Queensland's Energy Gold Rush: Learning from the Lone Star State
As Queensland embarks on its renewable energy transition, balancing economic development and land use becomes crucial—especially when considering various stakeholders’ differing perspectives on the economic value of land.
This issue came into focus during a recent roundtable where members of an energy delegation visiting from Texas shared its experience of energy coexistence, providing valuable insights for those navigating Australia’s evolving energy landscape.
Hosted by RAPAD - Remote Area Planning and Development Board and Coexistence Queensland, the meeting brought together various stakeholder representatives to listen to the Texan experience, which RAPAD discovered as it explored the potential of energy to diversify income sources in local economies.
Texas—a state with similar geography and climate—had embarked on a comparable journey. They have seemingly successfully integrated large-scale energy projects into its landscape while managing the needs of its agricultural sector and landholders.
I attended this meeting with an open mind. Horticulture hasn’t yet been privy to many of these conversations, as large scale solar and wind developments have been mainly outside intensive growing regions. But proponents aren’t far from growers’ gates.
Despite plenty of similarities between the Sunshine State and the Lone Star State, there was the glaring difference in that Texas prioritises individual landholders’ desires, while the Queensland context expects landholders to consider social license, biosecurity, and other ‘shared impacts.’
Queensland can learn a great deal from these experiences as it grapples with a surge in land acquisitions by energy proponents. With vast tracts of agricultural land, future transport corridors, and cultural lands at stake, we must carefully manage this buying spree, preserving productive land and cultural sites.
Pre-vetting areas for development can help steer energy projects to less sensitive locations, minimising conflicts with existing land uses.
And crucially, what different stakeholders see will be determined by the lens through which they view the renewable energy transition.
Texan local governments looked through the lens of income diversity, seeing the potential of energy projects to provide a steady revenue stream for individual landholders and communities. They saw a new industry which offered hope when weather, prices, or societal shifts threatened to decimate rural communities.
Landholders, too, valued income diversity and stability, but were often unsure if proponents’ offerings were reputable or reasonable.
The State Government, meanwhile, focused on long-term considerations like asset end-of-life planning and energy affordability.
The Texan experience highlights the need to start engagement early and maintain transparency. Sound familiar?
Simplifying technical terms into digestible one-pagers can help landholders make informed decisions. Communities should also resist signing exclusive agreements with proponents, as competition between developers can lead to better outcomes. Incentive programs could encourage early involvement, offering community tax offsets that benefit locals without hindering development.
Great job RAPAD and co, for bringing this table together. There is a lot to consider as to how we navigate the trade-offs between economic growth, land use, and energy development.
