Season 3 Episode 3: Erin Coldham - on becoming Australia’s ‘First Lady of Wind’, the urgency to transition to renewables, and why social licence needs a rebrand.

Speaker A: Foreign.

Speaker B: Welcome to Inside Infrastructure. We're very privileged today to be joined by Erin Cold. I'm the chief development officer of Suddely 10. Um, I'll let Erin explain what, uh, Suddely 10 is and the work that she's been doing in a moment. But, um, before we get to that, Erin, uh, I guess, um, well, firstly, welcome.

Speaker C: Thank you. Great to be here.

Speaker B: Thanks for joining us. Um, maybe you could explain sort of who you are and what you do and perhaps what suddenly 10 is.

Speaker A: Sure.

Speaker C: Um, we are an offshore wind developer, so we started, uh, looking into the opportunity for offshore wind quite early back in, well, uh, the original founders, more than 10 years ago. But 2017 was the year that really things kicked off. Um, we welcomed investment from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, a large green fund manager. Uh, and we had a flagship project, Star of the south. And we then worked, uh, through various different, um, government policies and processes and

Speaker B: created some of them along the way,

Speaker C: helped, helped contribute to them, I, um, think is an accurate description. And we're now very focused on, uh, you know, Australia, New Zealand, specifically in our company. But as I said, we are part of a global company which is developing offshore wind across, uh, uk, Europe, APAC and the US So we are really fortunate to have not only the global capability and technical expertise of how to get offshore wind built, but also, um, the local perspective on how to build infrastructure projects in the Australian context, which is obviously really important from a delivery perspective.

Speaker B: Um, I might come back to that a minute because it, it relates to your, uh, earlier career before joining Solar 10. But I just. Well, Star of the south as it was. I just want to focus for a moment on what, what was southerly 10 at the point which you joined the organization? Because, um, I remember you briefing me probably close to a decade ago, and it wasn't much more than sort of lines on a map.

Speaker C: Yeah, that's right. So I, um, as you alluded to, had a career in transport infrastructure. And after spending some time in the Victorian public service, predominantly on big road projects, I went into consulting. And so I was consulting across a variety of jurisdictions and projects and got, uh, a phone call one day from one of the founders of the Star of the south project. Um, they were speaking with the federal government at the time. And just to give some context, I think the energy minister was Josh Frydenberg at that point in time, um, regarding an exploration license, which was the first step to go out and start exploring the resource. So the license hadn't been granted yet, but they had made the agreement with cip, um, to come on board. So it was really to bring someone in who had a bit of experience in that space and the rest is kind of history. We, uh, for the first year or two it was very much like a startup. So we had the three founders who had significant experience in the energy sector, a couple of Danish guys that CIP had sent over that um, were building offshore wind projects in other, other markets, uh, and myself primarily.

Speaker A: Is that a traditional change in sector focus? And I ask that mainly because certainly in Australia we've had a bit of a tipping point where the pipeline of investments really switched a bit from being very transport heavy to being very energy and renewables heavy, you know, and, and you know, personally I've seen within the sector actually a lot of people moving from transporting energy. But uh, when you did that, that was very much pathfinding, I suspect. So how did you find that shift? What did you bring from having worked in transport into the energy and renewables space?

Speaker C: It was a really unusual shift at the time. And a lot of my transport colleagues were looking at me thinking, what are you doing? Why are you going to work in wind? What has that got to do with anything we've ever known? Um, so it was interesting, but I think it's a little bit about my personality. I tend to um, go towards complex things. And when I saw a video of a jackup vessel, which is an installation vessel that puts its legs down and lifts itself up and then they crane in these, you know, these turbines, I found that quite interesting on a purely, you know, technical, um, level. But also I hadn't paid much attention to the electricity sector at all. And a consumer of electricity, I just always assumed it would be there. And I remember in 2017 I was driving down Eastlink, which is one of the projects I worked on. I live in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. And uh, I was listening to 3 AW and there was breaking news that Hazelwood was closing. And I thought to myself, what does that mean? Why are they bringing that? As breaking news and callers started ringing up and there was a lot of discussion about it. And at that time, uh, the owner of that facility gave very short notice for the closure of that coal fired power station. And it had some significant ramifications on the energy system. There was an 80% spike in wholesale prices when that facility came out of the market. And it had a significant impact on Gippsland and Latrobe Valley from a social, economic perspective. Uh, so I think it was the first time that I personally started paying attention to how fragile our energy system was, how fragile some of our regional economies were, and saw that there was a need to sort that problem out. In very simple terms, um, you did

Speaker B: have some sense of this was going to be a kind of growth thematic that would happen. So I think it's worth reflecting that in 2017. So we still had at that stage a government that um, hadn't um, signed up to net zero targets that are now I think still bipartisan in nature. Federally, um, we had a degree of um. Coal was still seen as a, something of a national pride maybe by some quarters. I think probably the politics was out of step with the public perhaps on it. But it was, it was pretty bold at that stage for you to be thinking, right, well this is going to be a complete restart in a different sector.

Speaker C: Yes, yes it was, it was really interesting because you're right at that time around 80% of our power was still being generated from coal. And that's a lot. And there was a lot of um, work going underway. It was just after the Finkel review and um, the National Energy Guarantee was all being discussed. And so there were all of these big policy conversations happening in, in boardrooms and in, you know, in Canberra and all of these places that just looking from a pure, uh, again not having a deep experience in the energy sector allowed me to look at what was coming out from a pure physics point of view, what we sort of had as our options to replace it. And what was really clear to me is that there was a missing piece of the puzzle. And so when you started to do the numbers on how much you could get from onshore renewables, um, the role that storage could play and uh, the pathways to get there overlaid with some practicalities of how to deliver that infrastructure and not to mention the transmission that needs to connect at all. Um, and then started doing some really deep studies into the value of the offshore wind resource and what that could provide to the energy system, it was a bit of a no brainer. And I remember saying to my husband, because it was a risk and I

Speaker B: was going to ask what did he think when you said.

Speaker C: Because I worked primarily as a public servant, I was five years as a consultant where I was a partner at the firm by that point in time. I'd been made a partner in 2017 and it was around, I did the first few years consulting in Star of the south. So I was really seconded in there. And when we got the license, uh, the majority ownership went to uh, you know, the financial equity providers, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. So there was a sort of a change in ownership. Uh, a Danish CEO was installed and, um, he asked me to join and just really, you know, look, Erin, forget about the consulting. We need you 100% of the time. Let's. Let's get this done and focus. And I said to my husband, look, this might last six months, I don't know. But thankfully, he's in a very stable industry, local government. So my fallback was that if I find myself unemployed, one, I'll back myself to get another job. And two, um, I'm sure he can keep us afloat for a while while I figure out what to do. So, yeah, it was risky, but I think, um, again, I had a strong belief in the need. Yeah, for, for this technology and I knew that, uh, it needed that sense of, of push.

Speaker A: And, and so with that being a bit of a first mover into offshore wind, we were sort of remarking just before the recording that, um, you've been publicly named the first lady of Wind. Um, and, um, obviously someone might have said that with a bit of tongue in cheek, but, um, what does that mean for you? So, having been part of that sector, ah, from its very genesis, how has it developed around you? How do you feel that you've contributed to that growth of a sector of renewables?

Speaker C: Yeah, I think it's as you were alluding to earlier, that ability to bring the knowledge and the experience from a sector that was very well established into a sector that needed those types of skill sets is, Is something I reflect on. Um, I think it's. I always pay credit and tribute to the founders of the Star of the south project because it was brave of me to leave my job and jump into it, but it was brave of them to, to, uh, you know, push this concept and to attract the, the equity investment that we needed to take it to the next stage. So those three individuals, um, you know, deserve a lot of that, that credit. And also CIP for taking a punt on Australia, where we didn't have any regulatory framework, any, Any legal system that allowed for offshore wind to be built. So I think that's, for me, uh, you know, there are a variety of factors as to why it's successful. Personally, I look back on the journey over the last seven years and I sort of joke about this. It's a little bit like Taylor Swift and the eras tour. We've had different eras of, um, this project and this journey. You know, the era where people, uh, called us, uh, lunatics and crazy and, you know, we just KE getting Um, very polite nods every time we tried talking about offshore wind. Uh, so there was a real need to, as I say, almost do that policy work to convince ourselves, number one, but then to convince others that this made sense.

Speaker B: So are you Taylor Swift in this analogy?

Speaker C: No, no, I just think it's a nice way to break it down. It's like there was the era, uh, and even before we had a license, and then we had this sort of, okay, some people believe us, let's knuckle down and do some feasibility studies. And then we got this stage where, you know, we have a government, uh, federal framework that governs us. And then we had, you know, the former Victorian, uh, premier announce targets. Those are now legislated. So, uh, each of those steps along the way. I think the first five years were the only project lonely trying to push, um, this sector. Uh, we then got to a stage where we had, you know, 37 applications from global companies around the world to want to explore offshore wind off the coast of Gippsland. And so it's a very different environment, um, along that journey. So I reflect on it in that way.

Speaker B: I want to just dive into that a bit because there's an element of it was pursuing the project Star of the south, but there was also building the industries at the same time. Um, I think credit to CIP for, for strongly leaning into building the industry alongside building the project. Maybe you could just talk to maybe just how nascent it was at the start and then all the things that have had to be put in place to build the concept and hopefully an industry that emerges from it.

Speaker C: Yes, yes. And I think that was one of the challenges. And it's probably where CIP has, um, excelled globally in terms of going into those new markets where you're very alive to those risks where you don't have all the settings. And we've seen that in other markets like the US and Taiwan and others, uh, as opposed to Europe and the UK where it was, um, more established. It was a really interesting time because you were looking at, as I say, some of those processes that were going on around, uh, the future of our energy system and things like the integrated system plan. And for those who are close to the energy sector, this is the planning that came out of the Finkel review, which would look at, well, what is, uh, the pathway to build out our energy system that is going to continue to meet reliability standards, it's to going, going to pay attention to climate, um, legislated targets and so on and so forth. And those plans would come out and I'd literally do a control f search for the word offshore. So um, it was really uh, a bit of a hard slog in terms of elevating offshore wind into those conversations because it was and to some extent still is seen as a uh, expensive technology that small European countries need because they don't have much land. And there was a narrative around that. And as I say I, I suspect there's still still here now, still still hear it now. And so I think that work hasn't stopped in terms of um, building the industry. And we did a significant amount of policy work uh, around what is the value that it's providing based on the fundamental, um, you know, technical fundamentals. And so what became really clear was that when you, when you look at it, instead of a least cost way to do things and more like a traditional business case in infrastructure, which is where do you get the greatest value? Uh, and looking at it from a value perspective, you get a different answer. And so there's a few reasons, um, why offshore wind made a lot of sense in that, in that regard. And if I take you through them, uh, number one is the location of the generation. And so you're talking about um, a technology that is built offshore. Uh, and when you think about Australia, 87% of our population lives within 50 kilometers of the coast. So you're close to the load. And if you go even um, you know, tighter in terms of location, the cases of Gippsland, Hunt, Illawarra, you're, you're having the ability to generate um, very close to the traditional power generation regions where there is existing infrastructure, um, in Victoria, the 500kV network. And so when you've got a lot of coal plants coming out, relatively short uh, connection to get to the grid, that that again helps to improve the economics. Probably the biggest moment uh, that I realized where we really thought we were onto something was the weather studies we did. And we went pretty deep, like it got kind of nerdy. We did a study with the Bureau of Meteorology, uh, where we looked at every single hot day over 35 DEGR. And there was this really unique phenomenon because this is the really time where it was peak demand, everyone's got their air conditioners on. And we found that simultaneously on those hot days, every single occasion over that 30, 35 year period was um, very, very strong winds off Bass Strait. Um, so that was from a seasonal perspective but then also on a daily perspective, um, middle of the day you've got a lot of solar, had a lot of onshore wind in western Victoria. Um, but those things start to come off towards the end of the day, which is again when the peak demand for electricity starts to rise. And that is when offshore wind on a daily basis in Bass Strait is at its strongest. And, and we've seen that unique weather pattern, um, not only in Gippsland, but also off the coast of the Hunter. And so when you then start to go, well, there's. There's a diversification benefit, there's a location benefit that means you don't have to overbuild other things. There's also an overlay of scale. And to touch on the scale, um, the amount of energy you can get out of one offshore wind turbine, um, which again, to get into the numbers, um, we're looking at 15 to 20 megawatt turbines, whereas onshore our largest turbine is about 6 megawatts. So you can get more bang from your buck just from a technology standpoint and a scale standpoint. Um, and that's sort of before you then looked at the practicality. So they were all the sort of scientific, economic, nerdy things. We did, you know, counterfactual scenarios. We did energy market modeling to look at a scenario with offshore wind without offshore wind. We compared those to say, well, what's the BCR between them? Um, and we kept coming up positive towards offshore wind in, specifically in Gippsland. But then there was this other, other element to it, which is, you know, the pathway of building everything onshore. And really how practical that was from a, uh, from a space and a community perspective.

Speaker B: And just getting stuff from an import port to where it needs to be erected is pretty challenging for, you know, we were discussing it the other day. The, like, the bridges that have to be heightened or the corners that have to be.

Speaker A: The blimps.

Speaker C: Yeah, the blimps, exactly.

Speaker A: But I mean, it's. It's really compelling to hear you say that, but. And there have been so many setbacks on some of the offshore projects, you know, and I noticed with, uh, you know, a couple of the ones that sort of fell over last year or the last two years, you know, the state government in South Australia sort of said, well, they expected to get 100% from their onshore projects. So, like, why is that complementarity so hard to make a case for? Like, what do you think are the issues it's encountering?

Speaker C: Well, it doesn't, um, exist everywhere. And I think that's important to say. Like, from our research, we looked primarily at, uh, offshore wind in, in Gippsland in Bass Strait and off the coast of New South Wales, where you do have that, really even they're quite different.

Speaker B: Like, you think the striking thing about Bass Strait is just how shallow it is.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Whereas hunters, um, pretty deep, pretty quick.

Speaker C: Yeah. Certainly more technically and commercially challenging. Absolutely. And so. So that you've got to look at, um, again, offshore wind. Just putting offshore wind turbines everywhere because you can. It doesn't make sense. What you need to do is look at, well, what value does that provide in the market, um, vis a vis other technologies? And it's not to replace those technologies, it's to complement them. And that's where in some of those areas we can make the case. And I think the numbers demonstrate that. As I mentioned earlier, we had 37 applications for offshore wind licenses in, uh, Gippsland. We've seen lower numbers in other areas where perhaps those technical and commercial challenges are more prominent. Uh, and that's, that's sort of the way that we think about these things. I think that the other really interesting part is we think about offshore wind in Victoria and it can be seen as a Victorian thing. We are a national electricity market. So. So what we're always curious about is, well, again, if offshore wind in Victoria doesn't exist, where are the other, um, places you can get that energy from? And we continue to this day, um, we continue to do those studies to make sure that with the way the market's developing, we can't rely on our 2020 modeling to uh, tell us that that still makes sense. And I think not only ourselves, but the Victorian government, who has shown significant leadership in getting the sector going, um, has also done some very good work that proves that case essentially in the national significance of that technology.

Speaker B: Um, the technical case and the market case is one element, but there's also, um, public support and social license. And I wonder, um, given that it was nascent and you've been on that journey and maybe particularly in Gippsland, could you just talk us through what's been done there, what the level of support is, what the challenges or, um, detractors are talking about.

Speaker C: Absolutely. It is something I think about constantly. So it's been a big part of, personally of my infrastructure journey to know that the earlier, ah, you engage with people on a project, uh, the better data you will get from them in terms of the issues that they are grappling with as well as the aspirations that they have. So, um, the founders started some of this work and when I came on board, we spent a lot of time in Gippsland And I continue to do that today. Um, in fact, Adrian, I think you spotted me on the M1 once.

Speaker B: Um, there's context. I'm not like a stalker or something. I was. I was driving to. From Sydney to, uh, um, my family that live in Gippsland. I have an aunt and uncle and cousins out there, and I. I know what car Aaron drives because we've spoken about it. She drives a Tesla. Uh, I'm allowed to say that, right?

Speaker C: Yes. I bought it in 2021.

Speaker B: Yeah, I bought this before. Before Elon's latest episode.

Speaker A: So.

Speaker B: And I, I pulled up at some traffic lights and I looked over and I saw through tinted windows, a. A. A blonde lady in a Tesla on a. On a road I knew she drove on because I know where you live. And so I, um, I called Erin. She didn't answer. Um, Uh, I think you were, uh, eating a snake or something. Well, I don't know. And I called and I did a lot of dry. I think I said something like, oh, uh, uh, were swapping lanes a lot on the. On the drive today.

Speaker C: What are you talking about?

Speaker B: I knew it was you. I just followed you from. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker C: So I, I just wanted to point that out because I think it's proof. I don't just say that I go to Gippsland. There are people from New South Wales who physically spot me m. Um, driving between Gippsland and Melbourne. But to the point of, um, the reception. I have been really humbled by the reception we've had in the Gippsland community in terms of their openness to understand what it is that we're look.

Speaker B: Immediately open. Or was that like a built social license?

Speaker C: It's built over time, but I do think immediately open. Like, my first, um, My first interactions down there were. Were in these small regional towns. And, you know, we weren't trying to. I think the problem with our industry is sometimes there's a lot of people that think of this as a transaction. And the word social license does us no favors because it makes it sound like there's some sort of transaction, and we've got our ticker box so we can get our license. And so I do have a slight side mission to try and eliminate that term from.

Speaker B: What do you want to rebrand as?

Speaker C: Well, it's just talking to people, right? Like, it's talking to people. It's understanding what communities need and what their. What their concerns are. And so it's really, um. It was very humbling. And, you know, these were, you know, small towns. We Just go out for lunch. We'd invite people along, we'd chat to them. We try and figure out what's going on. And Gippsland is a, uh, is a region that has been generating power for over 100 years. So they understood that there was this looming problem coming because they're the ones working in the plants, and they're the ones that can see that there's a. There's an end life to this thing.

Speaker B: It was. It was a fertile context to be having the conversation, because they knew that was coming.

Speaker C: Yeah, I do. And I think also the oil and gas sector. Uh, so, you know, and Gippsland is a very big place. So it's not like Gippsland is Latrobe Valley. Gippsland's like the size of Switzerland. So south Gippsland is very different to east Gippsland, very different to the valley. So you can't also just go to one part and say, well, we understand what this community is about because the towns have different. Different characteristics. But the thing that kept coming up a lot was, um, you know, the economic opportunities that that region would have going forward when those coal plants closed and since the decline of offshore oil and gas exploration. And I distinctly remember standing out at one of the ports in South Gippsland, and there was a guy showing us around, and it was like a ghost town, like there was no one working there. And I said to him, you know, how many people are working here? And he gave me a number, and he said, oh, yeah, but we're soon about to decrease our number to this. So they were actively, you know, needing to reduce their operations. Ah, they, you know, showed me black and white photos of what that facility was like in the 1960s, and it was a hive of activity. We would do sessions in small fishing towns. And I remember after one of those sessions, a mother writing to me. Um, and it was so emotional because she talked about her boys who were in high school, and she knew that as soon as they came to a certain age, they would move into the city and they wouldn't be able to spend as much time together because they don't see any opportunities. So she said, you know, it's so important that you succeed because we. We want to see these opportunities. Um, and there's so many stories like that. You know, there was, um, the cricket team. In 120 years, they didn't have, uh, enough men to field a team anymore, so you have to start merging them. So even though, um, where they're sort of representing an infrastructure project, it's really about understanding, well, how does our project help with, with that problem that they're having. And really what it's about is providing long term opportunities. And we, we would do that uh, in a, you know, in a personal way. But also we collect broader data so you can't just rely on the people that you talk to. So we do regular um, sort of polling and research to understand the views of people in the community. Consistently that's been between 65, 70% support for offshore wind, um, around 10% opposed and then a chunk in the middle.

Speaker B: So do you think people have consultation fatigue?

Speaker C: Oh absolutely, yeah.

Speaker B: I see that a lot across stuff is just like I was talking to someone actually referenced the federal election and they were talking about polling fatigue because of the nature of polling. Now, mobile phone stuff, people, some people are getting polled so often that they do and it makes it much harder to track because people give m answers to discourage getting another phone call.

Speaker C: Yeah, exactly. It's sort of funny. We run a community advisory group and Gippsland and about three out of the group said oh, I got your phone call and they're like quite happy to share their answers but um, you know, we outsource that.

Speaker B: I make a serious point though. I was talking to someone that runs an infrastructure asset that has um, a legislative or planning requirement to have community consultation groups. They can't get people to sit on them.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: And um, part of that you say, well that's kind of a positive sign in the sense that people are insufficient to um, feedback. But on the other hand these things are legislative requirements and the public's just sort of like, yes.

Speaker C: Oh, and the challenge is sometimes, um, if the case look at offshore wind, we might have five different legislative frameworks that we're working under and each of them requires you to consult on under that particular framework. And so we're constantly trying to think, well, how can we bundle it to say we're here to talk to you under this act. This act, we don't obviously script it that way but we're trying to bundle all of our activities to make sure we meet the different legislative requirements and

Speaker A: don't wear people out.

Speaker C: And don't wear people out. And the other thing we've been really conscious of, particularly as a new industry and in Gippsland where we have um, you know, 12 license holders is self organized around consultation. So we have formed a group, um, called the Offshore Gippsland 12 or the OG12 for short. Bit like the G, you know.

Speaker B: Did you retrofit the name to the

Speaker C: acronym may have, may have, um, but you know, OG time. And so I think what's been quite successful because if after these licenses were granted you started to pick up a copy of the Gippsland Times and you know, different developers running their ads for their different sessions on different dates. So it was like let's, let's not do that. Um, and so we have um, offshore windows out in the region where every developer's there. We've invited relevant government agencies to come into those. Sometimes we get requests from other groups who have some sort of touch point and we're all in the one place at the one time and we're traveling around to different towns. So we do that sort of every three, six months. Um, and I think it's been quite successful. It's, it's reduced some of that burden. Um, but we are constantly thinking about um, how do we lessen that burden on these communities.

Speaker A: And I noticed with is it Kutwut Patawalang? I'm glad I got the pronunciation of that right. But that project has some partnership elements with the local first nations groups. Is that common across the other projects? And what did you have to do differently on that project?

Speaker C: Yeah, uh, I mean KWA Pratulung it is uh, a project where again we've built up a relationship with the Gunai Kerna, My Land and Aboriginal um Waters Aboriginal Corporation over a number of years. So they were kind enough to gift us that name in that project which is targeted to a later entry into the market. And we are also actively talking to traditional owners through that representative group about um, what they can hope to achieve out of the projects. And so we have a formalized engagement agreement um for uh, you know Start the South, the first project where we're helping Glarwack with their you know, resourcing and they have really self organized, they've done some, they've done some really good work um, learning along the journey with us and um, through their pathways to partnerships, document and, and those sorts of things. We have primarily focused on building trust so that we can have those conversations around um, the different, you know, drivers and, and challenges of, of each party so that we can then have a platform to work out how do we ensure traditional owners benefit. Because particularly in somewhere like Gippsland where you know, if you look again at the traditional industries there hasn't been that um, that element and the Victorian government has also really recognized the need to, to better um, you know, achieve those outcomes for traditional owners and local communities.

Speaker B: One of the other Impacted stakeholders, or maybe not impacted, is the environment and wildlife. We were chatting, um, Janice and I were chatting about this the other day. There's a lot of noise, particularly driven from, um, the U.S. um, and some of it seems like pretty strange. I assume it is strange. Sort of talking about the impact on whales or whatever else. So, um, what have you studied? What have you found? What's the reality?

Speaker A: Mhm. What does the science say?

Speaker C: Yeah, and I mean that's another of our mantras. We are guided by science because although there are 13,000 turbines in the ocean globally, there are none in our unique Australian marine environment. So we have done around two and a half years, um, of studies and it is probably, and scientists have told us the most comprehensive research program in bass Strait had 25 different scientists involved in that program. Uh, significant amount of data on whale migration patterns and birds and um, benthic environments. And we've got a great YouTube video for anyone who wants to know what goes on under the water. It's called Octopus versus Shark. So it did freak me out a little bit. But it's like this battle between an octopus and a shark that we caught on one of our cameras. It actually went viral.

Speaker A: Wow.

Speaker B: It sells itself.

Speaker C: It does. I know, I know. So go Google it. Octopus, Octopus versus Shark. Um, so we have a very, very strong baseline to be able to then take that through assessment, make adjustments to our project as you would any infrastructure project based on that data you get, and um, then move into the design phase and have your relevant mitigations to manage any residual impacts. So you mentioned the, I suppose the narrative that has been pushed by some, and I think it's important to call out there are some really active disinformation campaigns against, um, renewables, in particular offshore wind. They have been quite successful in some jurisdictions. I think in Australia we've had some success at combating that. Um, and I can refer to, uh, regions like the Hunter and the Illawarra where there have been academics calling those sort of things out and saying, well that's actually not true and this paper that has my name on it is false and people that have been, been willing to stand up and say those things. And I think if you look at. Because disinformation for me is not damaging if it exists and you know, it's out there, it's. It's damaging and poisonous when it starts to affect political, uh, and policy decision makers and regulators in how we move

Speaker B: forward when it's repeated by people in positions of power. Correct.

Speaker C: Yeah. So if you then start to have um, that believed, um, by people, you know, more broadly that becomes a real problem. And it ah, you know, it sort of throws sand in the gears of what you're trying to do. And so I think in Australia we have, as I mentioned, had some success. There have been some papers doing investigative uh, journalism on where some of the claims have come from and how some of these groups are funded. And I think we saw, you know, at the election, we're filming this just after the federal election, um, it was not at all damaging in offshore wind, um, areas for the government in terms of um, these projects going ahead. And in fact, and again this is not a political statement, um, just looking at the data, I think nationally there was about a 3 1/2% swing against the coalition in those offshore wind zones. Um, it was nearly double that and in fact out to 11% in some cases. So it's matching our data. So as I said, we do, we do research not only in Gippsland, but actually nationally to understand people's views. Because if we can understand where people are at, we can meet them where they're at. Um, and certainly that research that we did, you know, 76% of people nationally, um, said they want to see the government get on with clean energy projects more quickly. Uh, it also came up in focus groups that people can see that there's some work happening on transmission and they hear a little bit here and there and rooftop solar and those things. But they're getting more and more concerned about, I, um, think you know, the amount of supply that's coming out of the system and not seeing the big build, um, and the projects coming online that's needed before we shut them down?

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. So, so does that mean you alluded to the fact that there has been offshore wind, you know, in Northern Europe, in Asia for quite a while now, like you know, 20, 30 years. And ah, has the science not at least been able to disprove that? Do you know, I mean like is there any, has there been any cause for concerns on any of those projects or.

Speaker C: No, I mean, I think the most impactful part, and we have to be really honest, there are impacts whenever we build any infrastructure projects that. Absolutely, that's a big part of it. And particularly during construction when you generate noise, you need to have, um, we call them bubble curtains, double bubble curtains that can dampen the sound.

Speaker B: So that doesn't confuse marine life, it

Speaker C: actually just dampens the sound. So it sort of releases these air bubbles and it helps the sound to dampen underwater. But Also, um, you have monitoring, so you'll have a radius that you monitor and you've got spotters. So if there's a marine mammal in the area, you know, there's the ability to stop that work. So you do a lot of modeling. And, uh, you know, there was this narrative again in the US around offshore wind killing whales. But, you know, if you look into that, the authorities have debunked that. They've said no, actually, it's vessel strikes. And when you look at the amount of shipping that goes on around the world, um, there are, there are many industries that

Speaker B: you don't have to think about some of those misinformation things for long to just sort of logically work out that it doesn't make a great deal. Yeah, um, whales are very sophisticated navigators that manage to navigate.

Speaker C: Oh, yes. Once it's in operation. Yeah, exactly. Um, it's fine. And I think, though, we'd never want to diminish the environmental protection that we do have, and we take that seriously. But if we get stuck in inaction, um, and delay because we're not sure and we're uncertain, that's when there are broader environmental impacts. And, you know, I've had scientists say to me, well, you know, we can spend two, three years debating this noise level of mitigation and whale impact, um, or we can let our oceans get warmer, which is going to kill a whole lot more. It's a very depressing, you know, thought, but, um, when you're looking at what we're trying to achieve, and it's, um, not just from an environmental perspective, but an economic perspective, there are some.

Speaker B: Remember we had, um, Alan Finkel, one of our events. I was doing an interview with him and this, this exact point came up and it was in reference to, um, I think it was, um, birds, uh, and bird strikes. And he, he sort of put it starkly like this, sort of. I'm paraphrasing. But he said, yeah, we might, we might lose a few, um, birds or everything dies. So what, which one do you want? And you put starkly, it's been said about wetlands as well, for areas about some of the stuff that might be needed for, um, um, marine logistics developments. The whole wetland goes unless we solve this problem. So, you know, kind of like, you know, choose your poison. Yeah, I, I wanted to, um, maybe just go back to the energy market for a second because you've made a very compelling case for the countercyclical nature of the resource, the quality of the resource, the positioning, but it still requires a subsidiary. It's not going to stack up commercially. How that's accurate.

Speaker C: Yes, yeah. I mean you look at jurisdictions around the world and certainly that's where you start. Costs come down over time, but to get the industry going, um, it does require investment and that's what we've seen um, in Australia as well from our work. And that's why the Victorian government um, has developed policies around that that would enable that process to kick off.

Speaker B: So I know that there's a, there'll be a competitive process to determine what bridging that gap looks like. But maybe you could just talk us through the emerging structures that happen globally. What's, what's happening here for exactly how it is. Taxpayers can know that that um, that gap is being bridged in the most efficient way with their money.

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. I mean the easiest way to think about it is um, it's, it's a guarantee that the power is going to be there because if it's not there we will see the price spikes that we saw when Hazelwood closed. Um, there's some very good work that's been done by Infrastructure Victoria in their 30 year uh, strategy which I think is still draft but probably being finalized around delays to offshore wind coming into the system, um, which shows, you know, a delay and this is actually similar to the modeling we've done, um, would cause a 40% spike in power prices. So you know, from a government perspective, yes, there's an investment that they need to make of taxpayers money. Um, the typical model that's been used successfully in markets like the UK and that the Victorian government has signaled that it's using here is a, ah, contract for difference. So that's where um, you know, the price is set at a certain point in time and if prices are higher there's a, you know, um, pay back to the government on that higher price and if the prices are lower there's a payback to the developer and that's to ensure you have a bankable project because you'll never get the money you need from a lending perspective unless you have that um, guaranteed revenue stream. And in the Victorian government context, um, they're also looking at an availability payment which is similar to what we've done for other availability, uh, model sort of projects. So it's really about the capacity. It's sort of saying, well we want to make sure that we've got that capacity because if we don't, um, we could be facing higher power prices or blackouts which m also have an economic impact. So it's weighing up those things. Um, how do we make sure we have just enough offshore wind? Let's do the modelling and the work to see how much we need. Um, and there's obviously people inside government that are doing that work at the moment.

Speaker B: Could you just explain how taxpayers can be confident that that contract for difference is as efficient as it could be, that there's not, you know, how is it. What is the mechanism that makes sure that, um, that's not set too generously or not generously enough so the stuff doesn't happen?

Speaker C: Yeah, And I guess I can't speak on behalf of government and how they would look at that and determine that price, that's obviously work that they need to do. Um, but certainly what they'll get from the market and through that competitive process is the price that's needed to be

Speaker B: kind of like a reverse auction, that the price is competed down amongst the various different providers. And that's sort of. That's the mechanism by which government says, all right, we think that's efficient.

Speaker C: Yeah, it is a little bit different. And I'm conscious there are some things that, um, government has shared with us that haven't, um. Uh, you know, sort of been finalized in terms of how they're thinking about, you know, exactly structuring that. Um, but essentially there will be, you know, a price. Essentially. It's similar to how we have rolled out, um, other auctions here, such as, you know, the V Red auctions that happened around the time we started looking at offshore wind. Um, but recognizing there's this availability, um, element as well, and that is largely modeled off, um, the uk, which has been very successful. I think, uh, we saw a 50% reduction in those prices. So the way that the market works with the UK is that they have these allocation rounds where they have contract differences available. And, um, it's been really interesting to follow that because, um, the prices started very high. They came in, as I said, about globally, there's been a 50% reduction. Um, then we had things like the war in the Ukraine and, um, inflationary challenges. That has driven that cost curve back up again. So the uk, in its allocation round five, actually didn't get a single bidder. So the government set the price. They didn't receive any bids. That was a signal from the market that, um, price, which was based on the record low prices of allocation round four was not going to be enough to get projects away. Um, so they adjusted the price in allocation round six and we've got allocation round seven coming up. So there's actually quite a lot of data out there, uh, in terms of the different auctions that have been run in places like the uk, us, Taiwan, uh, you know, parts of Europe, Ireland that, that show where the prices are at. And then there needs to be that broader thinking around risk allocation and um, how those things indexed. Because sometimes you can receive a contract for difference, but if there's a delay, um, to when your financial close might be, you then might be exposed to some, some pretty significant challenges, which is what we saw around that um, you know, high interest rate, inflationary period and

Speaker A: any of that public support really in perpetuity or do you see a sort of term where it ends?

Speaker C: Yeah, there's generally, there's generally a term and you know, again, these are things that the government is working through. Uh, so it's, it's something that, that, you know, typically for offshore, they've been around, uh, you know these, these facilities last, you know, 30, 35 years is the current estimation. Um, so you've got to get a good chunk of that time when you

Speaker B: say they last for, as in that,

Speaker C: that turbine, that turbine, the technology. So. Yeah, and it's, it's interesting because it's still a fairly new industry in that the first turbine was only installed in 1991. So there's very few projects that have been decommissioned and they're the, the older, first technology. Um, so they were around, you know, 20, 25 years. And so now with the newer technology, we're predicting, um, a longer, extended life,

Speaker B: build the platform type infrastructure in a way that it is upgradable subsequently to bigger or newer technologies.

Speaker C: Yeah, people call it repowering. Um, and I think there's a lot of thinking around that. One of the challenges has been the rate of technology, um, growth and advancement. So to give you an example, when I started in this job, we were looking at seven megawatt turbines as being the turbines we might put out in the water. And now we're looking at ones that are three times as big. So when you look at the foundations for a 7 megawatt turbine, that's going to be different to whatever's rolling off the production line.

Speaker B: But is there a physics limitation?

Speaker C: There is, and I think we've hit it. So we've seen a really rapid growth, as I say, over the last 10, 15 years of turbine technology. But the last few years it started to plateau out. Um, and these are very, very, very big units. And I mean the benefit is if the UK had a, built with the largest, um, turbines now you'd certainly have, um, less turbines and probably more power. But at the same time, we've sort of, um, had some supply chain challenges where turbine suppliers have invested a lot in R and D and getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And then, you know, you don't have that, those orders to get that return on investment in the R and D.

Speaker B: How big are they?

Speaker C: So, um, I can say 350 meters tall. I can't think of a structure in Australia that is that tall to the tip of the blade. So it's taller than towers.

Speaker B: Soccer pitch, is that about right?

Speaker C: Yeah. The blades themselves, a single blade is longer than a soccer pitch.

Speaker A: Wow.

Speaker C: So it's astronomical.

Speaker B: Like the length, the radius is kind of.

Speaker C: Oh, it's huge. Yeah.

Speaker B: So the diameter would be.

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, um, 285 meter rotor. We have, um, you know, the tonnage of steel is incredible. The first time I saw an offshore wind turbine foundation, so just the foundation, it was like that scene out of Jurassic park where they see dinosaurs for the first time. I'd actually been working offshore wind for a while and you know, I went to Taiwan and I'm standing at the port looking at this M70, 80 meter high foundation and then trying to think of the tower that's going to go on top and the blades.

Speaker B: And someone said to me that they kind of, when you see videos on, they look like they're moving quite slowly. But the tips, uh, are they approaching the sound barrier?

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, they're going very fast.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Wow.

Speaker B: Just because of the length of it, like relatively slow. Rotation in the middle is like.

Speaker C: Yeah, pretty fast. So for infrastructure nerds, I mean, this is the thing, offshore wind, you've got something for the energy nerds, something for the infrastructure nerds.

Speaker A: That's cool. And so one turbine that size, how many houses could it power? Like, is there a benchmark measurement?

Speaker C: Yeah, I can tell you. So one spin of one of those turbines will power a house for a day.

Speaker A: Wow.

Speaker C: One spin.

Speaker A: Wow.

Speaker C: And so that goes back to my scale point. Yeah. Um, and if you look at the UK and again, that, you know, just celebrated 25 years of offshore wind, it currently makes up about 17% of its, um, energy needs. About 50% of homes are powered by offshore wind. Um, if that technology was not there during the, you know, the war and gas and everything, but you would have had a very big problem. So the scale, and that's sort of why some of these countries have adopted it, because it is something that the International Energy Agency actually puts into its own category. Um, in terms of being sort of baseload, like in terms of the. Just the sheer amount of power that it can generate.

Speaker B: We're talking about the international context. It's pretty important for the next phase here is that when we start to actually build them, presumably we're competing with that uh, global market for bits of kit and people and.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: What are those dynamics?

Speaker C: Well, they're changing a lot at the moment because we're seeing quite a big shift, um, in places like the US that had a very strong pipeline and now we ah, yeah, we have seen a pause to offshore wind development.

Speaker B: Um, so it's opportunity for us.

Speaker C: It is an opportunity for us. If the settings are right here, I think is, is the. Is the key to that. Um, we have got. And again, I was sort of looking at this late last year, but in the time that um, we're looking to run our auction here for 2 gigawatts, there's about 30 gigawatts globally being auctioned over the next three years. It's about 85 gigawatts. That was the sort of, um, estimation late last year looking at all of the different global auctions. So it is a very, very global issue, um, industry. It is very globally competitive. There are only a few turbine suppliers. And so that is what has driven up some of these growing pains, if you will, in terms of getting projects away.

Speaker B: I'm quite impressed by the scale of that. 2 out of 30 for a country of our size is not, it's not nothing.

Speaker C: I'm happy with it. Yeah, you've got to start somewhere. This is, this is the thing that, um, you know, the thing that we're missing here in Australia is sort of, um, the green light that turns policy into precedent. So m having a proof of concept where people can see, all right, the supply chain worked, the port worked, the commissioning worked. Um, and it's kind of what we did in the development phase where. Okay, well, one, one proponent has a license, they're exploring. Um, it attracts a lot of other interest. Um, and Australia is then seen as a good place to do business for this technology type. So I think we can talk about ambition and trying to scale it up, but there's no point doing that until you get a first project away because that is what will drive the confidence and interest in, in our market in that globally.

Speaker B: Yeah, first one's the hardest, right?

Speaker C: It is, it is. And the first one carries the most risk. And so everyone's, um. Yeah, I say sometimes we're a little bit like the star of the south, the icebreaker ship, where you're sort of crunching through the ice and it's really hard work and uh, hopefully koot whip along one day, can be in the SL stream and sail on through.

Speaker A: But uh, and how many years away are we from really seeing that come to life, be part of the mix? Is that sort of five years from now?

Speaker C: Yeah, we think about timelines a lot because again it then comes into the when we're losing this generation and how important it is to get it in.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: And same with the continuity of jobs and there's a lot of work that's been done around that. Uh, we are in a position where the Victorian government has signaled it will run an auction, uh, you know, subject to future decisions later this year and um, have that concluded next year. So that, that will be the real signal, I think to the, to the government and to the, you know, the global industry that Australia is ready to go.

Speaker A: And are you, are you um, uh, originally from Victoria? Did you grow up in and around the Gippsland area? Is, is this part of your DNA to have sort of followed this sector's growth trajectory?

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean I think you could say I've always just um, run at things that are very complex and uh, you know, if I go way back, uh, I've always been fascinated by um, you know, projects that can help improve people's lives. That's why I love infrastructure. I grew up in a very busy household, um, one of six kids. So um, after university I didn't really know. Well actually after high school I didn't really know what to do so I took a year off.

Speaker B: Oh, where were you in the order of kids?

Speaker C: Yeah, so I was the second eldest. Yeah. And my parents, um, separated when I was, you know, after the youngest was born. So I was in a household where at age 17 I was still sharing a bedroom with my 7 year old sister. Um, so my biggest imperative was just to get out of the family house.

Speaker B: So Georgia from the team Infrastructure Partnerships Australia is obsessed with um, birth order and impact on.

Speaker C: Well, I think there's something in that because I very quickly had to fend for myself. So I decided to um, not go straight into university. I took a year off not to do a gap year and travel to Europe like most people do. I m worked, I worked a number of jobs so that I could move out of home and support myself. Um, and then I thought I better go to university because otherwise I'm going to keep working as a receptionist in a medical clinic which I quite liked doing and real estate offices, but I thought it's probably something more I should do. And uh, I didn't know what to do so I did an arts degree. Um, and like arts arts, Bachelor of arts arts. Um, and I study a whole range of random subjects, but you know, mostly communications, public relations because that was something I thought maybe I could do a lot of history or not art history, but no, no, but I did French. Like I don't know why, but it was just. I just picked subjects that interested me. Um, and so I got to the end of that and I actually started working in local government, which is I think a very good training ground for anyone as a first job because you get exposed to a whole range of different areas. Um, not long after that there was an advert in the local newspaper for the Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority, which um, later became known as Linking Melbourne Authority or lma. And I would say they were my halcyon days of infrastructure delivery. We worked on some of the biggest public private partnerships at the time under the leadership of Ken Mathers and, and he was um, a great leader who exposed us and gave us so many opportunities in the industry. Uh, we used to do excursions to, you know, like the D cell plant when it was under construction and Amy Park. So it was a wonderful learning environment. Um, you know a lot of my colleagues had been on the Eddington review, so it was that nexus of sort of policy and infrastructure delivery and we were quite small and nimble. Um, so that's probably where my love of infrastructure really developed and working in that team. And then as I say, um, that all came to an end one day actually because it was an election and uh, I was working on a project called the East West Link and um, the Premier, um, took that to the election to cancel that project and as a result we were extinguished, um, which was challenging. It's always challenging when you've had a good run like that. Um, but it was probably a good thing for me because I possibly would have never left that organization, um, unless, uh, I was pushed out essentially. Um, so after that point in time I had the option of being redeployed back into government. Um, I had felt I'm probably going to get pigeonholed because I'd sort of done about a decade as a Victorian public servant. Um, which is why I tried my hand at consulting and you know, again that gave me a lot of opportunities to work, you know, back into projects like the Big Build, so level crossing removals and some of these Other big projects that were starting to really fire up and that was again a very exciting time to be there at the, the origins and level crossing removal number one. I think we're up to like 90 or something now which is mind blowing. Um, but also you know, other projects and as I said earlier that I was at that um, that business when I got the tap on the shoulder from the, the founders at Star of the South.

Speaker B: Um, so that, that's the past I want you to cast forward now. So let's, let's pick a time frame. 50 years. What does offshore wind look like in Australia? What role is it playing? Maybe 50 is a bit strong.

Speaker C: 50 is really hard.

Speaker B: Let's go 30 years. So what role is it playing? Um, what are the pitfalls that we wish we'd known about now?

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. I mean I think one of the things that people probably don't realize but is true at the moment in um, the EMO M Integrated system plan is that offshore wind is predicted to make up 10% of the National Electricity Market by 2040. So I'd hope in um, 30 years time we've at least hit that.

Speaker B: Almost 30 years time that would be 20, 2055.

Speaker C: Yeah. So, so we'll be you know, at least 10%, um, you know, maybe, maybe around 20% by that time in terms of our full decarbonization, if we are decarbonized indeed by 2050. Um, but for me personally I'd want to look back and say that we maximize the opportunity in towns around Gippsland and other regional areas around Australia because I think that was a big part of getting us there. That support of those communities, they need to have felt the benefits of those and that long term employment that does span generations that that region is, is known for. Um, and from a pure um, delivery standpoint, you know we always look at projects and we don't ever want to see you know, safety incidents. I think we have a, a good safety culture here compared to some other jurisdictions that we work in. Um, and bringing that into the offshore space will be critically important as well as environmental protection. And I think that's where some markets are looking back. Um, we're lucky we can learn from markets like the uk but you know the UK this year they're just starting to look more deeply at some of those environmental challenges and you know, how to be nature positive and those things. So I think if we can tick those boxes, you know, community, safety, environment, um, get the gigawatts into the system because we need the electricity um, and make sure that those benefits are felt.

Speaker B: Uh, so it is 2055. Are we building more or are we maxed out?

Speaker C: Well, I guess it depends where we're at. I think I would be too bold to predict what might happen in 2055 from our energy system needs. And I just think that's where you do have to be quite flexible and adaptable and nimble. I think there's a baseline that we need to shoot for, um, in terms of technical potential. Australia's got the fourth largest technical potential in the world for offshore wind. So if we want to start looking at, um, you know, industries such as green steel, green iron, if Australia really does want to become, you know, this superpower that we talk about and exporting our rich wind and solar resources to the world, uh, offshore wind offers a remarkable opportunity to do that and help countries that are landlocked and don't have those opportunities. Um, so that's, that's something I think we can dream big about. Not sure if I'll still be there. I've said if I could get to a ribbon cutting at this point point, I'll probably be doing well. Um, but, you know, I think, you know, let's dream big.

Speaker B: Um, we're coming to the end of the time. We always ask, uh, all of our guests the same final question, which is, um, what's your favorite sort of infrastructure and why?

Speaker C: Yes, um, well, I, I know this has probably been said, but I have a mild obsession with bridges, um, for a couple of reasons. I think, um, you know, bridges, for me, there's the whole connection piece, but they also tell stories. I think there's stories in bridges in terms of why do we have this bridge? And you look at the origins of why it was needed and why it was built, um, always fascinates me. Or all the time. I was in, uh, Hobart, and I think it's the Tasman Bridge. Is that what it's called? The one that goes.

Speaker B: There's the Bridgewater Bridge and the other one.

Speaker A: Yes, the one that's the bridge.

Speaker C: And, you know, like, I'm going on a boat to Mona and there's a, there's a pier missing. And I'm like, geez, what happened to that pier? And, you know, you Google it and you find out, actually, yeah, a ship did hit it and the pier came down and it was a bit of a disaster. So for me, like, there's stories behind bridges that fascinate me. Um, but also they just, you know, they, they just look cool and, um, you know, My husband, he actually went to Istanbul for a. It was a global sort of company gathering and he, he whatsapped me and said, um, can you post something on Instagram other than bridges? It's boring because I don't know if anyone's been to sample. We got the boss Brick river and there's these beautiful suspension bridges that span, um, the different continents. On one side is Asia and the other side is Europe and they've all these suspension bridges and. Yeah, so I'm a bit of a.

Speaker B: So you like bridges in the built form? Do you like them when they're under construction?

Speaker C: Oh, yeah.

Speaker B: Engineering.

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, no, I do. Um, I still RECALL Eastlink had 88 bridges. So that was, that was a real treat for me and a real highlight because, um, one of my jobs back then and again I was in m. My early 20s, was every month we'd commission, um, construction photography, both from the ground and aerial photography. And it was my job to get all the images and sift through and decide which ones would go up on the website. A lot of pictures. Oh, so many pictures. I used to sit there and in fact we hadn't. We had a gallery exhibition. This was one of Ken's ideas just to just. Yeah, because we had, uh, in the area where we built Eastlink, the Monash Gallery of Art, and because we had so many beautiful photos during construction and after commissioning, we actually had a whole gallery. And um, funnily enough, uh, once that exhibition had finished, they gave us the opportunity to purchase some of those images to take home. Fair to say there was some that no one wanted. But I.

Speaker B: How many bridge pictures did you.

Speaker C: Well, I then had to share it out. I had some bridge pictures, some tunnel pictures, because tunnels while they're under construction is pretty cool as well. I had some good memories of that. In particular, um, I was on the tunnel dinner organizing committee, so organizing a dinner inside, um, the Eastlink tunnels for however many people. It was a black tie event and

Speaker B: you'll have to do a dinner on an offshore wind podium.

Speaker C: I have been trying to think, how do we do that? But the problem is with offshore wind. And I've heard this in, um, from some of my colleagues. Everyone gets excited about the inauguration of them and they all go out on boats and they take their VIPs and everyone is sick. Like. Yeah, everyone is vomiting over the side.

Speaker B: I was going to say that. Yeah. The nature of them, they tend to be in windy places.

Speaker C: Correct. Been out on a boat in Bass, straight to our site. And it's not something that, um, I think you can. You can do a VIP event. Um, unless you have a big ferry or something like that.

Speaker B: Yeah, I'm not. Maybe we won't do the member experience tour of that one.

Speaker C: No. But there's some good pubs in Port Albert that, um, I'm sure. Well, pubs, restaurants.

Speaker B: And on that bombshell, thank you very much for joining us on Inside Infrastructure.

Speaker C: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.