The Cook Labor Government says it is listening to Albany on the proposed closure of our reticulated gas network.
Last week, the Government announced it had secured a delay to the decommissioning process until 2027, with Energy Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson saying the additional time would provide “crucial breathing room for families, businesses and the council to assess the best options for their individual energy needs”.
Any additional time for the community to prepare is welcome. But a delay is not the same thing as a plan and right now, Albany still does not have clear answers to some very basic questions.
Last week I received responses to four detailed Questions on Notice I had submitted to the Minister regarding the proposed closure of the network. To be honest, the answers were remarkably thin.
For an issue that could reshape how thousands of Albany homes and businesses access energy, there was very little detail about the Government’s own due diligence or independent assessment.
Again and again, the Government refers to an $80 million figure to replace the network. Yet as far as anyone can tell, that figure comes from ATCO’s own public media statement.
There has been no publicly released independent engineering assessment. No detailed modelling and no transparent explanation of how that number was reached.
That should concern every person in Albany.
ATCO is a private, foreign-owned company making a commercial decision. That is its right.
But the Government’s role is supposed to be protecting the interests of the community, not simply accepting a corporation’s position at face value and moving directly to managing the shutdown.
The Government says it wants Albany to have “reliable, affordable and sustainable energy options into the future”. But where is the evidence showing this transition will actually deliver that outcome?
Where is the modelling showing what happens to Albany’s electricity demand when thousands of homes begin replacing gas hot water systems, heating and cooking appliances with electric alternatives? Where are the plans for substations, transformers and feeder upgrades?
How will the network cope during winter evenings when everyone comes home and switches on heating, cooking and hot water systems at the same time?
At this stage, the community has seen very few answers.
What has also frustrated many people is the way the issue has sometimes been framed publicly.
Comments suggesting households will simply transition “a few appliances at a time” understate the reality facing many families. We are not talking about replacing a lamp. We are talking about major household systems that use significant amounts of power and cost thousands of dollars to replace. For many households already dealing with rising living costs, that is a very real concern.
There is also a broader economic issue here that cannot be ignored.
At the Government’s own Budget Briefing Breakfast in Albany last week, Ministers spoke extensively about industry development, manufacturing, value-adding and regional infrastructure investment but many industrial and manufacturing processes rely heavily on gas for high temperature heat requirements.
You cannot simultaneously promote regional manufacturing while removing an entire energy system from a regional city without clearly explaining what replaces it.
The Government also continues to highlight the $1.8 million allocation to support the wider Albany community transition. However, Budget Papers show approximately $676,000 has already been spent and no explanation on what.
Yet despite the spending announcements, Albany residents still do not know what the total transition cost will be, what impact this will have on the electricity network, whether staged upgrades were seriously considered or whether shutting the network down is genuinely the least-cost option.
The Government frequently points back to the original privatisation of the network years ago and who was to blame.
But looking backwards does not solve the problem Albany faces today.
What matters now is whether the Government is prepared to independently scrutinise the information it has been given, properly assess the alternatives and stand up for Albany’s long-term interests because this is not a small policy change. This is the proposed removal of an entire energy system from a regional city and before that happens, Albany deserves far more than unanswered questions and one-line responses.