What the NSW Planning System Reforms Bill could mean for the delivery of renewable energy projects

The DCA could be a major improvement, centralising approvals for integrated Development Applications (DAs) and reducing the need for multiple agency concurrences. Its focus on only “significant” impacts under s4.15(1)(b) could make assessments faster and more proportionate.

However, the DCA’s current role is limited to issuing general terms of approval in place of agency referrals. Many of these approvals are not required for State Significant Developments (s4.41) or renewable energy projects (s4.42), meaning the direct benefit to major renewable energy projects may be limited.

We support a single, cohesive point for government decision-making, ideally with capabilities such as the former Planning Delivery Unit (PDU), which facilitated resolving technical issues through direct agency coordination. We see an opportunity to expand the DCA's remit to step in whereby agency referrals stall during assessment. There is also an opportunity to provide active coordination in the post-consent phase, where renewable energy projects often face delays consulting with agencies before construction can commence.

The proposed changes to the modification process (s4.55 Modifications) are also beneficial. Renewable energy projects often require design changes with minimal environmental impact. The proposed streamlined modification process will allow quicker adjustments, reducing delays and administrative burden for both developers and the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI). This flexibility is critical for adapting to technological advances and site-specific needs without unnecessary red tape.

Amending s4.15(1)(b) so consent authorities only consider significant impacts is a positive step. It supports a risk-based approach, ensuring minor issues don’t delay approvals.

For renewable energy projects, this means more targeted assessments and fewer irrelevant requirements – for example, avoiding European Heritage Impact studies where the nearest item is kilometres away.

We expect this amendment would enable Scoping Reports to become even more important in defining significance early, enabling more tailored SEARs and proportionate assessment.

The proposed amendment to s7.4(3A) Planning Agreements is supported as it will streamline Planning Agreements for State Significant Development by removing the need for the Minister to be a party when excluding s7.11 and s7.12 contributions. This is relevant to renewable energy projects as excluding s7.11 and s7.12 contributions is consistent with the NSW Renewable Energy Planning Framework – Benefit-Sharing Guideline.

Clear rules are needed on how the Minister will approve these planning agreements. Ministerial orders or regulations should set out the process and requirements, making it easier and faster to finalise agreements that support renewable energy projects.

Guidance should also cover the correct wording for Letters of Offer, the legal language used in Planning Agreements and how conditions of consent should be written so agreements can be executed properly under s7.4(3A)(b).

Having this clarity will help create agreements that meet the specific needs of each project and deliver real benefits to local communities. It will also make the process more consistent and predictable for developers and councils.

The removal of RPPs poses a significant challenge for renewable energy projects below the $30 million State Significant Development. The RPPs have been instrumental in approving projects that range from 5MW-10MW, but historically up to 40MW, providing independent determinations that bypass local political pressures. With their disbandment, DAs for this scale of project will revert to local councils, raising the risk of delays or refusals in areas where councils are under-resourced or unsupportive of renewable energy.

This change could undermine NSW’s net zero transition, given the scale of projects historically approved by RPPs. In the past decade, around 130 small-scale renewable projects – mostly solar and battery storage systems – have been determined by RPPs, delivering approximately 1.2GW of capacity and estimated at $1.5 billion in investment. Losing this independent pathway may erode investor confidence, constrain use of existing smaller-scale grid capacity, place greater pressure on delivering larger projects and unfairly place pressure on councils that are supportive of energy projects.

While an amendment to retain district and regional panels was debated by the Opposition in October 2025, it was not carried. We recommend the NSW Government reconsider retention of RPPs, particularly for renewable energy projects to protect this critical pipeline and maintain momentum towards NSW’s renewable energy targets.

The process for approving new transmission lines for renewable energy projects in NSW is complex. While it was common practice to try and separate out enabling infrastructure in the past and assess transmission infrastructure under Part 5 of the EP&A Act, this approach was tested in the 2024 court case Bingman Catchment Landcare Group Incorporated v Bowdens Silver Pty Limited [2024] NSWLEC 17. The Bowdens Silver ruling invalidated a mine's approval because its power line was not included in the main assessment, even though a separate approval was planned. This solidified the requirement that all integral parts of a single proposed development, including necessary off-site components like a transmission line, must be assessed together in the SSD application.

To address the uncertainty caused by this ruling, the NSW Government introduced section 4.38(4A) of the EP&A Act in late 2024. This change allows the Planning Secretary to determine if a specific piece of infrastructure, like a transmission line, can be assessed separately. Many in the renewable energy industry hoped this would enable the use of a simpler, faster Part 5 approval for power lines.

However, the change hasn't fully cleared the way for separate approvals yet, and the standard approach is to include all necessary off-site enabling infrastructure to be assessed under the single SSD application to enable holistic environmental assessment. The issue is complicated by the difference between contestable and non-contestable transmission services. While contestable services can be built competitively by third parties, the government's planning authorities still prefer including the transmission line in the SSD application. This suggests that section 4.38(4A) Transmission Lines may not be enough to override the fundamental legal principle reinforced by the Bowdens Silver case: a project’s key infrastructure should be assessed holistically. 

We support developing model conditions for renewable energy projects. Clear and consistent model conditions will help streamline the approval process and provide certainty for developers. However, there is a need for consultation on this niche type of development, and they should be developed in collaboration with industry stakeholders to ensure they are practical and supportive of innovation. The model conditions should be relevant to the scale pf projects concerned. By establishing standardised conditions, the planning system can reduce ambiguity and enhance predictability for renewable energy developers, fostering a more conducive environment for project development.

The introduction of the IDA has significant potential to be a game-changer in the planning system to unlock investment in NSW. The IDA aims to provide additional support for major projects, including renewable energy, to fast-track planning and environmental approvals.

With the first round of expressions of interest receiving 22 projects related to renewable energy and energy security, valued at $63 billion, it will be interesting to understand the benefits and impact the IDA will provide in accelerating delivery.

Key questions include:

• Will the IDA create any competing interests or silos in available resources within DPHI and referral agencies?
• Will a dedicated IDA team apply any unique or alternative assessment practices to existing state significant assessment teams? Either way, there needs to be transparency in the assessment approach and appropriate guarantees that SSDs will be assessed consistently and fairly, regardless of assessment pathway.
• Will the criteria restriction on government investment on projects limit the IDA pathway to renewable energy projects that are utilising the Australian government Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS)?

There is potential for the IDA to evolve and potentially merge with the DCA to enable a super centralised unit, that becomes available to assist in the coordination and assessment of projects that have been held in the system for extended timeframes and unable to resolve critical issues with relevant referral agencies.