Upload
engineers-australia
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
South Australia‘s infrastructure is stressed. Improvements and additions are necessary to meet our current or anticipated future needs. 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.
Citation preview
www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ircsa
South Australia Infrastructure Report Card 2010
ISBN 978-0858259546 © 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
Communiqué ............................................................................................................... i
Ratings summary ...................................................................................................... v
Overview..................................................................................................................... 1
Rating process .......................................................................................................................... 1
State-wide issues ...................................................................................................................... 2
Cross sector challenges ............................................................................................................ 3
Transport .................................................................................................................... 7
1 Roads .................................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................13
1.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................14
1.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................19
1.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................23
1.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................24
2 Rail ......................................................................................................................... 25
2.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................25
2.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................25
2.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................36
2.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................39
2.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................40
3 Ports ...................................................................................................................... 41
3.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................41
3.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................41
3.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................51
3.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................52
3.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................52
4 Airports ................................................................................................................. 53
4.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................53
4.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................53
4.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................60
4.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................63
4.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................63
Water ........................................................................................................................ 65
5 Potable water ........................................................................................................ 71
5.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................71
5.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................71
5.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................81
5.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................84
5.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................85
Contents
6 Wastewater ............................................................................................................ 87
6.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 87
6.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................... 87
6.3 Performance ................................................................................................................... 95
6.4 Future challenges ........................................................................................................... 99
6.5 Report Card rating .......................................................................................................... 99
7 Stormwater .......................................................................................................... 101
7.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 101
7.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 101
7.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 110
7.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 112
7.5 Report Card rating ........................................................................................................ 113
8 Irrigation .............................................................................................................. 115
8.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 115
8.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 115
8.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 122
8.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 122
8.5 Report Card rating ........................................................................................................ 123
Energy .................................................................................................................... 125
9 Electricity ............................................................................................................ 129
9.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 129
9.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 130
9.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 143
9.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 148
9.5 Report Card Rating ....................................................................................................... 149
10 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
i
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
Communiqué
ii
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 SA 2010 SA 2005 National
2005
National
2001
Roads Overall
National roads
State roads
Local roads
C-
C
C
D
Not rated
C
C-
D
C
C+
C
C-
Not rated
C
C-
D
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+ Overall
B+ Transmission
A- Distribution
B+ LP Gas
C+ C
Telecommunications C Not rated Not rated B
Communiqué
iii
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.
Communiqué
iv
v
RATINGS SUMMARY
The following summarises the South Australian Infrastructure Report Card ratings.
Infrastructure Type Grade Comment
Roads Overall
National roads
State roads
Local roads
C-
C
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.
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.
1
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.
Overview
2
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
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
Gross State Product 2008/09 2009/10
Forecast
2010/11
Projection
2011/12
Projection
2012/13
Projection
Yearly change 1.4% -0.5% 2.25% 3.25% 3.25%
a 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.
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
2045
2047
2049
2051
Mill
ion
s
Overview
3
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
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.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1988-8
9
1989-9
0
1990-9
1
1991-9
2
1992-9
3
1993-9
4
1994-9
5
1995-9
6
1996-9
7
1997-9
8
1998-9
9
1999-0
0
2000-0
1
2001-0
2
2002-0
3
2003-0
4
2004-0
5
2005-0
6
2006-0
7
2007-0
8
2008-0
9
Popula
tio
n n
orm
alis
ed in
dex (
Aus 1
988
-89 B
ase)
Overview
4
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
Overview
5
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
quality.b
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.
Overview
6
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.
7
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 2003-
2018 (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.
Transport
8
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
Transport
9
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
Transport
10
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 State-
owned 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.
Transport
11
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
Transport
12
13
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.
Transport
14
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.
Roads
15
Table 1.1: State managed roads in SA, as of February 200716
Road category Road length (km)
Sealed Unsealed DTEI total
National highway 2,751 0 2,751
Urban arterial 920 0 920
Urban local 22 0 22
Rural arterial 8,565 48 8,613
Rural local 117 10,075 10,192
Total 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 Centre18
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 Sealed (km) Formed (km) Unformed (km) Roads total Bridges
State Total 17,562 48,289 9,082 74,933 869
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($) Total($)
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
Total 104,127,211 18,375,000 122,502,211
Transport
16
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)
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 (%)
1989/90 1432056 12.86 1090526 7.86
1990/91 1446299 12.86 -1.0 1092462 7.90 0.3
1991/92 1456512 12.98 0.2 1094398 8.06 1.8
1992/93 1460674 13.29 2.1 1096334 8.31 2.9
1993/94 1466138 13.57 1.7 1098270 8.55 2.7
1994/95 1469429 13.91 2.3 1100206 8.88 3.7
1995/96 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.
Roads
17
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
AusLink in its land transport infrastructure funding program with the term Nation Building Program.c
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
maintenance programs.30
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
local governments received $142 million for the period July 2009 to 30 June 2014.31
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
projects announced in March 2009 totalled over $17 million.32
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 multi-
modal 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 intersection35
c The name change was announced at the Special Council of Australian Governments meeting on 5 February 2009.
Transport
18
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 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Nominal Travel Speed
(Urban): Weighted aggregate
speed on a representative
sample of arterial roads and
freeways in major cities
(assuming vehicles travel at
the posted speed limit)
(km/hr)
63.8 63.1 63.9 63.8 63.8 63.7 72.6 62.6
All Day Actual Travel Speed
(Urban): Weighted aggregate
speed on a representative
sample of arterial roads and
freeways in major cities
(km/hr)
44.4 42.4 42.0 42.4 42.0 40.8 40.8 39.9
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
(%)
10.8 12.5 12.1 10.7 10.5 11.1 11.8 11.9
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)
0.44 0.47 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.52 0.52 0.55
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
Roads
19
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) Average annual traffic growth
(% per annum between 2005 and
2030)
Light vehicles Heavy vehicles All vehicles
State/
Corridor
Length
(km)
2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 Light
vehicles
Heavy
vehicles
All
vehicles
SA 2,724.2 1,966 2 526 421 442 2 388 2 968 1.01 0.20 0.87
Sydney -
Adelaide
984.0 2 779 3 405 646 708 3 426 4 113 0.8 0.4 0.7
Melbourne
- Adelaide
700.4 6 234 10 376 1 577 1 911 7 811 12 287 2.1 0.8 1.8
Adelaide -
Perth
2 666.9 1 149 1 476 348 337 1 497 1 813 1.0 -0.1 0.8
Adelaide -
Darwin
2 697.9 599 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
black spots.‖41
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.
Transport
20
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
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
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Index: B
ase Y
ear
= 1
998
Year
Fatalies per capita
Fatalities per vehicle kilometre
Roads
21
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.
1.3.2 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
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.
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
2000/0
1
2001/0
2
2002/0
3
2003/0
4
2004/0
5
2005/0
6
2006/0
7
2007/0
8
% le
ss than 4
.2 IR
I
Urban
Rural
Transport
22
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
Shifting transport towards low greenhouse emission modes.51
Roads
23
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:
Transport
24
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 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
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.
25
2 Rail
2.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Rail 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
Transport
26
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
Rail
27
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
The heavy rail passenger network consists of six lines and 8455
stations as shown in Figure 2.2. It
has a total length of 120km of train line.56
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
Transport
28
The metropolitan heavy rail passenger network is part of the Adelaide Metro, which is a multi-
modal 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
TransAdelaide in 2007/08.58
TransAdelaide‘s contract for the provision of services expired on 24
April 2010.59
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:
Replacing the windows for the entire 3000 and 3100 class rail fleet – comprising 70 rail cars61
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
serviced by five H-class historic trams and 11 Flexity trams62
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
Crystal Brook to Broken Hill on the Adelaide – Sydney Corridord (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
urban lines and a dual gauge spur line from Dry Creek to Port Adelaide and Outer Harbor63 e
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 This corridor runs from Dry Creek intermodal terminal (Adelaide) - Crystal Brook -Broken Hill – Parkes - Forbes - Stockinbingal -
Cootamundra - Goulburn - Chullora intermodal terminal (Sydney). e 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.
Rail
29
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
operating in January 2004.65
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,
gypsum and mineral sands, and short haul shunting and terminal operations.66
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.
GWA owns the above ground rail infrastructure and rolling stock.67
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.
GWA has approximately 200 employees, 77 locomotives, and 575 wagons.68
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
rise to an average annual harvest of 2.6 million tonnes by 2030.69
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
Transport
30
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.
Upgrades to grain handling facilities/rail interface at key port and up-country silo sites.70
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
Flinders) leases the 250km Port Augusta to Leigh Creek rail line from the SA Government. 71
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
Augusta for Alinta Energy Group.72
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
2006,73
with an expectation that the Whyalla Steelworks will continue operation until 2027.74
GWA
is the contracted service operator for the railway.75
Transfield Services provides maintenance
services and capital works for railway civil, track and signals infrastructure within the OneSteel,
Whyalla Steelworks and rail tracks running from the iron ore mines to the steelworks.76
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
Goolwa and Port Elliot to the tourist resort town of Victor Harbor.77
Pichi Richi Railway, which operates steam and diesel train services on the oldest remaining
section of the narrow-gauge old Ghan railway, departing from Quorn and Port Augusta.78
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:
Wolseley to Mt. Gambier broad gauge line79
Broad gauge line linking the port at Wallaroo and the interstate rail network near Snowtown80
Eyre Peninsula narrow gauge grain lines.
Rail
31
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
annum.82
Table 2.2: Passenger growth, 2004/05 to 2008/09 (millions of passengers)83
Service 2003/0484
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Growth over the
last year (%)
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%
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 re-
sleepering, with patrons preferring not to use the substitute bus services.85
Table 2.3 Passenger growth on selected rail lines (millions of passengers)86
Train line 2007/08 2008/09 Change Growth over the last year (%)
Outer Harbor 2,477,196 2 482 746 5 500 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
Mineral sands between the Bemax siding at Kanandah (Broken Hill) and Port Pirie.87
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.
Transport
32
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
some 83% was containerised and 17% bulk. 89
2.2.2 Policy and governance
South Australia’s Strategic Plan, released in 2004 and updated in 2007, identifies that the objective
for infrastructure is to facilitate economic growth and productivity improvement.90
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
rail‖.91
A key transport priority is to shift passenger and freight movements to rail, where justified by
environmental, economic or social imperatives.92
The target for public transport is to increase its
use to 10% of metropolitan weekday passenger vehicle kilometres travelled by 2018.93
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
Increase the use of lower emission and renewable fuels and technologies.94
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
Rail
33
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
Rail Access Regime.95
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)
Code.96
Rail Safety Act 2007. This Act establishes a safety regulatory regime for all rail owners and
operators in SA.97
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
Electrification of major rail lines (25kV AC overhead traction power system)98
New and upgraded rail and light rail vehicles
A new ticketing system.99
Detailed initiatives include:
Extending the existing Noarlunga line by 5.5km to Seaford (to be completed in 2013)100
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
lines.102
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
service beginning to operate in 2013.103
Electrification of the Belair line is not proposed at this
time,104
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.
Upgrading of interchange, station and Park ‗n‘ Ride infrastructure105
Relocating the railcar depot and constructing the Seaford Railcar Facility106
Transport
34
The conversion of 58107
railcars to full electric operation. A number of diesel railcars will be
retained in use to service the non-electrified Belair line.108
Procurement of new electric rail cars, trams and tram-train (dual-voltage) vehicles
Introduction of a new integrated ticketing system109
Purchasing new trams (six new trams will be delivered over 2009/10).110
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
developments.111
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
east and iron ore mining on the Eyre Peninsula.112
Historically, the ARTC has based its growth forecasts on historical rates of demand growth plus 1%
to 2%, and a broad continuation of historical rail market share.113
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
Continued rising demand for other Australian minerals.114
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
Rail
35
There are two developments that will affect rail volumes in SA. Firstly, it is expected that sea trade
between the east and west will increase, taking some freight traffic away from rail.116
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
freight point of origin and destination is expected to grow at a faster rate than Adelaide.117
Improvements in the East-West Rail Corridor
The ATRC funds infrastructure investments on its networks based on market need. As the East-
West 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
investments to keep up track performance, ride quality and speed.118
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
points, reducing transit time and fuel consumption.119
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
ARTC has proposed that this be completed by 2015.120
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
projects are not economically justifiable within the next 15 years.121
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
to wheel squeal,f 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.
Transport
36
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
80kmh, and on the Adelaide - Perth corridor, approximately 70kmh.122
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
minutes of their published timetable time. The target is 93%.123
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
Police operations, fatalities and bushfires.124
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.
Rail
37
Table 2.5: Service reliability for TransAdelaide trains and tram services, 2004/05 to 2008/09
Year 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%
2.3.2 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
reliability target of 55% for the corridor.126
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
scheduled opportunities are taken up, according to the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study.127
The study states that this line has sufficient capacity for at least 10 to 15 years.128
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
trains from Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Whyalla, Broken Hill, Port Pirie and Darwin.129
On the Sydney – Adelaide Corridor, there is sufficient capacity to meet current demand levels with
track utilisation below 50% across the corridor. 130
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
systems.131
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
network. About 100km of track between Tarcoola and Alice Springs consists of light 40kg/m rail132
(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.
Transport
38
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 NSW Qld WA Tas Vic NT SA Total
January 2001 –
June 2009
0.90 0.96 0.82 10.20 0.53 1.61 1.27 0.91
2.3.2 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
measures and 708 have passive protection.134
There have been 81 road vehicle collisions at SA
level crossings between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2009.135
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
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
at 34 high risk rail level crossing sites across SA. Work on the upgrades started in mid 2009.137
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
phones at all major interchanges.138
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.
Currently, transport sector emissions account for almost 20% of total State emissions.139
Rail
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2001 J
an-J
un
2001 J
ul-D
ec
2002 J
an-J
un
2002 J
ul-D
ec
2003 J
an-J
un
2003 J
ul-D
ec
2004 J
an-J
un
2004 J
ul-D
ec
2005 J
an-J
un
2005 J
ul-D
ec
2006 J
an-J
un
2006 J
ul-D
ec
2007 J
an-J
un
2007 J
ul-D
ec
2008 J
an-J
un
2008 J
ul-D
ec
2009 J
an-J
un
Road v
ehic
le c
olli
sio
ns a
t le
vel cro
ssin
gs
per
mill
ion tra
in k
m tra
velle
d
SA
National average
Rail
39
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
Performance indicator 2009/10
target
2008/09
estimated result
2008/09
targeted
2007/08
actual
Percentage of metropolitan weekday
passenger vehicle travel on public transport
7.9% 7.3% 7.7% 7.3%
2.4 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
public transport infrastructure improvements outlined in the Plan.141
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.
Transport
40
2.5 Report Card rating
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Rail 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:
A rail system that is antiquated, such as sleepers dating back to the 1950s142
Decades of under-investment in rail
Multi-gauge network owned and managed by different agencies
Inadequate rail connections to ports and intermodal facilities.
41
3 Ports
3.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Ports 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
national transport system. It does not cover local ports,g 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.
Transport
42
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
ports.144
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
Remove future risks to government from commercial competition in ports business.145
Ports
43
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,
particularly Melbourne.147
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
Adelaide is the only SA port with regular container shipping services.148
The container terminal is
owned 60% by DP World and 40% by Flinders Ports, and the business has operating rights to the
terminal, granted by Flinders Ports, until 2039.149
The container terminal is operated by DP
World.150
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
the port, and an increase in the frequency of container shipping services calling at the port.151
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,
increased storage space and improved intermodal connections.152
Figure 3.2 shows the port of
Adelaide.
Transport
44
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)
Building a 20,000m2 warehouse for Constellation Wines Australia (formerly the Hardy Wine
Company) ($15 million).154
Ports
45
In 2006, Flinders Ports and the State Government jointly funded a $45 million deepening of the
shipping channel into Outer Harbor.155
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
the train by 50% to just 150m.156
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
environmental systems.157
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
fertilisers. Port Lincoln is a natural deepwater harbour.159
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
Tension between commercial port operations and fishing industry needs.160
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
Transport
46
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
Encourage recreational fishing away from the main wharf.161
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
Building a new shiploader on Berth 4.162
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
seven years. Once the mine is exhausted, the infrastructure may be disposed of.163
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
Panamax-sized vessels to use the port and to depart fully loaded.164
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,
making it the second largest multi-user port in SA.165
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
Limited ship loader reach.166
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.
Ports
47
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
investment to be paid by user surcharges.168
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
in 2009,169
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
dry bulk commodities.170
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
from the Cooper Basin. It has a 2.4 kilometre jetty.171
The existing port infrastructure cannot be
used for bulk commodities, such as iron ore.172
Transport
48
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
shipping matters.173
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
transport and harbour activities.174
The SA Government is active in ensuring that appropriate zoning and land banking occurs at Port
Adelaide so that there is sufficient land around the port for future developments.175
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
because it considers that a second operator will not be viable for a lesser volume.176
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
Giles, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Wallaroo, Thevenard and Ardossan.177
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
Essential Services Commission of SA (ESCOSA) monitors them.h 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.
Ports
49
Table 3.2: Cargo throughput in mass tonnes178
Port 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
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 526,052 462,579 332,010 315,784 587,025
Thevenard 1,783,654 1,937,726 1,808,629 2,058,598 1,999,638
Klein Point 2,049,272 1,866,091 2,153,628 1,910,079 1,425,748
Total 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) Export (mass tonnes) Total throughput Cruise vessel visits
Port Adelaide 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
Wallaroo 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
Total 5,848,443 10,356,565 16,205,008 23
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
billion. China was SA‘s largest export market by volume and this is principally iron ore exports.180
Figure 3.3 shows exports by ports.
Figure 3.3: Exports from SA ports from 2004/05 - 2008/09 (million tonnes)181
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.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Whyalla
Wallaroo
Bonython
Adelaide
Thevenard
Port Pirie
Port Lincoln
Other SA Ports
Transport
50
Figure 3.4: Projected containerised exports and imports for Port Adelaide182
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
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Th
ousands o
f T
EU
s
Total TEUs ('000)
Linear (Total TEUs ('000))
Ports
51
Currently, SA does not have any bulk loading facilities for iron ore except for OneSteel‘s privately
operated loading facility at Whyalla, which is unavailable to third parties.184
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
the northern mines cannot access it.185
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
Rating port performance is difficult as each has different infrastructure, and cargo to handle.186
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
have greater economies of scale.187
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.
Transport
52
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 SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Ports 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.
53
4 Airports
4.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Airports 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
Minor airports and airstrips.188
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.
Transport
54
Table 4.1: Passenger statistics for SA’s airports (total revenue passengers)189
Airport 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Average yearly growth
2005/06 to 2008/09 (%)
Adelaide 5,766,504 6,181,390 6,619,267 6,784,137 6%
Ceduna 17,287 20,677 23,827 24,899 15%
Coober Pedy 8,465 10,548 10,345 9,744 5%
Kingscote 60,252 59,155 63,985 59,587 0%
Mount Gambier 102,121 109,435 115,365 98,247 -1%
Olympic Dam 37,112 57,639 74,099 76,118 35%
Port Augusta 3,953 4,987 4,690 9,104 43%
Port Lincoln 138,547 138,844 149,544 148,435 2%
Whyalla 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 Change
2004/05 2005/06 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%
Value (Fob $m)
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%
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 Change between
2007/08 and
2008/09 (%)
Change last
11 years
(%)
Domestic* 3,379,118 5,331,421 5,694,184 5,861,220 2.9% 73.5%
International** 258,488 495,663 541,856 543,222 0.3% 110.2%
Regional 366,325 473,409 546,177 531,461 -2.7% 45.1%
Total passengers 4,003,931 6,300,493 6,782,217 6,935,903 2.3% 73.2%
*Includes Domestic on Carriage, ** Includes Transits
Airports
55
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
Adelaide Airport is the first of three airportsi 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.
Transport
56
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
completed by mid 2010. 201
The Council also submitted an unsuccessful application for a new
terminal building to the Federal Government‘s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure
Program. No decision has yet been made on the future of this redevelopment. 202
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.
Airports
57
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
Transport
58
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,
if any, influence off-airport.212
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
of aviation operations.214
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.
Airports
59
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The ACCC is responsible for
monitoring financial and service quality at five capital city airports, including Adelaide Airport.
4.2.3 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
Transport
60
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
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
61
4.3.2 On-time arrivals
Only one SA airport is monitored for punctuality and reliability by the Bureau of Infrastructure,
Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), as displayed in Table 4.5.j
Table 4.5: On-time arrivals and departments for 2009222
Airport Percentage On-time Arrivals Percentage On-time Departures
Adelaide 89.8 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
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).k 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
Limiting liquids, aerosols and gels on international flights.l
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
and covert closed-circuit television (CCTV) security cameras.224
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.
Transport
62
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
Airports
63
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 long-
term 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 SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Airports 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.
Transport
64
Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:
Limitations to the use Adelaide Airport because of curfew arrangements
Financial challenges in maintaining appropriate infrastructure at some smaller regional airports.
65
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
Water
66
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
resources management.m
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.
Water
67
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.
Water
68
SA’s water consumption
SA uses about 1200GL/year of water from all sources.n 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
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 non-
potable 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.
63%17%
8%
7%5% Residential
Primary Production
Industrial
Commercial
Other
Water
69
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
Water
70
71
5 Potable water
5.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Potable water B B- Metropolitan
C Non-metropolitan
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.
Water
72
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 non-
drought 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
Potable water
73
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
Water
74
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:
Potable water
75
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 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Volume delivered (ML) - Adelaide 165,640 150,504 156,014 139,352 138,300
Average daily volume delivered (ML) -
Adelaide
454 426 427 381 378
Estimated population served - Adelaide 1,079,000 1,087,000 1,095,000 1,103,000 1,117,000
Consumption per person per year (KL)
- Adelaide
153.5 138.5 142.5 126.3 123.8
Volume delivered (ML) - Country 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
Volume delivered (ML) - State 251,347 234,159 245,586 218,965 218,200
Estimated population served - State 1,473,000 1,484,000 1,495,000 1,506,000 1,525,000
Consumption per person per year (KL)
-State
170.6 157.8 164.3 145.4 143.1
Water
76
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 long-
term 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 watering283
1 July 2009 – Enhanced Level 3 Restrictions apply to Eyre Peninsula284
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
Potable water
77
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)
Price increases in real terms (inflation adjusted)
(charges apply on 1 July at the end of the period)
2007/08291
2008/09292
2009/10293
2010/11294
Increase (%) 3.3 12.7 17.9 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 consumption295
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
*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
ACTEW **
Brisbane ***
Sydney
Australian average*
Melbourne CWW
Adelaide
Perth
Hunter
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700$
Water
78
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 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
60.637 78.568 109.296 154.081 536.000 710 464 207 479
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 1892-
2006. The average over the long term was 177GL/year but in the last 10 years, the average was
36% less at 113GL/year.
Potable water
79
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.
Major augmentation versus micro-solutions. Investments can be focused on a few large-
scale investments, such as desalination plants, or on numerous small-scale investments, such
as household rainwater tanks.
Water
80
Rainfall-dependent versus manufactured water supplies. Most water is derived from rainfall-
dependent 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
potable water for higher value uses such as washing and cooking.309
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
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.
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$/k
L
Potable water
81
Figure 5.8: Comparative cost of supply options (net present value (NPV) per GL over 40 years312
* 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
5.3 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
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
metro 1.1
country 1.9316
Figure 5.10 shows the number of unplanned interruptions to water supply services per 1,000
properties, excluding failures in customers‘ water service pipes.
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Demand Management
Permanent Purchase River
Murray
Mt Lofty Storage Greenfield Stormwater
Recycle
Greenfield Wastewater
Recycle
NP
V (
$m
illio
n/G
L)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Now 2013 2025 2050
Volu
me (
GL)
Groundwater
Recycled wastewater
Recycled stormwater
Desalination
Reservoirs
River Murray
Water
82
Figure 5.10: Number of properties with greater than or equal to 3 unplanned water interruptions per year 317
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.
22051848
2830
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Target
Potable water
83
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
Country
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
% interruptions responded to within 1 hour 77.6 57 61.9 95 93.5
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
Water
84
Figure 5.13: E. coli compliance at metropolitan and country supply system customer taps since 2002 (customer tap
samples free from E. coli):327
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.
Desalination water typically generates 6.52kg of carbon dioxide per cubic metre of water.330
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
99.85 99.9 99.95 100
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Compliance %
Report
ing P
erio
dMetropolitan
County
Potable water
85
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 SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Potable water B B- Metropolitan
C Non-metropolitan
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.
Water
86
87
6 Wastewater
6.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Wastewater B- C+ Metropolitan
C- Non-metropolitan
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,
Water
88
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 build-
up 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 Not
available
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
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
Adelaide
Number of wastewater treatment
plants
3 4 4 4 4
Length of sewers (km) 6,973 7,025 7,070 7,099 7,147
Country
Number of wastewater treatment
plants
19 19 20 20 19
Length of sewers 1,341 1,358 1,384 1,402 1,418
Wastewater
89
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,
flocculation and filtration.342
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 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
45.510 30.639 30.915 36.950 142.798 182 172 121 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
Water
90
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
such as woodlots, turf growing and flowers.352
Wastewater
91
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.
Figure 6.1: Metropolitan WWTPs recycling percentage354
Figure 6.2 shows the growth in recycling for country WWTPs.
Figure 6.2: Annual Country WWTPs recycling percentage355
The major wastewater reuse projects in SA are:
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
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Perc
ent A
nnual R
euse
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Perc
ent A
nnual R
euse
Water
92
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 2009/10 2010/11
Metropolitan 0% -0.5% 0% 0% 0.8%
Regional 0% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.3%
Figure 6.3 provides a comparison of sewerage bills by city.
Wastewater
93
Figure 6.3: Annual sewerage bill comparison (annual water consumption 250 kL) for 2008/09365
Trade waste pollutant charges are typically based on total Kjeldahlp nitrogen (TKN), inorganic total
dissolved solids (ITDS),q 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).
$433.51
$443.82
$447.12
$469.32
$475.54
$480.31
$520.19
$534.06
Hunter
ACTEW
Adelaide
Melbourne (CWW)
Australian Ave
Sydney
Perth
Brisbane
Water
94
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.
Wastewater
95
Figure 6.4: Salinity of local water supply and treated wastewater in SA Water wastewater treatment plants378
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
Responsiveness to service failures, notably sewer spills and chokes379
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
Metropolitan
Chokes in sewer mains per 100km of main 53 53 66 58 54.9
Chokes in sewer mains per 1000 customers 8 7.9 9.8 8.4 8.05
Chokes in property connections per 1000
customers
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
Wastewater overflows reported, % attended
within 4 hours
100 100 100 100 100
Country
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
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Heath
fie
ld
Gum
era
cha
Myponga
Hahndorf
Birkenhead
Christie
s B
each
Angastio
n
Mill
icent
Port
Augusta
W
est
Mannum
Nangw
arr
y
Boliv
ar
Vic
tor
Harb
or
Gle
nelg
Murr
ay B
rid
ge
Nara
coort
e
Port
Lin
coln
Port
Augusta
East
Whyalla
To
tal D
issolv
ed S
olid
s (
mg/L
) Treated wastewater
Potable water
Water
96
Performance measure* 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
% internal overflows responded to within one
hour
N/A N/A N/A 92 100
* Targets are not available from SA Water.381
From a national perspective SA Water‘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 Water‘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.
Wastewater
97
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
SA Water‘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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Total Type 1 Environmental Incidents
Total Type 2 Environmental Incidents
Total
Water
98
Table 6.9: SA Water’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
Country
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
Treated wastewater suspended solids
(activated sludge/extended aeration) (mg/L)
5 17 4 4 3 na
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
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
To
nn
es p
er
an
num
Wastewater
99
Figure 6.9: Phosphorus in Country Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges to inland waters (Tonnes per annum:
1996/97 to 2008/09)390
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
economy, the cost of recycled water is likely to increase by 20%.391
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 SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Wastewater B- C+ Metropolitan
C- Non-metropolitan
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
To
nnes p
er
annum
Water
100
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.
101
7 Stormwater
7.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Stormwater 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
Water
102
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.
Stormwater
103
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 Number of buildings that would be
affected by an 1 in 100 year ARI
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 8
Total in Adelaide and surrounds 7,400 Buildings
Other areas of SA 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
Water
104
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 reservoir‘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 Harvest volume (Ml/year)
Adams Creek Springbank Park Salisbury 600
Kaurna Park Salisbury 600
Edinburgh Parks South Salisbury 1,360
Dry Creek 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
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 80
Various Private Schemes Various 400
Total 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
Stormwater
105
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 sub-
catchments. 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
Water
106
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
Stormwater
107
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
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
Potential Harvest 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
Water
108
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:
Stormwater
109
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
Water
110
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 years444 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 Design life
Stormwater pipes
Lined channels
Stormwater sumps
Manholes
Dams
Weir structures
Gross pollutant traps
Retarding basins
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.
Stormwater
111
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 Total nitrogen (tonnes) Percentage source
of total nitrogen (%)
Particulates (tonnes) Percentage source
of particulates (%)
WWTP 1204.2 49 1579 15
Rain 32.8 1 0 0
Stormwater 150.7 6 6849 67
Penrice 1,000 41 0 0
Dust 15.3 1 1852 18
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
Water
112
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 re-
colonisation 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
Stormwater
113
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 SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Stormwater 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.
Water
114
115
8 Irrigation
8.1 Summary
Infrastructure type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Irrigation 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
Water
116
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
Irrigation
117
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.
Water
118
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.
Irrigation
119
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 south-
west 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.
Water
120
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 2001-
2015 (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
Irrigation
121
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
Water
122
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 re-
enter 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.
Irrigation
123
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.
8.5 Report Card rating
Infrastructure type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Irrigation 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 Murray-
Darling 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.
Water
124
125
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 technologies509
Requiring the energy efficiency of government buildings to increase by 25% from 2001/02
levels, by 2014.
Energy
126
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 rule-
making, 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
Energy
127
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:
Reduce peak energy demand thereby reducing the required network and generation capacity, and
reducing the demand on older, low efficiency peaking plants520
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 building‘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.
Energy
128
129
9 Electricity
9.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Electricity 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.
Energy
130
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
Electricity
131
Table 9.1: Conventional thermal generation capacity in SA526
Registered NEM
Participant
Power
Station
Units and Name-
Plate 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 1 x 90 90 Gas turbine Natural gas
International Power Pelican Point 1 x 48714 487 Combined Natural gas
International Power Port Lincoln 2 x 24 48 Gas turbine Distillate
International Power 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 Units and Turbine
Rating (MW)
Capacity (MW) Dispatch Type
AGL Energy Hallett Stage 1-
Brown 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 Scheduled
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 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
Energy
132
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
Interconnectors that link SA‘s intrastate network with the transmission network of Victoria.s
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.
Electricity
133
Figure 9.1: SA’s intrastate electricity transmission network543
Energy
134
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,
which commenced in January 2000.t 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 poles549
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 Overhead (km) Underground (km)
132kV 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
t There are also a number of smaller distribution entities covering remote areas but these are not covered in this Report Card.
Electricity
135
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.
Energy
136
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
All customers 11,471 11,992 12,103 12,026 13,041
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.
Electricity
137
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
Energy
138
An increase in electricity demand for bulk water supply, which will increase from 200GWh in
2011/12 to 570GWh, with the commissioning of a 100GL desalination plant in 2012/13.u
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
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.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2009/1
0
2010/1
1
2011/1
2
2012/1
3
2013/1
4
2014/1
5
2015/1
6
2016/1
7
2017/1
8
2018/1
9
Megaw
att
s
Investment Required
Assumed Demand Side Participation
Assumed New Plant South Australia
South Australian Generation
Electricity
139
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
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.
Weather, 26%
Equipment failure, 24%
Planned, 10%
Unknown, 24%
Third party, 14%
Operational, 1% Other, 1%
Energy
140
Figure 9.4: Actual and forecast wind generation581
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:
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.
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 State‘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.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2003/0
4
2004/0
5
2005/0
6
2006/0
7
2007/0
8
2008/0
9
2009/1
0
2010/1
1
2011/1
2
2012/1
3
GW
h
Total wind generation
Electricity
141
Table 9.8: Geothermal projects in SA that are well advanced 585
Developer Power Station Name-plate Rating (MW)
Geodynamics Limited Innamincka 1
Geodynamics Limited Innamincka 25
GreenRock Energy Olympic Dam NA
Pacific Hydro Great Artesian Basin Project, far north SA 400
Petratherm Paralana/ Beverley Uranium Mine 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 $5
million wave energy pilot plant off Elliston on the Eyre Peninsula. The purpose of the plant is to
test their Wave Energy Converter (WEC) technology under field conditions. Following the
granting of approval for the project under the Commonwealth‘s Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in 2010, the company is now fabricating the technology with
intended deployment in 2011.
Energy
142
Both projects involve having sea-bed mounted infrastructure with the generation facilities on shore.
This reduces the environmental impact and increases storm survivability compared with surface
mounted systems.
Increasing capital works expenditure on networks
The next few years will see a significant growth in capital works for distribution and transmission
networks. The projects constitute the largest investment in networks since the building of the
interconnector in 1989.590
ElectraNet‘s major projects include:
New substations at Penola West and Mount Barker
A new underground transmission line into the heart of Adelaide to support the CBD and
southern and western suburbs
A number of reinforcements or replacements of aging assets.591
Table 9.9 lists ElectraNet‘s committed large transmission network augmentation projects, and there
are a number of others under consideration.592
Table 9.9: Committed large transmission network augmentations593
Project In service by Cost estimate ($ 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 $1.6 billion dollars on capital expenditure between 2010/11
and 2014/15.594 This is nearly double the investment made between 2005 and 2010. This
investment requirement results from a diverse range of challenges, including:
Electricity Transmission Code changes
Peak demand growth
Aged assets
Increasing security of supply
Changing locations of demand and supply
A huge program of State infrastructure investment
Building in capabilities that allow for future smart network technologies.595
Although the proposed program of capital expenditure will maintain ETSA Utilities‘ overall risk
profile, current levels of reliability and network asset utilisation levels, ETSA Utilities notes that it is
still a constrained program. ETSA Utilities also notes that not all the new investment needs of the
SA distribution network can be addressed in the period to 2015.596 Table 9.10 lists ETSA Utilities‘
proposed major projects:597
Table 9.10: ETSA Utilities major projects
Proposed major projects Benefit Project Value
($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
143
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
43
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
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
met. Over the last decade, the State‘s USE was 0.00051%.598
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
Victorian generators were unavailable. Load shedding occurred on both days.599
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 Torrens Island
Power Station
A Station
Torrens Island
Power Station
B Station
Pelican
Point
Northern Playford
Planned Outage Factor (%) 14.13 12.16 2.20 3.5 4.3
Equivalent Forced Outage Factor (%) 2.46 1.10 0.62 3.7 42.4
Equivalent Availability Factor (%) 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.
Energy
144
Table 9.12: National generator indicators603
Equivalent availability
factor (%)
Forced outage factor (%) Planned outage factor (%)
State 2006/07 2007/08 2006/07 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
9.3.3 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
Average outage duration (minutes) 49 114 88 270 195 78
No. of interruptions608
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 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
145
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI). The total number of sustained
customer interruptions, divided by the total number of distribution customers. SAIFI excludes
momentary interruptions (one minute or less duration).v
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
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.
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000/0
1
2001/0
2
2002/0
3
2003/0
4
2004/0
5
2005/0
6
2006/0
7
2007/0
8
2008/0
9
Minutes
Implied target
Energy
146
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
State-wide SAIDI619
(incl. low voltage)
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
Figure 9.6 compares SAIDI across the nation.
Figure 9.6: System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) across Australia 620
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
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Avera
ge m
inute
s o
f outa
ges p
er
custo
mer
Queensland
New South Wales
Victoria
South Australia
Tasmania
NEM weighted average
Western Australia
Electricity
147
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
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
Western Australia - - - - - - 3.3 3.3
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
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
20
00/0
1
20
01/0
2
20
02/0
3
20
03/0
4
20
04/0
5
20
05/0
6
20
06/0
7
20
07/0
8
20
08/0
9
Energy
148
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 systems630
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
Electricity
149
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
9.5 Report Card Rating
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Electricity 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
Energy
150
Increasing population and increasing electricity demand resulting in a predicted reserve deficit
after 2012/13
Peak demand growth is increasing faster than average demand growth, with inadequate
attention given to demand management.
151
10 Gas
10.1 Summary
Infrastructure Type SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Gas B+ B+ Overall
B+ Transmission
A- Distribution
B+ 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
from producers, and pays transmission and distribution businesses for transporting the gas.w
w The charges are known as transmission use of system (TUOS) and distribution use of system (DUOS).
Energy
152
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
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
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2006/07 2009/10 2012/13 2015/16 2018/19 2021/22 2024/25 2027/28 2029/30
Peta
joule
s
Coal seam gas
Other
Otway
Cooper
Gippsland
Gas
153
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.
Energy
154
Table 10.1: SA’s transmission gas pipelines645
Pipeline Owner Details Capacity
(TD/D)
Constructed Covered
Moomba to
Adelaide
Pipeline System
Epic Energy 858km (mainline) with 326km of
laterals
250 TJ/d 1969 No
SEA Gas
Pipeline
International Power,
APA Group, Retail
Employees
Superannuation
Trust (equal shares)
680km pipeline from Port
Campbell to Adelaide
314 2003 No
QSN Link (Qld
to SA/NSW
Link)
Epic Energy 180km pipeline from Ballera to
Moomba
212 2009 No
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
- 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.
Gas
155
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 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Length of cast iron, unprotected
steel and other gas distribution
pipelines replaced
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
Energy
156
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
Simply Energy 8 2
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
Small business gas customer 7,204 7,193 7,340 7,344 7,403
Large gas customer 806 849 839 813 797
Gas sales figures are seen in Table 10.6.
Gas
157
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
Prices
SA‘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.
Figure 10.6: Retail gas prices for Australian States673
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.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2001/0
2
2002/0
3
2003/0
4
2004/0
5
2005/0
6
2006/0
7
2007/0
8
2008/0
9
PJs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1996/9
7
1997/9
8
1998/9
9
1999/0
0
2000/0
1
2001/0
2
2002/0
3
2003/0
4
2004/0
5
2005/0
6
2006/0
7
2007/0
8
2008/0
9
$ p
er
gig
ajo
ule
NSW
Vic
Qld
SA
WA
ACT
Energy
158
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 1 July 2008
(% increase)
1 July 2009
(% increase)
1 July 2010
(% increase)
Residential customers 8.25% CPI+1.0% CPI+1.0%
Small business customers 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:
Operation of the National Gas Market Bulletin Board,x 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.
Gas
159
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.
Energy
160
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
Gas
161
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 distributors‘ 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 Envestra‘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 FY2000–FY2008, p. 33.
Energy
162
Table 10.8: Quantity of gas entering Envestra’s distribution system and unaccounted for gas692
Measurement 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Gas entering distribution
system (TJ)
39,564 37,983 38,917 38,412 37,720 38,003
Unaccounted for gas (TJ)z 1,493 1,592 1,630 1,834 1,799 2,009
Percentage (%) 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
Envestra‘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
carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas used in a gas closed cycle gas turbine.698
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 ―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.
Gas
163
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
Adelaide Hills, are not connected to the reticulated gas network.aa
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 SA 2010 SA 2005 National 2005 National 2001
Gas B+ B+ Overall
B+ Transmission
A- Distribution
B+ 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.
Energy
164
165
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.
Telecommunications
166
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 on-
line 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
Telecommunications
167
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
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)
Web browsing and other data services
Personal aids, including personal digital assistants (PDAs), GPS-enabled navigation and USB
drives
Mobile TV and video streaming
Mobile commerce, interactive services and location-based services.704
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
1999-
00
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
Millio
ns o
f serv
ices
Mobile phone
Fixed-line phone
Telecommunications
168
2012, mobile networks will be capable of speeds of 100Mbps.705
given sufficient bandwidth
allocation.
Broadband
Broadband is a class of data transmission technologies, including optic-fibre (FTTx), xDSL (such as
ADSL, ADSL2+ and VDSL), HFC cable and wireless (such as WiMAX, HSPA and LTE).706
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
Figure 11.3 illustrates the speed comparisons for different broadband technologies.
Figure 11.3: Digital data speed comparison708
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.
DSL/ADSL, 56%
Cable, 19%
Wireless, 12%
Don't know, 12% Satellite, 1%
DSL/ADSL
Cable
Wireless
Don't know
Satellite
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Digital Data Service Obligation
ADSL2
ADSL2+
NBN Fibre connection
connection to 90% of Australians in the
future
NBN wireless and satellite connection to 10% of Australia
Dig
ital D
ata
Speed M
bps
Broadband Technologies
Telecommunications
169
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
surrounding environment and this may interfere with radiocommunications services.709
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 fibre-
based 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-to-
point links between Port Lincoln and Port Augusta and interconnection with the national
inter-capital fibre route.711
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
Microwave connection from Adelaide to the Barossa Valley712
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.
Telecommunications
170
Figure 11.5: Existing backhaul routes in SA713
11.2.2 Policy and governance
The Australian Government‘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
telecommunications to meeting its challenges and opportunities in the 21st 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
171
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
communications framework.714
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
Continue the operation of the SA Broadband Development Fund.715
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
South Australians by 2008.716
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
cables and networks.717
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
regime respectively.bb
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.
Telecommunications
172
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
conduct and access regimes are cumbersome and provide insufficient certainty for investment.718
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
Removing redundant and inefficient regulatory red tape.719
The Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997 exempts low-impact and certain other
telecommunications facilities from most planning requirements under State legislation.720
However,
for other facilities, State and local government planning schemes apply. In SA, there are no State-
specific 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
industry codes and standards for the industry.721
The SA Government agencies are:
Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. This Department
is responsible for building the research and innovative capacity of SA.722
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
Telecommunications
173
Identifying broadband drivers and usage across the State
Providing input and feedback into national broadband policies and initiatives.723
11.2.3 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
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%
Australian Capital Territory 351.2 241 69%
Australia 21874.9 8420 38%
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
commercialisation.727
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jun-0
6
Aug-0
6
Oct-
06
Dec-0
6
Fe
b-0
7
Apr-
07
Jun-0
7
Aug-0
7
Oct-
07
Dec-0
7
Fe
b-0
8
Apr-
08
Jun-0
8
Aug-0
8
Oct-
08
Dec-0
8
Fe
b-0
9
Apr-
09
Jun-0
9
To
tal IS
P S
ubscrip
tio
ns ('0
00)
Telecommunications
174
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
roll-out. The network is expected to be accessible for this site by early 2011.728
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
exposure draft of a bill to implement the changes.729
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 ‗backbone blackspots‘ 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
building blocks of the National Broadband Network.730
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.
Telecommunications
175
Figure 11.7: Regional Backbone Blackspot Projects in SA731
Expansion of SABRENet
The South Australian Broadband Research & Education Network (SABRENet) is a 120km fibre-
optic broadband network linking over 50 research and education sites in metropolitan Adelaide.cc
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
was completed in 2008.732
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.
Telecommunications
176
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
mainland and Adelaide.733
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
building wireless broadband base stations.734
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
radio towers and ADSL2+ DSLAMS in Tailem Bend, Meningie, Coonalpyn and Tintinara.735
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
to Adelaide, three new DSLAMS and eight new wireless broadband basestation nodes.736
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
Telecommunications
177
Government‘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
CBD and extended metropolitan areas.738
Figure 11.9: Broadband coverage resulting from Broadband Development Fund projects 739
Telecommunications
178
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
Program connects over 171 government sites across the State740
via a high-speed broadband
network in and to:
Port Lincoln
Mount Gambier
Murray Bridge
Port Pirie
Berri
Whyalla
Port Augusta.741
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
The establishment of over 3,500km2 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
benefits to the State over 10 years742
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
functionality to meet agency operational requirements.743
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 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
reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis.dd
The cost of supplying loss-
making services that are required to fulfil the USO is shared among all carriers. Given the almost
dd
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.
Telecommunications
179
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 non-
metropolitan 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
that local call services rarely met their expectations.744
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
can be served.745
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
Suffering from external interference, from something such as a tram line.746
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.
Telecommunications
180
Figure 11.10: ADSL-enabled status of Telstra’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 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
181
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
figure.748
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
Telecommunications
182
Figure 11.13 shows Vodafone‘s 3G and GSM network coverage map.
Figure 11.13: Vodafone’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.
Telecommunications
183
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
Telecommunications
184
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
will deliver speeds of up to 12 Mbps.754
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
Telecommunications
185
11.3.4 Backhaul infrastructure
The SA Government has identified for many years that the lack of competitive backhaul has
impeded the uptake of broadband.756
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 Government‘s desired competitive backhaul routes, reflecting the areas where
there is a lack of redundancy.
Figure 11.17: SA Government’s desired competitive backhaul routes757
Telecommunications
186
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 currently-
served 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.
187
APPENDICES
188
Appendix A: Rating methodology
The rating methodology is designed to provide a standardised approach to developing evidence-
based 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.
Appendix A: Rating methodology
189
The scheme has two high level Categories – 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.
190
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
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
191
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.
Appendix C: Glossary
192
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
‗scheduled services‘).
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.
Appendix C: Glossary
193
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, fibre-
optic 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+.
Appendix C: Glossary
194
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.
195
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-85B0-
472B-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/budget-
infra_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+responsibilities, 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.
Appendix D: References
196
50
Government of South Australia, 2007, Tackling Climate Change, South Australia's Greenhouse Strategy 2007-2020, p. 34. 51
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-rail-
overview/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/090330-RailAccessRegimeInquiry_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-rail-overview/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.
103Government 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.
Appendix D: References
197
110
DTEI, 2009, 2008-09 Annual Report, p. 31. 111
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.pdf, 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.
Appendix D: References
198
163
Information supplied by Centrex Metals Limited. 164
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.
183Adapted 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.
186Essential 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
Appendix D: References
199
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/e-newsletters/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.
262Government 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.
Appendix D: References
200
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 – SA Water‘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-conservation-methods/, 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/wp-content/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/wp-content/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.
Appendix D: References
201
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/CEA54F40-5DD6-4462-919F-1CF3394CD703/0/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/CEA54F40-5DD6-4462-919F-1CF3394CD703/0/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.
Appendix D: References
202
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.
401Michael 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/[email protected]/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.
Appendix D: References
203
432
SA Government, 2009, Water for Good, pp. 152-53. 433
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-7048-4F2B-9AE7-086F4A9E7499%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fSAWater%2fEnvironment%2fTheRiverMurray%2fSalt%2bInterception%2bSchemes%2ehtm&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.
Appendix D: References
204
492
Government of South Australia, Five Yearly Report to the Council of Australian Governments, p. 84. 493
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-89F1-A0852D9C02BE%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-and-focus-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/0040-0009.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.
Appendix D: References
205
557
ESIPC, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 31. 558
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-Market-Frameworks-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.
Appendix D: References
206
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 Australia‘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.
Appendix D: References
207
685
Essential Services Commission, 2008, Gas Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2007, p. 33. 686
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
711Information 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/[email protected]/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/[email protected]/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.
Appendix D: References
208
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=dcbc10009d82e110VgnVCM10000002cd780aRCRD, 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 – Maps, p. 1.
753 Telecommunications Industy Ombudsman, TIO Talks Summer 2009 – 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.