Contact Energy’s $2.8 million benefit fund for those impacted by its proposed Southland wind farm has been called "not anywhere near a substantial fund" for the community — a comment backed by the panel overseeing the approval of the project.
Contact Energy has hit back, boosting the fund to nearly $4 million and saying it was futile to keep negotiating with a group opposed to the project.
The final decision over whether the wind farm development at Slopedown, near Wyndham, will be granted, with conditions, is expected to be released by the three-person panel tomorrow.
The panel was set up under Covid-19 fast track legislation.
It had drafted a set of conditions and sought comment from submitters.
A minute by the panel released last week, after submissions were reviewed by the panel, said some agreement had been reached.
But there remained "what appear to be insurmountable difficulties" in several key areas between submitters and Contact Energy.
Those areas include wetland protection, lizard and invertebrate conservation, landscape and amenity preservation.
The company planned community benefit fund, would provide an initial contribution of $100,000 and a minimum of $50,000 per year — indexed for inflation — during construction and operation of the project.
It will also contribute an additional $200 per year for every MW over 200MW generated.
The fund was expected to return about $2.8m to the local community over the expected project life of 30 years.
"The panel agrees this sum could not be seen as anything anywhere near a ‘substantial’ fund for the community, given their feedback about the long term adverse effects (over several generations) and the expected profit from the project over its life," the panel wrote in the minute.
The panel also questioned Contact Energy around what it would do about compensation for loss of property values, community consultation undertaken, shifting of turbines, tree planting and paying for double glazing at some properties close to turbines.
It also asked Contact whether it was taking an all-or-nothing approach as to whether it might be willing to move or reduce the number of turbines.
Contact Energy disagreed that the project would cause "insurmountable difficulties" pointing to what it described as a game-changing package of environmental measures, and a boosted community fund of nearly $4m.
"Contact vehemently disagrees with that categorisation and it is greatly surprised by the panel’s assertion in this regard.
"Such an assertion is new, and Contact refutes it, given the very thorough work done to provide additional information and make amendments and concessions to the project to address concerns raised," Contact wrote in a minute.
It questioned whether the panel had been engaging with and digesting the information Contact had provided throughout this process.
Contact speculated in the minute whether the panel had fully appreciated or been respectful of the fact that the mana whenua considered there to be no such difficulties.
It also questioned whether the panel took into account the Department of Conservation (Doc) lack of outstanding concerns regarding the project over ecological effects and local authorities had a degree of comfort with the project.
Contact queried whether the panel had evaluated some peer reviewers whose comments on the proposal were allegedly made without the benefit of any real knowledge of the site or having carried out a primary assessment of the project.
Contact said the project would bring about long-term benefits for biodiversity over thousands of hectares.
Contact and Doc’s experts said they had devised a game-changing package of measures that would benefit a wide range of native species and other natural values.
This package included Contact providing the long-term funding for the enhancement of 10,000ha of bird and bat habitat at the Beresford Range in the Catlins.
The power company said it could drop a maximum of six turbines before the project became unprofitable.
Contact said it was prepared to increase the money put into the community fund, rising to $3,787,500 across 35 years.
It pointed out there were only 30 dwellings within 5km of the wind farm.
Contact said working through concerns as deep-seated as those raised by the preservation society was often futile and just led to more opposition to the project.
