the rollout of the NBN are expected to accelerate this. In May 2010, Telstra commenced a trial of Long Term Evolution (LTE), a 4G technology, to assess its capability and performance as the next evolution of the Next G network. Based on the trial, Telstra will spend the next three to six months testing the feasibility and technical capability of LTE for future 727 commercialisation.

173

Telecommunications Rollout of Australian Government broadband infrastructure In response to the increasing demand for high-speed broadband services, and the need to provide broadband services in regional and other areas with limited access, the Australian Government has have initiated a number of projects to develop broadband networks.

National Broadband Network In early 2009, the Australian Government announced that it would be building the National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN aims to connect 90% of Australian homes, schools and workplaces with 100Mbps broadband services through fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) connections.

The remaining 10% will be provided with 12Mbps next generation wireless and satellite broadband services.

The network will be built and operated by a new company specifically established by the Australian Government for the project. Investment in the company will, according to preliminary estimates, total up to $43 billion over eight years. Funding for the company will come primarily from the Australian Government through the Building Australia Fund, which will be the majority shareholder.

The Australian Government expects private sector investment in the company through the issuing of Aussie Infrastructure Bonds (AIBs). The Australian Government intends to sell its interest in the company after the network is built and fully operational.

The Australian Government claims that the NBN will lead to a significant reform in the telecommunication industry as it will create a complete separation between the infrastructure provider and retail service providers. This separation is expected to lead to greater retail competition and lower prices.

Rollout of the network will begin in SA in the second half of 2010, with connection to 1,000 premises in Willunga, approximately half way between Adelaide and Victor Harbour. This site will be used as a test to determine the final design and construction elements of the eight year network 728 roll-out. The network is expected to be accessible for this site by early 2011.

Fibre in greenfield estates The Australian Government has announced that as part of the NBN all greenfield developments that receive planning approval after 1 July 2010 will require fibre-to-the-premises infrastructure.

This initiative is designed to ensure that homes built in new developments or major redevelopments are connected via fibre infrastructure. In December 2009, the Australian Government released an 729 exposure draft of a bill to implement the changes.

Staff from Broadband SA provide SA Government representation on the national Stakeholders Reference Group on the implementation of this policy, and advise the SA Government. Together with specific advice from the Department of Planning and Local Government, consideration is currently being given as to whether changes to State planning legislation and/or regulation will be required.

Backhaul Blackspots Initiative To immediately enhance broadband access in regional Australia, the Australian Government announced the Backhaul Blackspots Initiative in April 2009. This program provides $250 million to be used to immediately address â&#x20AC;&#x2014;backbone blackspotsâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; in regional Australia. In June 2009, the Australian Government announced that Victor Harbor had been named as one of six initial locations in the first round of the program. The contract for the initiative was awarded to Leighton Holdings owned Nextgen Networks in December 2009 and was announced as part of the first 730 building blocks of the National Broadband Network. The other SA funded project was a new fibre route from Mildura to Gawler via the Riverland. This project will provide route diversity/protection for Broken Hill. These projects are identified in Figure 11.7.

174

Telecommunications Figure 11.7: Regional Backbone Blackspot Projects in SA731

Expansion of SABRENet The South Australian Broadband Research & Education Network (SABRENet) is a 120km fibrecc optic broadband network linking over 50 research and education sites in metropolitan Adelaide. It provides data speeds in excess of 1 gigagbit per second. The network was commissioned in 2006 and continues to grow with the most recent connections being to:  TECHPORT Australia, SA‘s naval defence precinct  Tea Tree Gully TAFE  Port Adelaide TAFE. Figure 11.8. identifies the route of the SABRENet backbone. Further extensions are being planned, including to Noarlunga, connecting the area‘s hospital, TAFE and university sites.

Broadband Development Fund The Broadband Development Fund (BDF) was a SA Government initiative of the 2004 State Broadband Strategy. Some $7 million was allocated to the Fund and all funds are expected to have been allocated by June 2009. The following projects were funded through the scheme:  Broadbanding the Yorke Peninsula. This $2.8 million project, including $550,000 from the BDF, was a two stage project. Stage 1 provided the backbone for the network and broadband coverage to some of the larger towns on the Peninsula. Stage 2 provided broadband across the entire district through the construction of a WiMAX (Worldwide interoperability for Microwave Access) fixed wireless broadband network with speeds of up to 6 Megabits per second. Stage 2 732 was completed in 2008.  Kangaroo Island Broadband Connectivity. This $2.6 million project, including $427,000 from the BDF, involved Telstra enabling ADSL in its exchanges in Kingscote, Penneshaw, American cc

SABRENet Ltd is a non-profit public company formed to oversee the development, management and effective use of SABRENet. The members of SABRENet Ltd are Flinders University, the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia and the South Australian Government.

175

Telecommunications River, Parndana, Harriet, Cygnet River, Karatta, MacGillivray, Stokes Bay, Gosse and Wisanger with DSLAMs (technology located at exchanges or in roadside cabinets that take the copper lines from a customer premises and convert signals on/off them into a high speed pipeline to the internet) to provide DSL services over copper cables, and building an optical fibre backbone for transmission links on land as well as upgraded microwave radio links for backhaul to the 733 mainland and Adelaide.  Connecting Salisbury and Beyond. This $1 million project, including $550,000 from the BDF, involved Amcom installing DSLAMs in two Telstra exchanges to offer ADSL2+ services, and 734 building wireless broadband base stations.  Coorong Rural Broadband Network. This $1 million project, including $398,950 from the BDF, involved developing a regional broadband network with infrastructure consisting of eleven new 735 radio towers and ADSL2+ DSLAMS in Tailem Bend, Meningie, Coonalpyn and Tintinara.

Since then, several basestations have been upgraded to WiMAX.  Barossa and Light Broadband Connectivity Infrastructure Project This $1,354,500 project, including $596,500 from the BDF, involved the construction of high capacity wireless backhaul 736 to Adelaide, three new DSLAMS and eight new wireless broadband basestation nodes.

Figure 11.8: route of the SABRENet backbones 737

Figure 11.9 shows the broadband coverage resulting from Broadband Development Fund projects.

StateNet StateNet is the SA Government‘s wide area government telecommunications network made up of voice, data and radio networks. The voice network consists of shared telephony and PABX infrastructure, comprising over 100 PABX systems and approximately 35,000 extensions. The data network consists of a core network and associated agency access networks and provides government agencies with access to critical business systems, other central data processing environments, messaging services (via SAGEMS), shared directory services and the State

176

Telecommunications Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s shared internet gateway. The radio network incorporates around 200 dedicated transmitting sites State-wide that provide mobile, hand portable, and paging services to government emergency services personnel. The network is designed to support around 12,000 mobile and portable radio users and up to 50,000 paging devices. A dedicated independent data network is also operated from the State radio network transmitting sites that bound the Adelaide 738 CBD and extended metropolitan areas.

Figure 11.9: Broadband coverage resulting from Broadband Development Fund projects 739

177

Telecommunications Over the last few years, StateNet has been extended to seven regional centres under the $12.2 million StateNet Regional Broadband Program, which incorporates Federal and State Government funds as well as private partnership funds. This program is focussed on the establishment of broadband infrastructure and services at each of SA‘s 7 regional centres, in a manner that leverages the significant ICT footprint provided by the State‘s public sector to deliver telecommunications savings to Government and benefits to regional and rural communities. The 740 Program connects over 171 government sites across the State via a high-speed broadband network in and to:  Port Lincoln  Mount Gambier  Murray Bridge  Port Pirie  Berri  Whyalla 741  Port Augusta.

The telecommunications infrastructure involved the StateNet Regional Broadband Program includes:  The establishment of around 100km of fibre optic cable to connect regional Government agencies  The establishment of 850km of high-speed microwave backhaul to connect regional centres to the National inter-capital fibre grid 2  The establishment of over 3,500km of wireless broadband coverage to serve small business and local communities.

A 2010 economic review of the Program identified that it will deliver $64 million in net economic 742 benefits to the State over 10 years and has a State-wide benefit cost ratio of 2.6.

Planned regional broadband developments include:  The establishment of improved broadband infrastructure to the Riverland Lower Loxton area and the Mallee towns of Pinnaroo, Lameroo and One Tree Hill. These additional broadband works are due for completion in September 2010.  StateNet regional broadband infrastructure will be established at Roxby Downs. This is currently programmed to take place in 2010/11, but is subject to Government approval of the expansion of Olympic Dam mining activities.  Ongoing improvements in security and ICT service infrastructure to address the SA Government‘s changing risk profile, and the establishment of increased network capacity and 743 functionality to meet agency operational requirements.

11.3

Performance Assessing the level of service and asset quality of telecommunications infrastructure requires evaluating not only infrastructure issues, such as coverage and capacity, but also market issues such as pricing and packages offered. While some of this information is publically available, much of it is commercially sensitive and not published by the telecommunication owners and providers.

11.3.1

dd

Fixed line CAN infrastructure performance Fixed line telephone provision is universal as it is a requirement for Telstra, under the Australian Government‘s universal service obligation (USO), to ensure that standard telephone services are dd reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis. The cost of supplying lossmaking services that are required to fulfil the USO is shared among all carriers. Given the almost

The details of Telstra‘s fulfilling its obligations as universal service provider is contained in the Telstra policy statement and marketing plan approved by ACMA. These are available from http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/commitments/uso.cfm.

178

Telecommunications universal provision of fixed line infrastructure, a key performance indicator is customer satisfaction with the service. A 2008 Australia-wide survey found that over 80% of both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan customers stated that their fixed line phone services met or exceeded their expectations. Only 6% of customers in metropolitan areas and 5% in non metropolitan areas stated 744 that local call services rarely met their expectations. While there is no public information on the views of SA consumers, it is likely that it will be similar. Much of the copper network is old, but still fit for its purpose in terms of providing telephony services.

Broadband level of service and asset quality is far more variable due to the economics of providing broadband, and the technologies used. ADSL technology provides the majority of broadband connections and uses Telstra‘s copper phone network to provide the connection between the exchange to the home. While theoretically all homes with phone lines can access ADSL, due to limitations with the exchanges and phone lines, this is not always possible. For example as of February 2010, of Telstra‘s 498 ADSL-enabled exchanges, some 92 had no ports available for ADSL services and 19 had no ports for ADSL2+ Services, meaning no additional ADSL customers 745 can be served. And even if there were ports available at the exchange for connections, customers still may not be able to access ADSL because they are:  Located too far from an exchange, because the quality of ADSL decreases with distance  Have a technology problem, such as:  Having a large pair gain system (LPGS) already on their line, which results in no additional capacity being available, or 746  Suffering from external interference, from something such as a tram line.

Figure 11.10 shows the ADSL-enabled status of Telstra‘s exchanges in SA. It illustrates that a large number of exchanges are not ADSL enabled. As identified above, nearly 20% of those which are ADSL enabled have no excess capacity. In mid 2009, some 10% (55,000) of metropolitan Adelaide‘s premises were unable to access ADSL. These premises are in more than 350 separate blackspots, with more recently developed suburban areas having a disproportionately larger number of affected premises. The problem is most evident in the southern and northern areas of metropolitan Adelaide. These problems can only be addressed by improving the old cooper network and exchanges, both of which require a commercial decision by the telecommunication companies. The large number of regional Telstra exchanges that are not ADSL enabled is a logical consequence of the fact that ADSL only works within 6km of the exchange. Regional exchanges probably cover much larger areas with the fixed copper telephone network and only a fraction of those users will be within 6km.

179

Telecommunications Figure 11.10: ADSL-enabled status of Telstraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s exchanges in SA747

Upgrading of exchanges is continuously occurring and details of the availability of ADSL ports in exchanges and by CMUX are available from Telstra Wholesale at http://telstrawholesale.com/products/data/adsl-reports-plans.htm and on ADSl2exchanges.com.au under the RIM section

11.3.2

180

Mobile CAN infrastructure performance The coverage provided by 3G and GSM networks is extensive in populated areas as seen by the coverage maps on the following pages of the three networks. None of the mobile phone carriers state the percentage of the population that their system covers in SA. Despite the wide coverage, the State continues to experience blackspots along regional highways and at small population centres. The asset quality of the mobile phone infrastructure is generally good due to its young age, and its capacity continues to increase in line with demand.

Telecommunications People who live beyond 3G or GSM terrestrial mobile coverage can obtain a subsidised satellite phone under the Australian Government‘s Satellite Phone Subsidy Scheme. Some 1,241 people living in SA took up the subsidy between 2002 and 2009, which equates to 7.8% of the national 748 figure. Figure 11.11 shows Telstra‘s 3G and GSM network coverage map.

Figure 11.11: Telstra’s 3G and GSM network coverage map, March 2010749

Figure 11.12 shows Optus‘s 3G and GSM network coverage map.

Figure 11.12: Optus’s 3G and GSM network coverage map, March 2010750

181

Telecommunications Figure 11.13 shows Vodafoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s 3G and GSM network coverage map.

Figure 11.13: Vodafoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 3G and GSM network coverage map, March 2010751

Mobile phone services attract the major of level of service complaints compared with fixed line and broadband services. A measure of customer satisfaction for fixed line, mobile and broadband, based on complaints, is provided by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. It records the number of complaints for telecommunications services. The main areas of concern are billing and payment. The highest increase in complaints was among mobile phone users (79% rise), followed by internet (57%), landline (40%) and mobile premium services (13%). Figure 11.14. identifies the nature and location of complaints to the Ombudsman.

182

Telecommunications Figure 11.14: Location of complaints in Adelaide, September 2009752

Figure 11.15. identifies the nature and location of the complaints across SA. Figure 11.15: Location of complaints State-wide, September 2009753

183

Telecommunications 11.3.3

Fixed wireless In August 2009, the SA and Australian Governments announced a project to deliver a WiMAX network that will provide broadband services to identified blackspots. The project will be delivered

by Adam Internet, and will take 15 months complete. The project involves installing equipment on existing towers, and a small antenna on customer premises that provides a line-of-sight connection. The towers/sites will be interlinked via high capacity optical fibre or microwave radio.

The network will consist of 14 wireless service areas (WSAs) and each will have up to five base station transmitters. Each base station will have a coverage radius of about 3.5km, and the network 754 will deliver speeds of up to 12 Mbps. Figure 11.16 shows the location of blackspots and coverage of the WiMAX network. The quality of assets is good due to their young age, and continues to improve in line with demand.

Figure 11.16: Location of blackspots and coverage of the WiMAX network 755

184

Telecommunications 11.3.4

Backhaul infrastructure The SA Government has identified for many years that the lack of competitive backhaul has 756 impeded the uptake of broadband. This is because providers in areas served by a single backhaul connection can exploit their monopoly position. When competitive backhaul connections have commenced in an area, additional ISPs have entered the market, as seen in Port Lincoln and Mount Gambier.

In some regions of SA, backhaul infrastructure consists of only one primary fibre cable. These can be cut, typically accidentally by a backhoe, which can result in a loss of most telecommunications access for many hours while the cable is repaired. The other major problem with single fibre links is that there is a lack of competition, resulting in high broadband prices. Figure 11.17 shows the location of the SA Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s desired competitive backhaul routes, reflecting the areas where there is a lack of redundancy.

Figure 11.17: SA Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desired competitive backhaul routes757

185

Telecommunications

11.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in telecommunications infrastructure in SA are:  Generating broadband consumer demand. New broadband infrastructure provision relies on a commercially viable level of demand. Increasing demand in areas outside of the currentlyserved population centres will be a challenge in smaller population centres. Without increases in demand, competitive backhaul will not be provided by the market, keeping prices high and suppressing demand.  Creating a value proposition for universal high speed broadband availability. The NBN aims to provide universal high speed broadband access, and it is claimed that this will deliver significant improvements in business efficiency and innovation, and quality of life improvements.

However, while there is no doubt that its higher speed and universal access will be welcome, the cost of the NBN will be significant. Already the vast majority of all businesses have high speed access as do the majority of urban Australians, if they wish to purchase it. Thus a challenge facing the NBN will be in creating an appropriate value proposition that is sufficiently attractive for customers to make the infrastructure investment justified.  Selecting optimal technologies. There are many technologies that telecommunications companies can deploy. All have tradeoffs in areas such as cost, risk, capability and compatibility. The selection of technologies is critical to prevent stranding of assets, particularly for smaller telecommunication companies that do not dominate the market, and for those wishing to be compatible with the NBN.  Strengthening the resilience of the telecommunications backbone. The telecommunications network has become an essential service and its loss causes significant economic and social consequences. As telecommunications become embedded into more aspects of commercial and everyday life, ensuring its resilience and robustness becomes increasingly important. This requires reducing single points of failure and other vulnerabilities, and preventing accidental disruptions such as by cutting through cables with a backhoe.

11.5

Report Card Rating Infrastructure type

SA 2010

SA 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Telecommunications

C

Not rated

Not rated

B

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, SA‘s telecommunications infrastructure has been rated C. This rating recognises that while telecommunication services are generally available to a high percentage of the population, there are still many blackspots in broadband and mobile coverage, and areas of network vulnerability due to a lack of competitive backhaul.

Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Expansion of StateNet and SABRENet  Success of the Broadband Development Fund in initiating backhaul and broadband provision  Commencing the WiMAX network project in Adelaide to address broadband blackspots  Increase in the amount of competitive backhaul in regional areas  Communication networks that have capacity for expansion  Telecommunications providers have a rolling program for new technology.

Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Lack of mobile phone coverage along regional highways and in small centres  Inadequate backhaul competition in a number of regional areas  Uncertainty about future commercial life of infrastructure due to technology and regulatory changes.

186

APPENDICES

187

Appendix A: Rating methodology The rating methodology is designed to provide a standardised approach to developing evidencebased rating of infrastructure that is credible, defendable, and explainable.

The Report Card‘s rating scheme is predicated on the principle that infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance are optimal if the infrastructure meets the current and future needs of the community, economy and environment in terms of sustainability, effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

The infrastructure rating principles are based on the view that: 1. Infrastructure needs to be optimised in a systems context that requires:  complementarity in national, State/Territory and local government decisions  best-practice governance arrangements across the infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance activities  competitive and efficient markets (which includes infrastructure reflecting the true cost of provision, including externality costs and benefits)  a minimum set of sector legislation, regulation and standards  the efficient use of existing infrastructure and resources (requires long-term focus on maintenance, renewals and demand management)  a sustainability approach, which gives due regard to economic, social and environmental factors  planning that is based on data, evidence and informed decision-makers working in partnership with stakeholders.

2. Infrastructure should be planned, designed, built, operated and maintained in a sustainable, cost-effective, efficient and equitable manner over its life-cycle, which is typically 30 to 100 years depending on the infrastructure.

3. Decisions on infrastructure need to recognise that it both shapes and is shaped by the social, economic and environmental objectives set by the community.

4. Infrastructure decisions should balance the costs and benefits on the economy, society and environment by simultaneously optimising the following objectives:  economic growth, efficiency and effectiveness  health, safety and security  access and social justice  environmental responsibility  liveability, connectivity and amenity.

5. Infrastructure should be provided by both the public and private sectors to optimise taxpayer and infrastructure stakeholder best value.

6. Governments and infrastructure organisations should have the relevant skills to effectively oversee the provision of infrastructure, whether the actual infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance are done by the public or private sector.

7. Infrastructure decisions should reflect current and anticipated challenges, such as demographic shifts, ageing, climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and resilience.

8. Infrastructure decisions should be accountable and transparent.

Rating scheme The rating scheme is based on a cascading structure that details, at various levels of granularity, the key elements deemed to be essential to optimal infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance.

188

Appendix A: Rating methodology The scheme has two high level Categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; future infrastructure and existing infrastructure. For each of these, there are three Components, which further divide into Element Blocks and finally Foundation Elements. This is illustrated in the figure below.

Rating scale Ratings given are based on the scale in the table below: Table: Rating scale Letter grade

Designation

Definition*

A

Very good

Infrastructure is fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

B

Good

Minor changes required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

C

Adequate

Major changes required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

D

Poor

Critical changes required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

F

Inadequate

Inadequate for current and anticipated future purposes

* Defined as infrastructure meeting the current and future needs of the community, economy and environment in terms of sustainability, effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

189

Appendix B: Units and acronyms Units J

Joule, a unit of energy

W

Watt (1W = 1 joule/second), a unit of power

Wh

watt-hour (1Wh = 3600J), a unit of electricity energy

V

Volt, a unit of voltage

l

Litre, a unit of volume

Prefixes m

milli, meaning 10-3

k

kilo, meaning 103 (thousand)

M

mega, meaning 106 (million)

G

giga, meaning 109 (billion)

T

tera, meaning 1012 (trillion)

P

peta, meaning 1015 (quadrillion)

Acronyms

190

ACCC

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

AEMO

Australian Energy Market Operator

AEMC

Australian Energy Market Commission

AER

Australian Energy Regulator

ARTC

Australian Rail Track Corporation

BITRE

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics

CBD

Central Business District

COAG

Council of Australian Governments

CPRS

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

DIRN

Defined Interstate Rail Network

DITRDLG

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, formally DOTARS

ESCOSA

Essential Services Commission of South Australia

ESIPC

Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council

EPA

Environment Protection Authority

GPG

Gas power generation

IRI

International Roughness Index

ITS

Intelligent Transport Systems

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas

LPG

Liquid Petroleum Gas

MAIFI

Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index

MRET

Mandated Renewable Energy Target (scheme)

MW

Megawatts

NEM

National Electricity Market

NWC

National Water Commission

NWI

National Water Initiative

RET

Renewable Energy Targets

SAIDI

System Average Interruption Duration Index

SAIFI

System Average Interruption Frequency Index

TEU

Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (container)

WWTP

Wastewater treatment plan

Appendix C: Glossary Roads Road infrastructure: Road infrastructure consists of:  the road pavement—the structure that carries traffic  other structures—bridges, pathways, barriers, walls  roadside assets—including engineering features such as traffic signs and guideposts, cuttings and embankments, and environmental features such as vegetated areas situated within the boundaries of the road reserve  roadside traffic signs—which regulate speed, warn of hazards and provide information  pavement markings—designating the edges of the road and traffic lanes and providing directional and warning information.

Road maintenance: Pavement maintenance can be divided into the following classes:  routine maintenance which is reactive, addressing minor defects. This includes fixing potholes and rough patches on the pavement.  periodic maintenance to resurface and reseal the pavement to prevent water infiltrating the pavement structure, to address some aspects of surface roughness and to improve the traction of the pavement surface.  rehabilitation which involves a more significant treatment to improve the structural condition of the pavement and bring the surface back to within an acceptable level of roughness and traction.

Rail Above rail: Those activities required to provide and operate train services such as rolling stock provision (ie. trains, carriages), rolling stock maintenance, train crewing, terminal provision, freight handling and the marketing and administration of the above services.

Below rail: Those activities associated with the provision and management of rail infrastructure, including the construction, maintenance and renewal of rail infrastructure assets, and the network management services required for the safe operation of train services on the rail infrastructure, including train control services and the implementation of safe working procedures.

Broad gauge: The distance of 1,600mm (5‘3‖) between two rails.

Narrow gauge: The distance of 1,067mm (3'6") between two rails.

Rail infrastructure: Consists of both above and below rail infrastructure.

Standard gauge: The distance of 1,435mm (4‘8½‖) between two rails.

Ports Berth: The wharf space at which a ship docks. A wharf may have two or three berths, depending on the length of incoming ships.

Break Bulk Cargo: Cargo that is not containerised, e.g. timber, paper, steel, vehicles, vehicle components.

Common-User Facility: A port facility not dedicated to a particular use and available for short-term hire.

Container terminal: A specialised facility where ocean container vessels dock to discharge and load containers.

Container: A metal container designed for cargo transport. Most containers are either 20 feet (six metres) or 40 feet (twelve metres) long and referred to 20 TEU or 40 TEU respectively.

Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT): Maximum weight of a vessel including the vessel, cargo and ballast.

Pilot: A licensed navigational guide with thorough knowledge of a particular section of a waterway, whose occupation is to steer ships along a coast or into and out of a harbour. Local pilots board the ship to advise the captain and navigator of local navigation conditions.

Stevedores: Labour management companies that provide equipment and hire workers to transfer cargo between ships and docks.

Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU): A unit of measurement equal to the space occupied by a standard twenty foot container.

Airports Airport Master Plan: Airport Master Plans are a requirement of the Airport Acts 1996 and are prepared by major Australian airports every five years to provide a clear direction for the growth and development of the airport.

Airport Operator: The airport lessee or owner.

Curfew: A restriction on flights that can take off or land from specified airports at designated times.

General aviation: All civil operations other than Regular Public Transport operations.

191

Appendix C: Glossary Leased federal airports: The 21 Australian airports covered by the Airports Act 1996 where the Airport Operators lease the airport land from the Australian Government.

Non-aeronautical developments: Non-aviation commercial developments, such as retail outlets and office buildings, on airport sites.

Regular Public Transport operation (RPT): An operation of an aircraft for the purposes of an air service that is provided for a fee payable by persons using the service, is conducted in accordance with fixed schedules to or from fixed terminals over specific routes, and is available to the general public on a regular basis (synonymous with â&#x20AC;&#x2014;scheduled servicesâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;).

Water Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP): The statistical likelihood of occurrence of a flood of a given size or larger in any one year, usually expressed as a percentage.

Carrier (irrigation): A conduit for the supply or drainage of water. The key types are lined channel (an earthen channel lined with a low permeability material), unlined channel (an earthen open channel without internal lining), natural waterway (a stream or other naturally-formed watercourse), and pipe (a closed conveyance or carrier regardless of material, size or shape that conveys water, typically for supply service).

Catchment: An area of land where run-off from rainfall goes into one river system.

Consumptive use: The use of water for private benefit consumptive purposes including irrigation, industry, urban, stock and domestic use.

Effluent: Treated sewage that flows out of a sewage treatment plant.

Greywater: Water from the kitchen, laundry and bathroom. It does not include toilet waste.

Headworks: Dams, weirs and associated works used for the harvest and supply of water.

Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) water: Recycled water used as a source of potable water, typically by injecting it into a water reservoir.

Integrated urban water cycle management: The integrated management of all water sources so that water is used optimally within a catchment resource, in a state and national policy context. This approach promotes coordinated planning, sustainable development and management of the water, land and related resources linked to urban areas, and the application of water sensitive urban design principles.

Irrigation: The artificial application of water to land for the purpose of agricultural production.

Potable: Suitable for drinking.

Recycled water: Water derived from sewerage systems or industry processes, treated to a standard appropriate for its intended use.

Reticulation: The network of pipelines used to take water into areas of consumption; includes residential districts and individual households.

Run-off: Precipitation or rainfall that flows from a catchment into streams, lakes, rivers or reservoirs.

Sewage: The waste and wastewater discharged into sewers from homes and industry.

Sewerage: Infrastructure system for the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage.

Stormwater: Urban rainfall that runs off roofs, roads and other surfaces where it flows into gutters, streams, rivers and creeks or is harvested.

Third pipe systems: A reticulated pipe network that distributes recycled water for use in gardens, etc.

Trade waste: Industrial and commercial liquid waste discharged into the sewerage system.

Urban runoff: Water deposited by storms or other sources that passes through stormwater drains or is harvested. Urban runoff may contain substantial level of pollutants such as solid wastes, petroleum-based compounds, heavy metals, nutrients, pathogens, sediment, organic chemicals, pesticides, insecticides and other lawn care and cleaning materials.

Wastewater: Water that, following capture or use by the community, does not currently have a form of beneficial recycling; includes greywater, sewage and stormwater.

Water allocation: The specific volume of water allocated to water access entitlements in a given season, defined according to rules established in the relevant water plan.

Water businesses: Organisations charged with supplying water to towns and cities across the State for urban, industrial and commercial use. They administer the diversion of water from waterways and the extraction of groundwater.

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). The integration of urban planning with the management, protection and conservation of the urban water cycle, ensuring that urban water management is sensitive to natural hydrological and ecological processes. This involves the integration of water cycle management into urban planning and design so that it minimises the risks to the water bodies that supply water or receive the stormwater or recycled water.

Wholesale market: A competitive market where a commodity such as water can be sought from multiple suppliers.

192

Appendix C: Glossary

Electricity Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS): The CPRS is the Australian Government's emissions trading scheme which has two distinct elements, the cap on carbon pollution and the ability to trade.

Contingency events: Events that affect the power system‘s operation. Their categories are:  credible contingency events, events whose occurrence is considered ‗reasonably possible‘ in the circumstances. For example, the unexpected disconnection or unplanned reduction in capacity of one operating generating unit, or the unexpected disconnection of one major item of a transmission plant.  non-credible contingency event, events whose occurrence is not considered ‗reasonably possible‘ in the circumstances. Typically, a non-credible contingency event involves simultaneous multiple disruptions, such as the failure of several generating units at the same time.

Demand-side management (DSM): The planning, implementation and monitoring of utility activities designed to encourage consumers to modify patterns of electricity usage, including the timing and level of electricity demand.

Generator (Baseload and peaking): Baseload generators provide the continuous ongoing electricity supply while peaking generators provide supplemental power to meet energy demand peaks.

Interconnector: Transmission line/s that connects transmission networks in adjacent regions.

Load shedding: Reducing or disconnecting load from the power system either by automatic control systems or under instructions from the AEMO. Reliability of supply: The likelihood of having sufficient capacity (generation or demand-side response) to meet demand.

Reliability Standard: The requirement that there is sufficient generation and bulk transmission capacity so that, over the long term, no more than 0.002% of the annual energy of consumers in any region is at risk of not being supplied, i.e. the maximum USE is 0.002%.

Unserved energy (USE): The amount of energy that cannot be supplied because there are insufficient supplies (generation) to meet demand.

Gas Coal seam methane (CSM): Methane absorbed into the solid matrix of coal beds, and then extracted.

Linepack: Gas maintained in a gas transmission line to maintain pressure but also as a buffer to provide an uninterrupted flow of gas to customers.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): Natural gas that has been converted temporarily for ease of storage or transport. LNG takes up about 1/600th the volume of natural gas in the gaseous state.

Natural gas: Gaseous fossil fuel consisting primarily of methane but including significant quantities of ethane, butane, propane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen sulphide.

Unaccounted for gas (UAFG): The difference between metered injected gas supply and metered and allocated gas at delivery points. UAFG comprises gas losses, metering errors, timing, heating value error, allocation error and other factors.

Telecommunications 2G: Second generation mobile telecommunications, digital mobile service that provides voice communications and a low level of data transmission.

3G: Third generation mobile telecommunications, digital mobile service that provides voice communications, high-speed data transmission and Internet access.

Asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL): A technology that converts telephone lines to paths for high-speed data services; enhancements to this technology include ADSL2 and ADSL2+.

Backhaul networks: Backhaul transmission networks connect the central point of an access network (such as telephone exchange, HFC hub or mobile tower) to the rest of the network. Backhaul transmission is provided on either optical fibre or microwave. The majority of backhaul transmission networks are provided by Telstra and Optus with other operators including AAPT, Amcom, Ergon, Nextgen, PIPE Networks, Primus, QLD Rail and Soul. While there is competition in backhaul networks between all capitals and within many inter-exchange routes, many regional routes are served by Telstra alone.

Bandwidth: The maximum data transmission rate, measured in bits per second (bps) Broadband: ‗Always on‘ high data speed connection. Technologies used to deliver broadband include ADSL, HFC, fibreoptic cable, wireless and satellite.

Broadband over power line (BPL). A communications technology that uses electricity networks for the transmission of data, voice and video.

Customer Access Network (CAN): The link between the telephone exchange and the consumer.

Code division multiple access (CDMA): A digital standard that separates calls from one another by code.

Digital subscriber line (DSL): A transmission technology that enables digital data services. DSL describes several technologies including ADSL, ADSL2 and ADSL2+.

193

Appendix C: Glossary DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer). Technology located at exchanges or in roadside cabinets that take the copper lines from a customer premises and convert signals on/off them into a high speed pipeline to the internet.

Fibre-to-the-x (FTTx): A generic term for the configuration of a broadband network that uses optical fibre to replace all or part of the usual metal connection to the consumer.  (FTTB) Fibre-to-the-building: fibre reaches the boundary of the building.  (FTTH) Fibre-to-the-home: fibre reaches the boundary of the living space.  (FTTK) Fibre-to-the-kerb: fibre reaches typically within 300m of the consumer‘s premises.  (FTTN) Fibre-to-the-node: fibre reaches a street cabinet typically further than 300m from the consumer‘s premises.

Global system for mobile communication (GSM): A digital cellular standard operated by Telstra, Optus and Vodafone.

Hybrid fibre coaxial cable (HFC): A telecommunication connection that consists of optical fibre on major routes and coaxial cable connections to consumers.

Long Term Evolution (LTE). LTE is an advanced mobile telecommunications standard and considered a pre-4G system.

Microcell: An antenna and associated box that supplements the mobile network in heavy usage areas. A microcell may minimise the need for a larger facility.

Public switched telecommunications network (PSTN): The network of the world's public circuit-switched telephone networks.

Speed: Typical speeds are kilobits per second (kbps) and Mbps (Megabits per second).

Telecommunication facility: Any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network; or any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structure or thing used, or for use, in or in connection with a telecommunications network.

Voice over internet protocol (VoIP): A protocol for transmitting voice over data networks, also known as ‗Voice over DSL‘.

WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access). A wireless digital communications system which can provide broadband wireless.

194

Appendix D: References

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Australian Demographic Statistics, Bulletin 3101.0, March Quarter 2009, Tables 4 and 9, pp. 15 & 22.

2 Government Of South Australia, 2009, Mid-Year Budget Review 2009-10, p. 24.

3 Engineers Australia, 2009, Engineering Construction on Infrastructure: Victoria, updated by Andre Kaspura in October 2009.

4 Government of South Australia, Strategic Plan webpage, http://saplan.org.au/content/view/96/test#infrastructure, accessed 22 February 2010.

5 Parliament of South Australia, Public Works Committee document, http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/95D2D91D-85B0472B-8206-55ABA2CB103E/2576/pwcpresentationdrafttransportplansynopsis2003.pdf, accessed 20 February 2010.

6 Minister for Infrastructure, media release 13 May 2008, http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2008/May/budgetinfra_14-2008.htm, accessed 20 February 2010.

7 DTEI, 2009, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 31.

8 Department of Planning and Local Government, The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, p. 76.

9 Government of SA, 2005, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p. 51.

10 Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010, The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, p. 75.

11 DTEI, 2008-09 Annual Report p. 6.

12 DTEI, South Road Superway, Fact Sheet. p. 1.

13 Image courtesy of the South Australian DTEI. 14 Government of South Australia, webpage, http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport%2C+travel+and+motoring/Transport+facts+and+figures/Roads+and+traffic+facts/Road+resp onsibilities, accessed 26 February 2010.

15 Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p.16.

16 Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 15.

17 Transport SA, What we do to maintain your roads factsheet, http://www.ezyplates.sa.gov.au/pdfs/transport_network/infopack_what_wedo.pdf, accessed 20 February 2010.

18 Transport SA, What we do to maintain your roads factsheet, http://www.ezyplates.sa.gov.au/pdfs/transport_network/infopack_what_wedo.pdf, accessed 20 February 2010.

19 Transport SA, What we do to maintain your roads factsheet, http://www.ezyplates.sa.gov.au/pdfs/transport_network/infopack_what_wedo.pdf, accessed 20 February 2010.

20 ETSA, Street lighting factsheet, http://www.etsautilities.com.au/public/download.jsp?id=7704, accessed 21 February 2010.

21 Supplied by SA Local Government Grants Commission.

22 Local Government Association of South Australia, webpage, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=252, accessed 29 March 2010.

23 Supplied by SA Local Government Grants Commission.

24 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Australian Demographic Statistics, Bulletin 3101.0, March Quarter 2009, Tables 4 and 9, pp. 15 & 22.

25 Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, 2009, Australian transport statistics yearbook 2009, p. 75.

26 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Australian Demographic Statistics, Bulletin 3101.0, March Quarter 2009, Tables 4 and 9, pp. 15 & 22.

27 Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, 2009, Australian transport statistics yearbook 2009, p. 75.

28 Australian Transport Council, Capital City Congestion Management Case Studies, May 2009, p. 22.

29 Government of South Australia, 2005, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p. 44.

30 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Major Road and Rail Projects delivered in South Australia through the Nation Building Program 2008-09 to 2013-14, http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/publications/administration/pdf/MOU_List_SA_19_03_2010.pdf, accessed 29 March 2010.

31 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Nation Building Program Roads to Recovery: Allocations for the Period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014.

32 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Victorian Black Spot Projects Announced April 2009, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Victorian Black Spot Projects Announced April 2009, accessed 10 September 2009.

33 LGA of SA, Roads webpage, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=252, accessed 23 February 2010.

34 Government of South Australia, 2005, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p.46.

35 Government of South Australia, 2005, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p.46.

36 Austroads, webpage, http://algin.net/austroads/site/Index.asp?id=5, accessed 26 February 2010.

37 Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 18.

38 Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 18.

39 Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 18.

40 BITRE, 2009, National Road Network Inter-city Traffic Projections to 2030, Working Paper 75, pp. 64-65.

41 Australian Transport Council, 2000, The National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010, p. 6.

42 DTEI, 2008, Road Safety Action Plan 2008-2010, p. 4.

43 DTEI, 2008, Road crashes in South Australia 2008, p. 14. Update when new edition is out in March/April. see http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/roadsafety/road_crash_facts/sa_crashes 44 Australian Road Assessment Program, webpage, http://www.ausrap.org/ausrap/aboutus.htm, accessed 26 February 2010.

45 Adapted from Australian Road Assessment Program, webpage http://www.ausrap.org/ausrap/Images/SA_Star.pdf, accessed 26 February 2010.

46 Austroads, NPI webpage, http://algin.net/austroads/site/Index.asp?id=5, accessed 20 January 2010.

47 Government of SA, 2009, Portfolio Statement 2009/10, BP 4 Volume 1, p. 6.25; 2008/09 BP 4 Volume 2, p. 6.28; and 2007/08 BP 4 Volume 2, p. 6.27.

48 Local Government Association of South Australia, webpage, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=252, accessed 29 March 2010.

49 Royal Automobile Association of South Australia, 2009, Towards 2020, p. 14.

195

Appendix D: References

50

Government of South Australia, 2007, Tackling Climate Change, South Australia's Greenhouse Strategy 2007-2020, p. 34.

Government of South Australia, 2007, Tackling Climate Change, South Australia's Greenhouse Strategy 2007-2020, p. xii.

52 Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010, The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, p. 138.

53 Parliament of Australia, Petitions webpage, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/ministerial/23feb2009/response95.pdf, accessed 20 February 2010.

54 Adapted from Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 26.

55 Adelaide Metro, webpage, http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/about/about.html, accessed 24 February 2010.

56 Adelaide Metro, webpage, http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/about/about.html, accessed 24 February 2010.

57 Adapted from DTEI, webpage, http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/RR/rail_revitalisation, Adelaide Train Network Map. 58 SA Government, 2008, Portfolio Statement Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, p. 6.84.

59 TransAdelaide, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 34.

60 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, South Australian Rail Access Regime Information Kit, p. 3.

61 DTEI, 2009, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 31.

62 Adelaide Metro, webpage, http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/about/about.html, accessed 24 February 2010.

63 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, South Australian Rail Access Regime Information Kit, p. 3.

64 Adapted from Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (ARTC), webpage, http://www.artc.com.au/Content.aspx?p=38, accessed 24 February 2010.

65 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, Tarcoola-Darwin Rail Overview, webpage, http://www.escosa.sa.gov.au/sa-railoverview/tarcoola-darwin-rail-overview.aspx, accessed 24 February 2010.

66 Genesee & Wyoming Inc., webpage, http://www.gwrr.com/operations/railroads/australia/genesee_wyoming_australia, accessed 24 February 2010.

67 Public Works Committee, 2006, Eyre Peninsula Grain Logistics Rail Network Upgrade, Final Report, 239 Report, p. 11.

68 Genesee & Wyoming Inc., webpage, http://www.gwrr.com/operations/railroads/australia/genesee_wyoming_australia, accessed 24 February 2010.

69 Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 29.

70 Public Works Committee, 2006, Eyre Peninsula Grain Logistics Rail Network Upgrade, Final Report, 239 Report, p. 11.

71 Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 27.

72 Asciano, 2009 Submission Rail Access Regime Inquiry: Issues Paper. http://www.escosa.sa.gov.au/library/090330RailAccessRegimeInquiry_2009-IssuesPaperSubmission-Asciano.pdf.

73 Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 27.

74 Onesteel, webpage, http://www.onesteel.com/companystructure.asp, accessed 24 February 2010.

75 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, South Australian Rail Access Regime Information Kit, p. 3.

76 Transfield Services, Rail and Public Transport webpage, http://www.transfieldservices.com/page/Industry_Sectors/Infrastructure_Services/Rail_and_Public_Transport, accessed 6 April 2010.

77 SteamRanger Heritage Railway, webpage, http://members.iinet.net.au/~steamranger/home.htm, accessed 24 February 2010.

78 Pichi Richi Railway, webpage, http://www.prr.org.au/cms/index.php, accessed 24 February 2010.

79 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, South Australian Rail Access Regime Information Kit. 80 Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 30.

81 SA Government, 2009, 2009/10 Budget, Portfolio Statement Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, p. 6.31.

82 SA Government, 2008, Portfolio Statement Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, p. 6.78.

83 TransAdelaide, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 7.

84 TransAdelaide, 2008, Annual Report 2007-08, p. 8.

85 TransAdelaide, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 7.

86 TransAdelaide, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 7.

87 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 19.

88 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 35.

89 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government, 2009, Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study, p. 6.

90 Government of South Australia, South Australia's Strategic Plan, webpage, http://saplan.org.au/content/view/96/test#infrastructure, accessed 24 February 2010.

91 Government of SA, 2005, The Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p. 47.

92 Government of SA, 2005, The Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p. 47.

93 DTEI, 2009, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 31.

94 DTEI, 2009, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 31.

95 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, SA Rail Overview, webpage, http://www.escosa.sa.gov.au/sa-rail-overview.aspx, accessed 24 February 2010.

96 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, Tarcoola-Darwin Rail Overview, webpage, http://www.escosa.sa.gov.au/sa-railoverview/tarcoola-darwin-rail-overview.aspx, accessed 24 February 2010.

97 Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 31.

98 DTEI, 2009, Expression of Interest: Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Electrification Infrastructure for the Adelaide Metropolitan Passenger Rail Network, EOI 09C234, p.6.

99 Government of SA, 2008, 2008/09 Budget Speech, Budget Paper 2, p. 1.

100 DTEI, 2009, Expression of Interest: Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Electrification Infrastructure for the Adelaide Metropolitan Passenger Rail Network, EOI 09C234, p.6.

101 Mid-Year Budget Review 2009-10.

102 DTEI, webpage, http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/RR, accessed 24 February 2010.

103 Government of South Australia, News Release, Rail Electrification Charged To Start, 9 November 2009.

104 DTEI, 2009, Expression of Interest: Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Electrification Infrastructure for the Adelaide Metropolitan Passenger Rail Network, EOI 09C234, p.6.

105 DTEI, webpage, http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/RR, accessed 24 February 2010.

106 DTEI, 2009, Expression of Interest: Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Electrification Infrastructure for the Adelaide Metropolitan Passenger Rail Network, EOI 09C234, p.6.

107 DTEI, webpage, http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/RR, accessed 24 February 2010.

108 DTEI, 2009, Expression of Interest: Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Electrification Infrastructure for the Adelaide Metropolitan Passenger Rail Network, EOI 09C234, p.6.

109 DTEI, webpage, http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/RR, accessed 24 February 2010.

51

196

Appendix D: References

110

DTEI, 2009, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 31.

DTEI, 2009, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 31.

112 Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 28.

113 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 19.

114 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 21.

115 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 22.

116 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 22.

117 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government, 2009, Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study, p. 9.

118 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 3.

119 Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (ARTC), webpage, http://www.artc.com.au/Content.aspx?p=154#ewu, accessed 24 February 2010.

120 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 37.

121 ARTC, 2008, 2008-2024 Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy, p. 37.

122 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government, 2009, Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study, p. 4 123 Correspondence from TransAdelaide, 15 March 2010.

124 Adelaide Metro, webpage, http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/trainstrams/train.html, accessed 24 February 2010.

125 Correspondence from TransAdelaide, 15 March 2010.

126 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government, 2009, Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study, p. 5.

127 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government, 2009, Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study, p. 6.

128 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government, 2009, Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study, p. 5.

129 Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2007, Perth–Adelaide Corridor Strategy, pp. 7-8.

130 Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2007, Sydney–Adelaide Corridor Strategy, p. 3.

131 Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2007, Sydney–Adelaide Corridor Strategy, p. 15.

132 Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2007, Adelaide–Darwin Corridor Strategy, p. 11.

133 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 4.

134 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, webpage, http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/projects/ProjectDetails.aspx?Project_id=RAIL010, accessed 24 February 2010.

135 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 10.

136 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 10.

137 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, webpage, http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/projects/ProjectDetails.aspx?Project_id=RAIL010, accessed 24 February 2010.

138 Government of SA, 2007, Infrastructure in South Australia: Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 32.

139 Government of South Australia, Tackling Climate Change 2007-2020, p. 34.

140 SA Government, 2009, 2009/10 Budget, Portfolio Statement Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, p. 6.31.

141 South Australia Division of Engineers Australia, 2009, Response to the 30 year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

142 Family First, Barossa Railway, 19 June 2008, http://www.sa.familyfirst.org.au/pdfs/0619%20BAROSSA%20RAILWAY.pdf.

143 Adapted from Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 33.

144 Department for Transport Energy and Infrastructure, 2008, Review of significant ports in South Australia under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, p.16.

145 Department for Transport Energy and Infrastructure, 2008, Review of significant ports in South Australia under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, p.16.

146 Spencer Ports Group, Port Bonython, Bulk Commodities Export Facility, p. 10.

147 Department for Transport Energy and Infrastructure, 2008, Review of significant ports in South Australia under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, p.3.

148 Department for Transport Energy and Infrastructure, 2008, Review of significant ports in South Australia under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, p.5.

149 Flinders Ports, Presentation to the South Australian Transport Infrastructure Summit 2009, Flinders Ports’ Developments, www.flindersports.com.au/pdf/20091305SATransportInfrastructureSummitPresentationbyCEOFlindersPorts.pdf, accessed 5 February 2010.

150 Flinders Ports, media release, 8 May 2009, webpage, http://www.flindersports.com.au/pdf/20090805Portventurepaveswayforexpansion.pdf, accessed 1 February 2010.

151 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2008, 2008 Ports Price Monitoring, p. 15.

152 Flinders Ports, Presentation to the South Australian Transport Infrastructure Summit 2009, Flinders Ports’ Developments, www.flindersports.com.au/pdf/20091305SATransportInfrastructureSummitPresentationbyCEOFlindersPorts.pdf, accessed 5 February 2010.

153 Flinders Ports, webpage, www.flindersports.com.au/pdf/PortAdelaideMap.pdf. accessed 29 March 2010.

154 Flinders Ports, 2009, Major Export Boost For S.A. As First Stage Of Proposed $50 Million Port Facility Unveiled, Media release 27 April 2009.

155 Flinders Ports, media release, 27 April 2009, webpage, http://www.flindersports.com.au/pdf/20092704MajorExportBoostForSAAsFirstStageOfProposed$50millionPortFacilityUnveiled.pdf, access 20 February 2010.

156 Flinders Ports, media release, 5 November 2009, webpage, http://www.flindersports.com.au/pdf/20091105MediaRelease$500000RedevelopmentofOuterHarborPassengerTerminalCompleted.p df, accessed 1 February 2010.

157 Flinders Ports, 2009, Major Export Boost for S.A. As First Stage Of Proposed $50 Million Port Facility Unveiled, Media release 27 April 2009.

158 Flinders Ports, Ports facilities webpage, http://www.flindersports.com.au/portfacilities2.html, accessed 15 February 2010.

159 Flinders Ports, Ports facilities webpage, http://www.flindersports.com.au/portfacilities3.html, accessed 15 February 2010 160 Eyre Regional Development Board, 2008, Eyre Peninsula Ports Master Plan: Executive Summary, pp. 3-4.

161 Eyre Regional Development Board, 2008, Eyre Peninsula Ports Master Plan: Executive Summary, pp. 16-17.

162 Centrex metals, Wilgerup Mine Development Project Overview, factsheet.http://www.centrexmetals.com.au/images/community/community_project_overview.pdf, accessed 15 February 2010.

111

197

Appendix D: References

163

Information supplied by Centrex Metals Limited.

Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 38.

165 Ports Australia, Trade statistics webpage, http://www.portsaustralia.com.au/tradestats/?id=1&period=9, accessed 20 February 2010.

166 Eyre Regional Development Board, 2008, Eyre Peninsula Ports Master Plan: Executive Summary, pp. 3-4.

167 Eyre Regional Development Board, 2008, Eyre Peninsula Ports Master Plan: Executive Summary, pp. 18-19.

168 Eyre Peninsula Economic Development, Plans for the expansion of the Port of Thevenard, Presentation by Mark Cant at the Resources and Energy Serctor Infrastructure Council, August 2009, http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/119903/ERDB_Presentation_to_RESIC_27-08-09.pdf 169 Exxon Mobil, media release, 25 June 2009, http://www.exxonmobil.com/Australia-English/PA/news_releases_20090625.aspx, accessed 10 February 2010.

170 Viterra, 2010, Port of Ardrossan Port Rules, p. 2.

171 Santos, Portt Bonython webpage, http://www.santos.com/activities-browser/production-processing/port-bonython.aspx, accessed 20 February 2010.

172 Spencer Ports Group, 2008, Port Bonython Bulk Commodities Export Facility, A Submission to Infrastructure Australia for the National Infrastructure Priority List, p. 2 173 Department for Transport Energy and Infrastructure, Ports webpage, http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/freight/ports_logistics/, accessed 10 February 2010.

174 Government of South Australia, 2005, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p. 47.

175 Department for Transport Energy and Infrastructure, 2008, Review of significant ports in South Australia under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, p 4.

176 Department for Transport Energy and Infrastructure, 2008, Review of significant ports in South Australia under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, p.3.

177 ESCOSA, Ports webpage, http://www.escosa.sa.gov.au/ports-overview.aspx, accessed 2 February 2010.

178 Ports Australia, Total Throughput, website, http://www.portsaustralia.com.au/tradestats, accessed 18 February 2010.

179 Ports Australia, Total Throughput, website, http://www.portsaustralia.com.au/tradestats/?id=1, accessed 1 February 2010.

180 DTEI, 2009, Introduction to South Australia sea exports financial year 2008/09, p. 1.

181 DTEI, 2009, Introduction to South Australia sea exports financial year 2008/09, p. 13.

182 BITRE, 2006, Working Paper No 65 Container and Ship Movements Through Australian Ports 2004-05 to 2024-25, p. 51.

183 Adapted from Flinders Ports, Presentation to the South Australian Transport Infrastructure Summit 2009, Flinders Ports‘ Developments, www.flindersports.com.au/pdf/20091305SATransportInfrastructureSummitPresentationbyCEOFlindersPorts.pdf, accessed 5 February 2010.

184 Spencer Ports Group, 2008, Port Bonython Bulk Commodities Export Facility, A Submission to Infrastructure Australia for the National Infrastructure Priority List, p. 2 185 Spencer Ports Group, 2008, Port Bonython Bulk Commodities Export Facility, A Submission to Infrastructure Australia for the National Infrastructure Priority List, p. 9.

186 Essential Services Commission Victoria, 2009, Review of Victorian Ports Regulation Final Report 2009, p. 58. Note that this quote refers to the ‗off window‘ performance.

187 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2008, 2008 Ports Price Monitoring, p. 5.

188 Government of South Australia, webpage, http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport,+travel+and+motoring/Public+transport+and+travel/Travelling+to+and+around+South+Australia/ Flying+to+and+around+South+Australia, accessed 24 February 2010.

DTEI, webpage, http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/transport_network/airports/regional.asp, accessed 24 February 2010.

189 BITRE, Airport Traffic Data, website, http://www.bitre.gov.au/Info.aspx?NodeId=96, (Airport Traffic Data 1985/86 to 2008/09 (xls format)), accessed 7 November 2009.

190 DTEI, 2009, Exports by Air Financial Year 2008/09, p. 1.

191 DTEI, 2009, Exports by Air Financial Year 2008/09, p. 1.

192 Adelaide Airport, 2009 Annual Report, p. 3.

193 Adelaide Airport Limited, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 10.

194 Adelaide Airport Ltd, Fast facts webpage, http://www.aal.com.au/common/uploaded_images/AdelaideAirport%20T1_0.pdf, accessed 10 February 2010.

195 AAL, 2008, Submission to the National Aviation Policy White Paper, p. 3.

196 Adelaide Airport, Parafield Airport, webpage, http://www.aal.com.au/parafield/default.aspx, accessed 24 February 2010.

197 Adelaide Airport Ltd, 2009, Annual Report, p. 19.

198 Adelaide Airport Ltd, 2009, Preliminary Draft Master Plan Parafield Airport, p. 11 199 Adelaide Airport Ltd, 2009, Annual Report, p. 19.

200 District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula, Aerodrome webpage, http://www.lowereyrepeninsula.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=129, accessed 9 February 2010.

201 District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula, 2009, Annual Report, p. 27.

202 District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula, 2009, Annual Report, p. 8.

203 District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula, Airport webpage, http://www.dcgrant.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=363, accessed 9 February 2010.

204 District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula, Airport webpage, http://www.dcgrant.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=363, accessed 9 February 2010.

205 District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula, Airport webpage, http://www.dcgrant.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=363, accessed 9 February 2010.

206 Drummond, Grant, 2009, The infrastructure needs of South Australia’s regional airports, a presentation at the South Australia Transport Infrastructure Summit 2009.

207 Drummond, Grant, 2009, The infrastructure needs of South Australia’s regional airports, a presentation at the South Australia Transport Infrastructure Summit 2009.

208 Drummond, Grant, 2009, The infrastructure needs of South Australia’s regional airports, a presentation at the South Australia Transport Infrastructure Summit 2009.

209 South Australian Government, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p. 48.

210 Government of SA, 2007, Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide, p. 43.

211 Government of SA, 2007, Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide, p. 43.

212 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2008, National Aviation Policy Green Paper: Flight Path to the Future, p. 169.

213 Government of South Australia, 2007, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 43 164

198

Appendix D: References

214

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future, pp. 158-167.

215 Adelaide Airport, Master Plan 2009, p.29.

216 Adelaide Airport, Master Plan 2009, p.29.

217 Adelaide Airport, Master Plan 2009, p.2.

218 Adelaide Airport Ltd, Parafield Airport Master Plan 2009, p. 12.

219 Information provided by City of West Torrens.

220 Shopping Centre Council of Australia submission, 2003? Adelaide Airport Draft Major Development Plan Development of an IKEA Store.

221 ATSB, Aviation Occurrence Statistics, website, http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/27391/aviationstats09.pdf, accessed 23 October 2009.

222 Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Airline On-time Performance, December 2009.

223 ACCC, 2010, Airport Monitoring Report 2008/09, p. 88.

224 ACCC, Airport Monitoring Report 2007/08.

225 Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Media Release, webpage, Strengthening Aviation Security, 09 February 2010, http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2010/February/AA024_2010.htm, accessed 24 February 2010.

226 AAL, 2009, Sustainability Plan: Airport Environment Strategy, p. 134.

227 AAL, 2009, Submission to National Aviation Policy White Paper, p. 16.

228 Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology, webpage, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml, accessed 9 March 2010.

229 Government of South Australia, Strategic Plan webpage, http://saplan.org.au/content/view/96/test#infrastructure, accessed 22 February 2010.

230 The NRM regions are Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, Alinytjara Wilurara, Eyre Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Northern and Yorke, South Australian Arid Lands, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin, and South East. Natural Resources Management (NRM) in South Australia, webpage, http://www.nrm.sa.gov.au/NaturalResourcesManagement/NRMBoundaries.aspx, accessed 9 March 2010.

231 Office For Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 13.

232 Office For Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 10.

233 Australian Government, Murray-Darling Basin Authority, webpage, http://www.mdba.gov.au/about_the_authority, accessed 4 March 2010.

234 Australian Government, Murray-Darling Basin Authority, webpage, http://www.mdba.gov.au/basin_plan, accessed 4 March 2010.

235 Primary Industries and Resources SA, webpage, http://outernode.pir.sa.gov.au/pirsa/drought/programs__and__services/enewsletters/sa_drought_e-news_archive_2008/sa_drought_e-news,_28th_february_2008, accessed 9 March 2010.

236 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 25.

237 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 97.

238 South Australia, South Australian Water Corporation Act 1994, p. 3 239 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 97.

240 Office For Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 8.

241 Office for Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, pp. 8-9.

242 Natural Resources Management (NRM) in South Australia, webpage, http://www.nrm.sa.gov.au/NaturalResourcesManagement/NRMCouncil.aspx, accessed 29 March 2010.

243 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 30.

244 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 36.

245 Office for Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 8.

246 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 4.

247 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 40.

248 City of Burnside, Operation Services Committee Meeting, Agenda. 11 December 2007, http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Ops_Agenda_111207_comp.pdf, accessed 10 March 2010 249 Office for Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 27.

250 Image courtesy of Adelaide Aqua.

251 SA Water, 2008-09 Drinking water quality report, p. 6.

252 SA Water, 2008-09 Drinking water quality report, p. 6.

253 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 48.

254 SA Water, 2008-09 Drinking water quality report, p. 21.

255 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

256 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 40.

257 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 40.

258 Government of South Australia, Adelaide aqua Preferred Bidder for Desal Project, News release, http://www.sawater.sa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1F776A47-BB68-47F6-84AE-697639F3FC75/0/ADP_preferred_bidder.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

259 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 33.

260 Government of South Australia, Adelaide aqua Preferred Bidder for Desal Project, News release, http://www.sawater.sa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1F776A47-BB68-47F6-84AE-697639F3FC75/0/ADP_preferred_bidder.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

261 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 33.

262 Government of South Australia, Adelaide To Double Size Of Its Desalination Plant, News release, http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/E47D55A8-91F9-4029-A9A6-79A3EC21BE62/0/MedRelDesalMay09.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

263 http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/BB33CB3A-A869-4F10-9811-5AEFEC779647/0/ADPPipelineFSDec09.pdf 264 Government of South Australia, AGL To Supply 100 Per Cent Renewable Energy For Desal Plant, News release, http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/AE0BAA70-AE37-45C8-85AA-6686D4D100E0/0/RenewableDesal.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

265 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 78-79.

266 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 78-79.

267 Adapted from SA Water, 2007-08 Drinking water quality report, p. 9.

268 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 38.

199

Appendix D: References

269

Adapted from Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.sa.gov.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/WaterDataUpdate/ReservoirHome.htm?ReservoirSystem=StateSummary, accessed 9 March 2010.

270 Government of South Australia, $30m For Preliminary Interconnection Works, News release, http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/628983FE-76B3-4F0D-A31A-2F5B470C97CF/0/PrelimInternconnectionWorks.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

271 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

272 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/RM_Pump_Station_Upgrades.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

273 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/PtSturt_HmarshIsd_supply.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

274 Information supplied by SA Water, 20 April 2010.

275 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/country_water.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

276 Government of SA, 2008, Meeting Future Demand â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SA Waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Long Term Plan for Eyre Region, p. viii.

277 Department for Environment and Heritage, webpage, http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/cllmm/temporary-weir.html, accessed 9 March 2010.

278 Government of South Australia, Water Consumption Remains Below Target, News release, http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/2FC06879-3EE4-4A3A-90FB-6EB876233504/0/waterconsumption.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

279 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

280 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 37.

281 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 34-36.

282 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Environment/WaterRestrictionsConservationMeasures/FAQs_PWCM.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

283 SA Water, Sustainability Report 2007, p. 12.

284 SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Environment/WaterRestrictionsConservationMeasures/FAQs_PWCM_General.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

285 Government of South Australia, Simpler, More Flexible Watering Times, News release, http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/7B78C493-1208-4467-BD98-1934ED32F3E7/0/waterrestrictionsNovember2009.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

286 Government of South Australia, April 2010, Water Restrictions Eased Again, News release, http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/63ABBC43-71DA-498A-8E01-069EDB5C9A5A/0/L3easedMay10.pdf, accessed 27 April 2010.

287 Water for Good, webpage, http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/using-and-saving-water/water-restrictions-permanent-conservationmethods/, accessed 9 March 2010.

288 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process - Final Report, p. 23.

289 Government of South Australia, New Water Prices for 2010-11, News release, http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/091204-water-pricing-2010-11.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

290 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process - Final Report, p. 3.

291 Government of South Australia, Transparency Statement Water and Wastewater Prices in Metropolitan and Regional South Australia 2007-08, p. 37.

292 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process - Final Report, p. 3.

293 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process - Final Report, p. 3.

294 Government of South Australia, New Water Prices for 2010-11, News release, http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/091204-water-pricing-2010-11.pdf, accessed 9 March 2010.

295 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process - Final Report, p. 41.

296 SA Water, Annual Report. p. 76.

297 ICRC, 2008, Water and Wastewater Price Review: Final Report and Price Determination, p. iv.

298 ActewAGL, 2009, Annual and Sustainability Report 2008/09, p. 63.

299 Government of South Australia, Water for good, p. 14 300 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 78.

301 Office for Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 20.

302 Office for Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, pp. 16-17.

303 Department of Health, webpage, http://www.health.sa.gov.au/Default.aspx?tabid=631, accessed 9 March 2010.

304 2008/9 SA Water, Annual Report, p. 6 and ESCOSA, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process, p. 24.

305 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

306 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 17.

307 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 49.

308 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 49.

309 Productivity Commission, 2008, Towards Urban Water Reform: A Discussion Paper, p. 86.

310 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 16-17.

311 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 118.

312 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 119.

313 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 52.

314 SA Water, Annual Report 08/09, p. 30.

315 SA Water, Annual Report 08/09, p. 30.

316 SA Water, Annual Report 08/09, p. 30.

317 SA Water, Annual Report 08/09, p. 30.

200

Appendix D: References

318

National Water Commission, 2009, National Performance Report 2007–08: Urban water utilities, Part B, p. 328, with additional information from SA Water, 20 April 2010.

319 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 111.

320 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 111.

321 National Water Commission, 2010, National Performance Report 2008–09: Urban water utilities, Part A, p. 42.

322 National Water Commission, 2010, National Performance Report 2008–09: Urban water utilities, Part A, p. 36.

323 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

324 ActewAGL, 2009, Monthly Water and Wastewater Report, June, p. 3.

325 ActewAGL, 2009, Monthly Water and Wastewater Report, June, p. 3.

326 SA Water, 2007-08 Drinking water quality report, p. 24.

327 SA Water, 2008-09 Drinking water quality report, p. 22.

328 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 67.

329 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 26.

330 National Water Commission, International Water Association World Congress on Water Reclamation and Reuse 2009, webpage, http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/2469-iwa-congress-on-water-reclamation-and-reuse-2009.asp?intSiteID=1, accessed 2 October 2009.

331 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 40.

332 Based on 250ML daily collections from properties. http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/CEA54F40-5DD6-4462-919F1CF3394CD703/0/Factsheet3.pdf 333 SA Water, About the Sewerage System, Trade Waste Fact Sheet No.3, p. 1.

334 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 95-98.

335 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

336 National Water Commission, 2009, National Performance Report 2007–08: Urban water utilities, Part B, p. 327.

337 Information supplied by SA Water, 20 April 2010.

338 Information supplied by SA Water, 20 April 2010.

339 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Education/OurWastewaterSystems/, accessed 9 March 2010.

340 SA Water, About the Sewerage System, http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/CEA54F40-5DD6-4462-919F1CF3394CD703/0/Factsheet3.pdf.

341 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

342 Environment Protection Authority, 2003, Guidelines for Environmental Management: Use of Reclaimed Water, Victorian Government, pp. iv-vii.

343 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 33.

344 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105 and ESCOSA, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process, p. 24.

345 Local Government Association of South Australia, webpage, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1113, accessed 9 March 2010.

346 Information supplied by Community Wastewater Management Systems, Local Government Association of SA. 347 Local Government Association of South Australia, webpage, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1117, accessed 9 March 2010 348 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 95-98.

349 Local Government Association of South Australia, webpage, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1115, accessed 9 March 2010 350 Local Government Association of South Australia, webpage, http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1117, accessed 9 March 2010 351 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 95-98.

352 Melbourne Water, Recycling Water for a Greener Future, webpage, http://www.waterrecycling.vic.gov.au/default.asp, accessed on 28 September 2009.

353 Australian Government, 2010, Water flows from Glenelg to Park Lands media release, 11 January, http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/minister/wong/2010/media-releases/January/mr20100111.aspx, accessed 10 April 2010.

354 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 96 with additional information supplied by SA Water on 20 April 2010.

355 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 96 with additional information supplied by SA Water on 20 April 2010.

356 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/Virginia_Pipeline_Scheme.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

357 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/mawson_lakes.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

358 Information supplied by Community Wastewater Management Systems, Local Government Association of SA. 359 Willunga Basin Water Company, webpage, http://www.wbwc.com.au/15.htm, accessed 29 March 2010.

360 Office For Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 26.

361 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process - Final Report, p. 42.

362 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, Inquiry into the 2009-10 Metropolitan and Regional Water and Wastewater Pricing Process - Final Report, p. 42.

363 Government of South Australia, Transparency Statement Part A: Water and Wastewater Prices in Metropolitan and Regional South Australia2009-10, p. 31.

364 Information supplied by SA Water, 20 April 2010.

365 ActewAGL, 2009, Annual and Sustainability Report 2008/09, p. 63.

366 SA Water, Trade Waste, Fees and charges 2009-10, p. 3.

367 Government of South Australia, Transparency Statement Part A: Water and Wastewater Prices in Metropolitan and Regional South Australia2009-10, p. 31.

368 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 95.

369 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 95.

370 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 95.

371 Office for Water Security, 2009, Water Industry Act Discussion Paper, p. 26.

372 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 33.

373 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 33.

374 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 26-7.

201

Appendix D: References

375

Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/VH_Wastewater_Plant.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

376 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, pp. 26-7, with information from SA Water, 20 April 2010.

377 Information provided by Delfin Lend Lease.

378 Government of South Australia, Water for Good, p. 97.

379 Essential Services Commission, 2009, Water Performance Report: Performance of Urban Water and Sewerage Businesses 2007-08, p. 66.

380 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

381 Information supplied by SA Water, 20 April 2010.

382 National Water Commission, 2010, National Performance Report 2008–09: Urban water utilities, Part A, p. 21.

383 National Water Commission, 2009, National Performance Report 2007–08: Urban water utilities, Part A, p. 59.

384 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/9, p. 48.

385 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/9, p. 54.

386 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 54.

387 Information supplied by Community Wastewater Management Systems, Local Government Association of SA. 388 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, pp. 101-105.

389 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 49.

390 SA Water Corporation, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 49.

391 National Water Commission, International Water Association World Congress on Water Reclamation and Reuse 2009 webpage, http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/2469-iwa-congress-on-water-reclamation-and-reuse-2009.asp?intSiteID=1, accessed 2 October 2009.

392 CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. 27.

393 Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Steering Committee, 2004, Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Study: Part A – Audit of existing Information, A report prepared by Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd, pp. 3-1.

394 Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Steering Committee, 2004, Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Study: Part A – Audit of existing Information, A report prepared by Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd, pp. 3-1.

395 EPA, 2009, State of the Environment Report 2008, p. 53.

396 Government of SA and Local Government Association of SA, 2005, Urban Stormwater Management Policy for South Australia, p. 10.

397 Correspondence with Stormwater Management Authority, 16 March 2010.

398 City of Port Adelaide Enfield and Tonkin Consulting, Port Adelaide Seawater & Stormwater Flood Risk Treatment, pp. 1-4.

399 Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Steering Committee, 2004, Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Study: Part A – Audit of existing Information, A report prepared by Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd, pp. 2-3.

400 Correspondence with Stormwater Management Authority, 16 March 2010.

401 Michael Cawood and Associates Pty Ltd, 2007, Flood Warning Service Development Plan for South Australia, Towards the Future: A Review of Flood Warning Service Development priorities within South Australia, Main Report Draft Version 5, March 2007, A Report to the South Australian Flood Warning Consultative Committee, p. 96, quoted in Department for Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, 2010, Flood Hazard Plan, Version 2.0 (February), p. 13.

402 Joint report, Reducing the flood risk in the Brown Hill and Keswick Creek catchments, Technical Summary Report. p. iv.

403 Wallbridge & Gilbert, 2009, Urban Stormwater Harvesting Options Study, Prepared for the Stormwater Management Authority, p. iv.

404 Wallbridge & Gilbert, 2009, Urban Stormwater Harvesting Options Study, Prepared for the Stormwater Management Authority, p. iv.

405 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 146.

406 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 84.

407 Figures for 2007. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007, 4602.0 - Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/B214910227DE9FF1CA2573A80011A8E9?opendocument, accessed 1 February 2010.

408 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 93.

409 SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/YourHome/SaveWaterInYourHome/rebates_rainwatertanks.htm, accessed 23 February 2010.

410 Information supplied by SA Water.

411 Local Government Association, 2006, Local Councils and Local Services, A report prepared by McGregor Tan Research, p. 17.

412 Local Government Association of SA, 2006, Guideline Framework for Uniform Catchment based Stormwater Management Planning

by Local Government Councils, p. 1.

413 Local Government Association of SA, 2006, Guideline Framework for Uniform Catchment based Stormwater Management Planning

by Local Government Councils, p. 2.

414 Stormwater Management Authority, 2009, Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 4.

415 Correspondence with Stormwater Management Authority, 16 March 2010.

416 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 21.

417 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 119.

418 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 21.

419 Government of South Australia, webpage, http://www.sa.gov.au/government/entity/1160, accessed 23 February 2010.

420 Stormwater Management Authority, 2009, Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 3.

421 Government of SA and Local Government Association of SA, 2005, Urban Stormwater Management Policy for South Australia, pp.

11-12.

422 Government of SA and Local Government Association of SA, 2005, Urban Stormwater Management Policy for South Australia, pp.

11-12.

423 Correspondence with Stormwater Management Authority, 16 March 2010.

424 Department of Territory and Municipal Services, Storm Water Network webpage, http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/roads/stormwater/stormwater, accessed 5 January 2010.

425 Government of SA and Local Government Association of SA, 2005, Urban Stormwater Management Policy for South Australia, pp.

11-12.

426 Stormwater Management Authority, 2009, Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 1.

427 Stormwater Management Authority, 2009, Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 3.

428 Government of SA and Local Government Association of SA, 2005, Urban Stormwater Management Policy for South Australia, pp.

11-12.

429 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, pp. 152-53.

430 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, pp. 152-53.

431 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 146.

202

Appendix D: References

432

SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, pp. 152-53.

SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, pp. 152-53.

434 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 146.

435 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 27 436 Wallbridge & Gilbert, 2009, Urban Stormwater Harvesting Options Study, Prepared for the Stormwater Management Authority, p. i.

437 Wallbridge & Gilbert, 2009, Urban Stormwater Harvesting Options Study, Prepared for the Stormwater Management Authority, p. i.

438 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 85.

439 Department of Planning and Local Government, webpage, http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/wsud#wsud-overview, accessed 23 February 2010.

440 Government of SA and Local Government Association of SA, 2005, Urban Stormwater Management Policy for South Australia, p. 5.

441 Department of Planning and Local Government, 2009, Better Development Plans (BDP) Planning Policy Library, Version 4.1, p. 72.

442 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 130.

443 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 86.

444 Government of South Australia, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia 445 Department of Territory and Municipal Services, 2005, Asset Management Plan 2004-07, Executive Summary, p. 4.

446 Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Steering Committee, 2004, Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Management Study: Part A – Audit of existing Information, A report prepared by Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd, p. vi.

447 CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. 15.

448 CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. 7.

449 CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. 37.

450 Coast Protection Board, Seagrasses of South Australia, pp. 1-3.

451 CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. 15.

452 CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. 27.

453 The 75% reduction was from the 2003 value of 2400 tonnes. CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. xii.

454 SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, p. 84.

455 CSIRO, 2007, The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study: Final Report, Volume 1, Summary of Study Findings, p. 2.

456 Environment Protection Authority, 2007, The River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment risk assessment project for water quality Introduction and methods.

457 EPA, 2009, State of the Environment Report 2008, p. 38.

458 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p. 112.

459 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p. 112.

460 Figures for 2006–07. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010, Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends 2010, p. 25.

461 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010, Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends 2010, p. 25 462 Natural Resource Management, webpage, http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/nrm/water_issues/irrigation.html, accessed 5 March 2010.

463 Natural Resource Management, webpage, http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/nrm/water_issues/irrigation.html, accessed 5 March 2010.

464 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p. 112.

465 Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 66.

466 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p. 33.

467 Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 65.

468 Government of South Australia,2001 – 2015, River Murray Salinity Strategy, p. 8.

469 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, pp. 142-143 470 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, pp. 142-143 471 National Water Commission, 2009, National Performance Report 2007–08: Rural water service providers, p.61.

472 CIT Water exchange, webpage, http://www.cit.org.au/, accessed 4 March 2010.

473 Information supplied by the Sunland Irrigation Trust Office.

474 Australian Government, Minister for Climate Change and Water, webpage, http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/media-releases/December/mr20091202.aspx. accessed 4 March 2010.

475 Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, Water Allocation Plan for the Clare Valley Prescribed Water Resources Area, p. 30.

476 Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, Water Allocation Plan for the Clare Valley Prescribed Water Resources Area,p. 30.

477 Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, Water Allocation Plan for the Clare Valley Prescribed Water Resources Area, p. 31.

478 Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Barossa Water Allocation Plan District Irrigation Annual Report 2007/08, p. 10.

479 Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, Water Allocation Plan for the Clare Valley Prescribed Water Resources Area, p. 30.

480 Primary Industry and Resources SA, webpage, http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/wid/regions/mount_lofty_ranges/water_considerations/barossa_infrastructure_limited, accessed 4 March 2010.

481 National Program for Sustainable Irrigation, Investigation of Prospective Case Studies, pp. 2-20.

482 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/Virginia_Pipeline_Scheme.htm, accessed 9 March 2010.

483 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p. 40 484 Irrigation for Profit, A Review of Data from the 2006/07 Irrigation, p. 2.

485 Willunga Basin Water Company, webpage, http://www.wbwc.com.au/15.htm, accessed 4 March 2010.

486 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Templates/Generic.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7b1C3FAE8F-7048-4F2B9AE7086F4A9E7499%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fSAWater%2fEnvironment%2fTheRiverMurray%2fSalt%2bInterception%2bSchemes%2 ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#Loxton, accessed 4 March 2010.

487 Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, 2008, Riverland Salt Disposal Management Plan, p. 1.

488 Government of South Australia, Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, p. 140.

489 Government of South Australia, Murray Features, webpage, http://www.murrayfutures.sa.gov.au/, accessed 4 March 2010.

490 Government of South Australia,2001 – 2015, River Murray Salinity Strategy p. 2.

491 South Australia, Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 2009, p. 1.

433

203

Appendix D: References

492

Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 84.

Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 84.

494 Parliament of South Australia, webpage, http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/San/public/%7BBCE5D858-C090-4A6D-89F1A0852D9C02BE%7D/agencysubmission/agencysubmission/html/agencysubmission_4.htm, accessed 4 March 2010.

495 Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 77.

496 Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 77.

497 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p. 112.

498 The Creeks Pipeline Company Ltd, webpage, http://creekspipelineco.com.au/index.htm, 4 March 2010.

499 Government of South Australia, SA Water, webpage, http://www.sawater.sa.gov.au/SAWater/WhatsNew/MajorProjects/LowerLakes_Irrigpipe.htm, accessed 4 March 2010.

500 Government of South Australia, PIRSA Annual Report 08-09, p.15.

501 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p. 112.

502 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p.112.

503 South East Natural Resources Management Board, webpage, http://www.senrm.sa.gov.au/OurProjects/IrrigationforProfit.aspx, accessed 4 March 2010.

504 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Water for the Future, p 5.

505 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p.112.

506 Government of South Australia, 2009, Water for good, p.112.

507 SA Government, 2009, Water for good, p.112.

508 Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 77.

509 Government of South Australia, Renewables SA webpage, http://sustainableliving.sa.gov.au/RenewablesSA/fund.htm, accessed 29 March 2010.

510 AEMO, 2009, An Introduction to Australia‘s National Electricity Market, p. 23.

511 AEMO, webpage, http://www.aemo.com.au/electricityops/operating_procedures.html, accessed 29 March 2010.

512 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 16.

513 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 6.

514 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 14.

515 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, webpage, www.escosa.sa.gov.au, accessed 8 February 2010.

516 DTEI, webpage, http://technicalregulator.sa.gov.au/, accessed 8 February 2010.

517 DTEI, webpage http://www.energy.sa.gov.au/policy_and_regulation/energy_industry_regulation_and_planning/gas_industry_regulation, accessed 8 February 2010.

518 Energy Industry Ombudsman SA, webpage, http://www.eiosa.com.au/about.html, accessed 8 February 2010.

519 DTEI, webpage, http://www.energy.sa.gov.au/about_energy, accessed 8 February 2010.

520 Green Building Council of Australia, Green Star Office Design Technical Manual.

521 ETSA Utilities, 2009, Customer guide to large embedded generation network connection, p. 7.

522 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 19.

523 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 111.

524 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 79.

525 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 79.

526 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 51-52.

527 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. iii.

528 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 33.

529 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 33.

530 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 53.

531 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.18.

532 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.18.

533 ETSA Utilities, 2010, Revised Regulatory Proposal 2010–2015, p. 69.

534 Adelaide Showgrounds, 2010, New Power Station for Adelaide, media release, http://www.theshow.com.au/showground/news-andfocus-container-page-only/showground-becomes-a-power-station.jsp, accessed 10 March 2010.

535 Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Solar Feed-In Scheme Frequently Asked Questions, webpage, http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/index.php?page=faq.

536 Independent Competition And Regulatory Commission, 2009, Electricity Feed-in Renewable Energy Premium: Determination of Premium Rate, Issues Paper, p. 21.

537 Department of the Premier and Cabinet, South Australia‘s Feed-In Scheme for Small-Scale Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Installations Fact Sheet.

538 ETSA Utilities, 2010, Revised Regulatory Proposal 2010–2015, p. 132.

539 Information supplied by ETSA Utilities, 24 February 2010.

540 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 23.

541 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 120-121.

542 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 79.

543 ElectraNet, 2007, Network 2025 Vision, p. 19.

544 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 122-23.

545 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 25.

546 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 120-121.

547 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 85.

548 AEMO, South Australian Electricity Interconnector Feasibility Study, Media release, 18 February 2010, http://aemo.com.au/00400009.pdf, accessed 29 March 2010.

549 Information supplied by ETSA Utilities, 24 February 2010.

550 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 79.

551 ETSA Utilities, webpage, http://www.etsautilities.com.au/centric/customers/your_questions_answered/fact_sheets.jsp, accessed 29 March 2010.

552 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 79.

553 Information supplied by ETSA Utilities, 24 February 2010.

554 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 121.

555 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 23.

556 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 23.

493

204

Appendix D: References

557

ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 31.

ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.4.

559 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.4. The 7% figure was based on the graph on page 55.

560 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 127-128.

561 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 20.

562 Australian Energy Market Commission, 2009, Annual Electricity Market Performance Review 2008-09, p. vii. This objective is defined in the National Electricity Law. 563 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 122-23.

564 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 3.

565 Information from AEMO, 22 January 2010.

566 AEMO, 2009, An Introduction to Australia‘s National Electricity Market, p.18.

567 ElectraNet, 2007, Network 2025 Vision, p. 2.

568 ElectraNet, 2009, Annual Planning Review 2009 - 2029, p. i.

569 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 143.

570 ActewAGL, 2008, ActewAGL Distribution Determination 2009–14: Regulatory proposal to the Australian Energy Regulator (June), p.

94.

571 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 31-32.

572 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. vii.

573 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. x.

574 Walsh, Patrick, 2009, Role and Current Priorities of the Essential Services Commission, A presentation to the Economic Development Board, 3 September 2009, p. 9.

575 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, Draft Decision, South Australia Draft distribution determination 2010-11 to 2014-15, p. ix.

576 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 79.

577 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, pp. 27-29.

578 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, pp. 27-29.

579 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 33.

580 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 49.

581 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 33.

582 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. iii.

583 ElectraNet, 2009, Annual Planning Review 2009 – 2029, p. 9.

584 AEMO, webpage, http://www.aemo.com.au/electricityops/140-0091.html, accessed 29 March 2010.

585 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 79-80.

586 Australian Energy Market Commission, webpage, http://www.aemc.gov.au/Market-Reviews/Completed/Review-of-Energy-MarketFrameworks-in-light-of-Climate-Change-Policies.html, accessed 8 February 2010.

587 Information supplied by Geodynamics.

588 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 62.

589 McLennan Magasanik Associates, 2009, Potential for Renewable Energy in South Australia, Report to South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet, p. 4.

590 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. v.

591 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. xii-xiii.

592 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 142.

593 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 142.

594 AER, 2010, South Australia distribution determination 2010-11 to 2014-15, p. xxi.

595 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. xii-xiii.

596 Information supplied by ETSA Utilities, 24 February 2010.

597 Electricity Trust South Australia, (ETSA) media release, 17 July 2009, http://www.etsa.com.au/public/download.jsp?id=10490, accessed 8 February 2010.

598 AEMC, 2008, Annual Electricity Market Performance Review 2008, p. 10.

599 AEMC, 2008, Annual Electricity Market Performance Review 2008, p. 9.

600 AEMC, 2008, Annual Electricity Market Performance Review 2008, p. 3.

601 AEMC, 2008, Annual Electricity Market Performance Review 2008, p. 5.

602 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, pp.16-21.

603 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 2.9.

604 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 23.

605 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 88 606 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 141.

607 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 88 608 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 88 609 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 88 610 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 81.

611 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 88 612 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, pp. 89-90 613 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 91 614 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 68.

615 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 69.

558

205

Appendix D: References

616

Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 71.

617 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 71.

618 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 79.

619 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 61.

620 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 175.

621 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 117.

622 Information supplied by ETSA Utilities, 24 February 2010.

623 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p. 68.

624 Essential Services Commission of South Australia, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.70.

625 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 175.

626 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.87.

627 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.86.

628 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 139.

629 Government of South Australia, 2007, Tackling Climate Change: South Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Greenhouse Strategy, p.

630 McLennan Magasanik Associates, 2009, Potential for Renewable Energy in South Australia, Report to South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet, p. 28.

631 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 21.

632 ElectraNet, 2008, Annual Review 2007, p. 15.

633 ETSA Utilities, 2009, 2009 Environmental Management Plan, pp. 4-7.

634 ETSA Utilities, 2009, Customer guide to large embedded generation network connection, p. 7.

635 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, pp.11-15.

636 AEMO, 2009, 2009 Gas Statement of Opportunities for Eastern and South Eastern Australia, pp. 4-9.

637 Australian Energy Regulator, 2008, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 229.

638 Australian Energy Regulator, 2008, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 226.

639 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 113.

640 DTEI, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, p 12.

641 Australian Energy Regulator, 2008, State of the Energy Market 2008, p. 227.

642 Correspondence with Adelaide Energy, 22 January 2010.

643 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, p. 72.

644 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Electricity, p. 12.

645 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 277.

646 APA Group, webpage, http://www.apa.com.au/our-business/gas-transmission-and-distribution/south-australia.aspx, accessed 8 February 2010.

647 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.94.

648 Australian Energy Regulator, 2008, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 271.

649 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 114.

650 Project Link, webpage, http://www.projectlink.com.au/IndustryNews/major-expansion-for-torrens-island-power-station.html, accessed 8 February 2010.

651 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, pp.11-15.

652 Envestra, webpage, http://www.envestra.com.au/about-envestra/history, accessed 8 February 2010.

653 Envestra, webpage, http://www.envestra.com.au/about-envestra/history, accessed 8 February 2010.

654 Envestra, webpage, http://www.envestra.com.au/operational-information/operating-agreement, accessed 8 February 2010.

655 http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/27224/moomba_30_years_on.pdf 656 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.92.

657 Correspondence with Envestra.

658 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.93.

659 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 285.

660 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, pp.11-15.

661 ESCOSA, Monitoring the development of energy retail competition in South Australia.

662 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.123.

663 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.25.

664 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, p. 72.

665 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, p. 72.

666 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, pp. 72-4.

667 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, pp. 72-4.

668 South Australian Energy Supply Industry, 08/09 Annual Performance Report, pp. 128-9.

669 South Australian Energy Supply Industry, 08/09 Annual Performance Report, pp. 128-9.

670 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.62.

671 AEMO, 2009, 2009 Gas Statement of Opportunities for Eastern and South Eastern Australia, pp. 6-41.

672 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. xii.

673 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 308.

674 South Australian Energy Supply Industry, 08/09 Annual Performance Report, p. 8.

675 South Australian Energy Supply Industry, 08/09 Annual Performance Report, p. 59 676 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.60.

677 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.60.

678 AEMO, About AEMO, webpage, http://www.aemo.com.au/aboutaemo.html, accessed 30 September 2009.

679 DTEI, webpage, http://www.energy.sa.gov.au/policy_and_regulation/market_reform/gas_market_reform, accessed 8 February 2010.

680 AEMO, 2009, 2009 Gas Statement of Opportunities for Eastern and South Eastern Australia, pp. 6-39 to 6-41.

681 Epic Energy, webpage, http://www.epicenergy.com.au/index.php?id=32, accessed 8 February 2010.

682 AEMO, 2009, 2009 Gas Statement of Opportunities for Eastern and South Eastern Australia, pp. 5-15.

683 ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 176.

684 Essential Services Commission, 2008, Gas Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2007, p. 33.

206

Appendix D: References

685

Essential Services Commission, 2008, Gas Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2007, p. 33.

ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.96.

687 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, pp. 27-29.

688 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.95.

689 Adapted from ActewAGL, 2009, ActewAGL Gas Network Performance Benchmark Study FY2000–FY2008, p. 39.

690 Adapted from ActewAGL, 2009, ActewAGL Gas Network Performance Benchmark Study FY2000–FY2008, p. 44.

691 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, pp.11-22.

692 South Australian Energy Supply Industry, 08/09 Annual Performance Report, p. 93 693 ActewAGL, 2009, ActewAGL Gas Network Performance Benchmark Study FY2000–FY2008, p. 44.

694 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, p. 22.

695 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, p. 22.

696 DTEI, 2009, Annual Report of the Technical Regulator 2008-09: Gas, p. 22.

697 ESCOSA, 2009, 08/09 Annual Performance Report South Australian Energy Supply Industry, p.93.

698 Australian Energy Regulator, 2009, State of the Energy Market 2009, p. 53.

699 Envestra, 2009, Annual Report 2009, p. 12.

700 Envestra, 2009, Annual Report 2009, p. 12.

701 Bluestone Mt Barker, webpage, News Article, 8 December 2008. http://www.bluestonemtbarker.com.au/news4.html.

702 Engineers Australia, 2007, Telecommunications Infrastructure Report Card, p. 1.

703 ACMA, 2009, Convergence and Communications Report 1, p.8.

704 AMTA, 2008, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Industry: Economic significance and contribution, p. 6.

705 ACMA, 2008, Top Six Trends in Communications and Media Technologies, p. 5.

706 ACMA, 2008, Top Six Trends in Communications and Media Technologies, p. 4.

707 ACMA, 2009, Convergence and Communications Report 2, p.13.

708 Created from Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, National Broadband Network: 21st century broadband webpage, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/national_broadband_network, accessed 16 November 2009.

ACMA, Digital Data Service Obligation webpage, http://www.acma.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_1722, accessed 16 November 2009.

709 ACMA, webpage, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310024, accessed 29 March 2010.

710 ACMA and ACCC, 2008, Communications Infrastructure and Services Availability in Australia, p. 10 711 Information Economy, webpage, http://www.informationeconomy.sa.gov.au/broadband/operational_projects, accessed 22 February 2010.

712 Adapted from Department of Further Education, Employment Science and Technology, 2009, SA Government Submission to the Backhaul Blackspots Initiative, Attachment 1.

713 Image supplied by the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

714 Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 2009, Digital Economy: Future Directions, pp. 4-13.

715 Government of South Australia, 2007, Information and Communication Technology Driving Growth for South Australia, p.13.

716 Government of South Australia, 2004, South Australia’s Broadband Strategy, pp. 3-4.

717 ACMA, Telecommunications Regulation webpage, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_1593, accessed 7 September 2009.

718 Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Historic reforms to telecommunications regulation media release, 15 September 2009, webpage, http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/088, accessed 29 March 2010.

719 Draft legislation was released on 13 September 2009. http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/088 720 These facilities are described in the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997, and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.

721 ACMA, Telecommunications regulation, webpage, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_1593, accessed 7 September 2009.

722 DFEEST, About us webpage, http://www.dfeest.sa.gov.au/AboutDFEEST/tabid/90/Default.aspx, accessed 15 January 2010.

723 Information Economy, webpage, http://www.informationeconomy.sa.gov.au/broadband/broadbandsa, accessed 22 February 2010.

724 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8153.0 - Internet Activity, Australia, Jun 2009, Subscribers by states and territories by ISP size, for ISPs with more than 1,000 active subscribers.

725 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1345.4 - SA Stats, Jan 2010, webpage, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/1345.4~Jan+2010~Main+Features~Demography?OpenDocument, accessed 22 February 2010.

726 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8153.0 - Internet Activity, Australia, Jun 2009, webpage, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/8153.0Jun%202009?OpenDocument, accessed 22 February 2010.

727 Telstra, Telstra to begin LTE trials in May, 18th March 2010, webpage, http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media/announcements_article.cfm?ObjectID=46723, accessed 29 March 2010.

728 NBN Co, First release webpage, http://www.nbnco.com.au/firstreleasesites/first-release-areas.aspx, accessed 10 March 2010.

729 The proposed Act is called Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Act 2010. Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Fibre in Greenfields Estate webpage, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network/fibre_in_greenfield_estates, accessed 4 January 2009.

730 Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 6,000km regional broadband backbone for National Broadband Network media release, 4 December 2009, webpage http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/109, accessed 4 December 2009.

731 Adapted image, image supplied by the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

732 Government of South Australia, Broadband SA, Yorke Peninsula case study, pp. 1-2.

733 Government of South Australia, Broadband SA, Kangaroo Island case study, pp. 1-2.

734 Government of South Australia, Broadband SA, Salisbury case study, pp. 1-2.

735 Government of South Australia, Broadband SA, Coorong. case study, pp. 1-2.

736 Government of South Australia, Broadband SA, Barossa & Light case study, pp. 1-2.

737 SABRENet, webpage, http://www.sabrenet.edu.au/FAQ/where/, accessed 22 February 2010.

738 DTEI, 2005, Strategic Infrastructure Plan, ICT & Communications, http://dtei.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/5191/ict_communications.indd.pdf, accessed 25 February 2010.

739 Image supplied by the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

740 DTEI, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 25.

741 Correspondence with Government ICT Services.

686

207

Appendix D: References

742

SKC Consultancy Report: An Evaluation of The Economic Benefits of Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Deployment, February 2010, sponsored by DTEI and DFEEST. 743 Correspondence with Government ICT Services.

744 ACMA, 2009, Convergence and Communications, p. 9.

745 Based on ADSL Enabled Exchanges report and the Proposed ADSL Enabled Exchanges report produced by Telstra Wholesale as of 1 February 2010, accessed http://www.telstrawholesale.com/products/data/adsl-reports-plans.htm.

746 ACCC & ACMA, 2008, Communications Infrastructure and Services Availability in Australia, p.5.

747 Adapted image supplied by the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

748 Information provided by DBCDE, 10 November 2009.

749 Adapted from Telstra, webpage, http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/networks/coverage/state.html, accessed 22 February 2010.

750 Optus, Optus Dual Band Network Coverage - South Australia, webpage, http://www.optus.com.au/portal/site/aboutoptus/menuitem.cfa0247099a6f722d0b61a108c8ac7a0/?vgnextoid=dcbc10009d82e110Vg nVCM10000002cd780aRCRD, accessed 22 February 2010.

751 Vodafone, webpage, http://maps02.pdslive.com.au/VCATPublic/app, accessed 22 February 2010.

752 Telecommunications Industy Ombudsman, TIO Talks Summer 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Maps, p. 1.

753 Telecommunications Industy Ombudsman, TIO Talks Summer 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Maps, p. 1.

754 Government of South Australia, Broadband SA, Adelaide Metropolitan Broadband Blackspots Project, pp. 1-2.

755 Government of South Australia, Broadband SA, Adelaide Metropolitan Broadband Blackspots Project, pp. 1-2.

756 Adapted from Department of Further Education, Employment Science and Technology, 2009, SA Government Submission to the Backhaul Blackspots Initiative, p. 7.

757 Image supplied by the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

208