Coal Action Network Aotearoa's Jeanette Fitzsimons said Fonterra was trying to get as many consents as possible because soon a regional authority would not consent to Fonterra's increasing use of coal.
"Do you know why they want the consents in hand? Because they jolly well know that in another five years' time nobody is going to get consent for big new coal plants.
"Climate change is proceeding so fast they want to have it in their pocket before the regulatory system tightens and they're not allowed to build new coal plants.''
Environment Canterbury and the Waimate District Council received applications for resource consents to expand the capacity of the existing milk-processing plant in Studholme, 24km north of the Waitaki River, late last year.
Fonterra applied to build two dryers with associated discharge stacks, two additional coal-fired boilers and new powder-dry storage buildings.
Last week, in its right of reply to evidence submitted during the one-week consent hearing, Fonterra changed its application to include only the first of two stages of its original proposal.
The new proposal would include only one additional dryer and one additional boiler, effectively halving the production capacity of the proposed expansion at Studholme.
Ms Fitzsimons said "they got half the way there, now they have to go the other half''.
"The idea of building a big new coal plant of any kind now ... it's just outrageous. They're just thumbing their nose at climate change and the lives of future generations.''
She questioned the company's plans considering the state of dairy payouts and, like other submitters during the hearing, she questioned whether an expanded plant would promote further dairying in the wider Canterbury and Otago regions.
"There isn't enough milk for those boilers. You would need another 550,000 cows to provide milk for those two boilers and where are they going to go?
"I think they've recognised that there is absolutely no chance for having enough for two boilers, but they are still hanging on to hope that there might be enough for one. There isn't going to be.
"There is no evidence it [the dairy payout] is going to go up to the level that would incentivise more cows.''
Fonterra Environmental Manager Ian Goldschmidt disputed Ms Fitzsimons' claim that Fonterra wanted to collect consents.
Under current law, Fonterra was required to "pick up'' all the milk its farmers produced, he said.
While nationally milk growth was projected to slow over the next five years, in South Canterbury milk production was projected to grow and all Fonterra was doing was preparing for that growth, Mr Luxmoore said.
"All we're doing is covering ourselves. If we didn't, we would be in breach of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001.
"We have consents all over the country so we can be agile and quick if dairy volumes spike. We get them well in advance because you never know when you will get flush.''
If South Island milk volumes grew as expected in the coming years, Fonterra would investigate other locations suitable for development.
Fonterra's global operations managing director, Robert Spurway, said if Fonterra received consent to build a new dryer, the company's aim was to replace up to 20% of its coal with biomass.
"While cost and security of supply will always be considerations when looking at day-to-day volumes of biomass burned, this 20% figure is a target that we intend to meet whenever possible.''
University of Otago zoology professor Liz Slooten, who gave expert evidence during the hearing on the proposed plant's ocean outfall, said Fonterra's new stance could mean an expanded plant would produce half the pollutants the public was previously advised about: rather than a 10-fold increase in production of pollutants it could be a five-fold increase.
"Times five is better than times 10, but you are still talking about a very large amount of water, therefore a very large amount of a mixture of pathogens and toxins,'' Prof Slooten said.
"On the positive side, I am thinking, ‘Oh wow. This actually had some effect, that Fonterra is actually responding by saying all right, we'll cut it back by half.'
"On the other hand, I was surprised that the hearing went ahead at all given the economic situation and the dairy prices.''
She said there was still an incomplete understanding of the proposed discharge into the sea and its impact on habitat for dolphins and fish.
