Background information to renewables projects

Renewable energy is essential to Queensland’s transition to a low-emissions future. At the same time, communities across the Darling Downs have raised legitimate concerns about how renewable projects are planned, approved, and delivered on the ground. Recent changes to Queensland’s planning framework represent progress – but important gaps remain. This page explains what has changed, what still needs strengthening, and the reforms needed to ensure renewable energy delivers lasting benefit for host communities and the broader public, while protecting communities, productive land, and nature.

What has changed since 2025

Queensland has strengthened parts of the renewable energy planning framework. A community benefit system now applies to certain large renewable developments, requiring proponents to assess social impacts and negotiate a legally binding Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) with the relevant local council. These agreements are intended to deliver tangible, place-based benefits for host communities — such as community infrastructure funds, energy bill relief for nearby residents, and contributions to local services.

Wind farms, solar farms and battery storage facility developments are assessed through an impact assessment process. Impact assessment includes public notification, allows community members to make submissions, and provides appeal rights for submitters.

Within this framework, the community benefit system applies to:

• Wind farms
• Solar farms with a maximum instantaneous electricity output of 1 megawatt or more
• Battery storage facilities with a maximum instantaneous output of 50 megawatts or more

Queensland is also developing bioregional guidance plans to better manage cumulative impacts using biodiversity values mapping and stakeholder input. This work is underway in three pilot locations that do not currently include the Darling Downs. Stakeholder engagement took place through 2025, with public consultation on draft plans expected in early 2026 and plans expected to be finalised and considered for approval in mid-2026.

These changes represent progress toward stronger planning and community safeguards. However, they do not resolve all concerns about cumulative impacts, engagement quality, biodiversity outcomes, benefit sharing, and long-term responsibilities such as decommissioning.

What still needs strengthening

Despite recent reforms, communities continue to raise concerns about cumulative impacts, the quality of engagement, biodiversity protection, fair sharing of benefits, and end-of-life responsibilities. Addressing these issues is critical to rebuilding trust and ensuring renewable energy development delivers durable public value.

The reforms below reflect Darling Downs Environment Council’s Renewables Done Right platform and priorities raised through the Shaping Renewables on the Downs process.

The reforms needed to do renewables right

1. Regional planning that protects prime farmland and nature

What exists now: Queensland has committed funding to pilot bioregional planning to strengthen landscape-scale decision-making.

What’s missing: Decisions are still too often made project-by-project, creating avoidable conflict and pressure on high-value land and ecosystems.

What needs to change:

• Coordinated renewable energy zone planning that engages communities so we don’t have a gold rush wild west of prospecting developers.
• Extra state government incentives for landholders with suitable high wind areas that are already cleared to become wind farm hosts.
• A traffic-light mapping system that directs projects to low-conflict areas and protects high-value landscapes.
• Accelerated bioregional planning so cumulative impacts are assessed proactively, before sites are locked in.
• Mandatory co-existence standards to protect productive cropping and grazing land, ensuring renewable development does not permanently displace the agricultural base that underpins these communities.

2. Corporate conduct and genuine community engagement

What exists now: Assessment and engagement expectations have been strengthened, and a developer code of conduct has been proposed as part of reform discussions.

What’s missing: Formal processes alone do not guarantee respectful engagement or trustworthy outcomes.

What needs to change:

• An enforceable code of conduct covering transparency, community engagement, independent legal and financial assistance for landholders navigating contracts and negotiations, and First Nations engagement.
• Accessible, trusted information so communities can verify claims and conditions.
• Clear accountability showing how community input influences decisions, without overstating who holds final approval authority.

3. Biodiversity outcomes beyond offsets

What exists now: Community participants have called for stronger environmental protections and a move beyond reliance on offsets alone.

What’s missing: Without strong “avoid first” rules and clear limits, nature is perceived as bearing disproportionate risk.

What needs to change:

• Reform Queensland’s environmental offset framework to strengthen avoid-first obligations, raise the bar for when offsets are permissible, and ensure offset delivery is independently verified and genuinely additional to what would have happened anyway.
• Stronger protection for high-value and irreplaceable biodiversity and landscapes.
• No net loss of native ecosystems, prioritising biodiversity enhancement within the local government area.

4. Fair local benefits and clear end-of-life obligations

What exists now: The community benefit system provides a formal pathway for councils and proponents to negotiate place-based benefits — these can include community infrastructure funds, energy bill relief for nearby residents, and contributions to local services. Planning rules also require decommissioning plans secured by financial mechanisms.

What’s missing: Benefit sharing and end-of-life responsibilities must be clear, enforceable, and fair.

What needs to change:

• Minimum benefit expectations, including community-wide and neighbour benefits and retrospective neighbour benefits for projects already approved.
• Early, enforceable decommissioning and rehabilitation, backed by financial assurance through insurance and/or security deposits so landholders are not left carrying the risk.
• Local jobs and procurement requirements during construction and operation, including minimum local employment percentages and apprenticeship/training ratios; responsible management of construction materials including concrete and solar panel end-of-life; and clear developer responsibility for road damage through pre-construction condition surveys and road damage bonds, and for housing pressures through developer contributions or provision of worker accommodation in towns that cannot absorb the influx.

Staying informed and involved

Renewable energy can – and must – be developed in ways that earn community trust and protect what matters most. Communities have the right to shape the energy transition that will remake this landscape — not simply to receive it. For more detail on these priorities and how to stay involved, see DDEC’s Renewables Done Right platform and the Shaping Renewables on the Downs forum summary.

---

References

Queensland Government — Planning Framework

Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (2025). Social Impact Assessment Guideline. Queensland Government. https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/17405/social-impact-assessment-guideline-july-2025.pdf

Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (2025). Social Licence in Renewable Energy: Toolkit for Local Government. Queensland Government. https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/about-us/resources/social-licence-toolkit

Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (2024). Planning Guideline — State Code 23: Wind Farm Development. Queensland Government. https://www.planning.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/98106/planning-guideline-state-code-23-wind-farm-development.pdf

Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (2025). Planning Guideline — State Code 26: Solar Farm Development. Queensland Government. https://www.planning.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/102271/planning-guideline-state-code-26-solar-farm-guideline.pdf

Toowoomba Regional Council (2025). Policy 2.90: Renewable Energy — Community Benefit Agreement. Adopted 8 December 2025. https://tr.qld.gov.au/edocman-links/6-aboutcouncil/21-councilgovernance/49-243-councilpolicies/5104-2-90-renewable-energy-community-benefit-agreement-policy

Community Engagement and Local Priorities

Darling Downs Environment Council (2025). Toowoomba and Darling Downs Renewable Energy Plan: Community Engagement on Priority Environmental Values. DDEC, Toowoomba. (Available on request from DDEC.)

Darling Downs Environment Council (2025). Shaping Renewables on the Downs — Regional Forum Summary. DDEC, Toowoomba. https://renewables.ddec.org.au/wp-content/uploads/forum_summary.pdf

Decommissioning and End-of-Life

Clean Energy Council and Queensland Renewable Energy Council (2025). Decommissioning Security Framework for Renewable Energy Projects. Technical Report. https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/decommissioning-security-framework-for-renewable-energy-projects

RE-Alliance (2025). Refurbishment, Repowering or Retirement: What Happens When Renewables Approach End of Life? Toolkit. https://www.re-alliance.org.au/renewables_end_of_life

Biodiversity and Coexistence

Carr, B. and McElnea, A. (2024). Building Better Biodiversity on Solar Farms Guide. Community Power Agency / Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal. https://cpagency.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Better_Biodiversity_on_Solar_Farm_Guide_May_2024-high-res.pdf

Clean Energy Council (2021). Australian Guide to Agrisolar for Large-Scale Solar. https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/agrisolar-guide/Australian-guide-to-agrisolar-for-large-scale-solar.pdf

Queensland Renewable Energy Council (2025). Renewable Energy Industry Biosecurity Guide. https://qrec.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/QREC-Biosecurity-Guide_2025-1.pdf

Housing and Local Impact

RE-Alliance (2025). How Australia’s Shift to Renewable Energy Can Deliver Beneficial Outcomes for Regional Housing. RE-Alliance.

Landholder Information

Queensland Farmers’ Federation (2023). Queensland Renewable Energy Landholder Toolkit. https://www.qff.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/QFF-Renewable-Energy-Toolkit-June23_web-1.pdf

Integrity Systems Company / Meat & Livestock Australia (2025). Renewable Energy Infrastructure on Livestock Properties — Solar Panels and Wind Turbines. Factsheet. https://www.integritysystems.com.au/globalassets/isc/pdf-listing-block/renewable-energy-infrastructure-on-livestock-properties.pdf

As regional Queensland experiences an unprecedented wave of clean energy investment, the very earliest phases of project development—historically loosely managed—have come under intense regulatory focus (Department of State Development, 2025). “Prospecting” refers to the preliminary stage where clean energy developers identify, evaluate, and secure options over prospective terrain before a formal development application is even lodged.

Historically, this exploratory phase occurred in a regulatory gray zone, frequently causing friction when developers approached regional landholders with speculative options or access requests without adequate transparency (Coexistence Queensland, 2025). To establish early equitable guardrails, the Queensland regulatory framework has formalised the prospecting landscape through targeted legislative amendments and codes of conduct.

A. The “Early-Access” Right and Legal Gateways

Under Queensland land access frameworks, renewable energy developers do not possess automatic statutory rights to enter private property for wind or solar monitoring during the prospecting phase—a critical distinction from the sub-surface access rights held by traditional resource and mining sectors (Queensland Farmers’ Federation [QFF], 2025). For a developer to install meteorological monitoring masts, solar resource sensors, or conduct preliminary ecological scoping, they must first secure a voluntary agreement from the landholder.

The industry standard framework requires developers to utilise an Exploration Licence or Access Option Agreement. Landholders maintain absolute veto power at this entry point; they have the legal right to decline access entirely or negotiate tight parameters around vehicle sanitation, target zones, and operational interference (QFF, 2025).

B. Pre-Approval Alignment with the 2025 Framework

The prospecting phase is no longer an isolated commercial exercise. Following the implementation of the Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025, the earliest prospecting interactions directly dictate later approvals.

PROSPECTING PHASE REFORMS

Early SIA Data Logs	CBA Minimum Baselines
Scoping and property access data feeds directly into local Social Impact Assessments.	Host communities leverage $1,050/MW (wind) or $850/MW (solar) baseline negotiation.

Data logged during early property scouting and landowner communications now feeds directly into the mandated Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Under the updated 2025 regulatory system, developers are explicitly discouraged from conducting “blind prospecting”—speculative site-banking without localised impact mapping (Department of State Development, 2025). Instead, early interactions with landholders are scrutinised during the evaluation of the Community Benefit Agreement (CBA), ensuring that any localised concerns raised during initial prospecting are properly documented before formal planning permissions are sought.

C. Navigating Early Corporate Offers

During the prospecting window, developers frequently offer landholders a Licence to Occupy or a Lease Option. These options essentially secure the developer’s exclusive right to the land for a window of 3 to 5 years while they conduct grid-connection studies and resource monitoring (Thyme Consultancy, 2023).

Regulatory authorities recommend that landholders treat prospecting documents with the same caution as a final 30-year lease agreement. If an option is poorly written, it can inadvertently tie up land titles, restrict unrelated infrastructure improvements, or fail to provide adequate financial bonds for decommissioning early monitoring infrastructure (Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, 2023). Under current Queensland guidelines, reputable developers are expected to pay a dedicated option fee during this phase and cover all reasonable legal costs incurred by the landholder when reviewing early-stage contracts (Thyme Consultancy, 2023).

References

Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. (2023). Annual report 2022: Review of community and landholder engagement in renewable energy projects. Australian Government.

Coexistence Queensland. (2025). Sustainable coexistence framework: Landholders, regional communities, and the renewable energy sector. Queensland Government.

Department of State Development. (2025). Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025: Statutory guidelines and implementation framework. Queensland Government.

Queensland Farmers’ Federation. (2025). Queensland renewable energy landholder toolkit (2nd ed.). https://www.qff.org.au/resources/toolkits/

Thyme Consultancy. (2023). Negotiating renewable energy leases: A practical guide for Australian primary producers. Thyme Publishing.

The relationship between coal mining and electricity generation in Queensland is frequently misunderstood, yet it forms the structural foundation of the state’s energy economics. To evaluate the true economic trajectory of regions like the Darling Downs and the broader Bowen Basin, a sharp distinction must be made between thermal coal—which is burned locally to generate electricity—and coking (metallurgical) coal, which is primarily exported for overseas steel manufacturing (Weldegiorgis, 2025).

1. The Power Market Divide: Thermal Coal vs. Renewables

Within domestic electricity grids, thermal coal and renewable energy function as direct adversaries. They serve identical end-use power markets, locking them into an active, capital-driven transition where cheaper utility-scale solar and wind alternatives are systematically eroding the economic viability of baseload coal infrastructure (Nicholas, 2022). As global asset lifecycles reach their natural end, the market is shifting rapidly toward these cheaper grid alternatives rather than reinvesting in emissions-heavy thermal generation (Nicholas, 2022; Weldegiorgis, 2025).

Conversely, coking coal does not compete with renewable electricity on the grid. Because it possesses distinct chemical properties required to reduce iron ore into steel within traditional blast furnaces, its demand cycle operates independently of domestic power prices (Nicholas, 2022). However, the rise of a regional renewable energy grid provides indirect, critical structural support to the local coking coal industry in two distinct ways:

• Electrified Freight Rail Infrastructure: Queensland’s massive export corridors rely heavily on electrified rail systems to move millions of tonnes of metallurgical coal from inland mines to coastal ports (Queensland Competition Authority, 2021). Transitioning the high-voltage networks powering these freight lines to low-cost renewable energy lowers the operational supply-chain costs for coking coal producers.
• An Economic Blueprint for Rehabilitation: The rapid expansion of large-scale solar arrays and battery storage networks on heavily degraded land offers an economic template for mine closure. Transitioning exhausted open-cut voids into renewable energy hubs gives mining operators a viable framework for post-operational land use, mitigating long-term liabilities while maintaining regional capital investment (Weldegiorgis, 2025).

2. Community and Environmental Anxieties: The Tripartite Friction

As the twin forces of resource extraction and renewable energy deployment converge on regional landscapes, they generate severe socio-economic frictions across three distinct perspectives: farmers, local landholders, and environmental advocates.

REGIONAL LAND USE & ECONOMIC FRICTION

Agricultural Sector	Regional Communities	Environmental Outlook
Ground water depletion Priority land invasion Cumulative dust impacts	“Boom & bust” housing Cumulative local noise Heavy vehicle disruption	Scope 3 export liabilities Intergenerational damage Surface footprint expansion

The Farmers’ Perspective: Resource Depletion and Biosecurity

For primary producers across the Darling Downs, the expansion of resource corridors presents an existential threat to agricultural continuity. Unconventional resource extraction—including coal seam gas (CSG) and open-cut mining—competes directly for vital natural resources like soil, water, and space (Williams, 2013).

A primary grievance is the risk posed to shared freshwater aquifers, where sub-surface depressurisation and the extraction of vast quantities of groundwater threaten the water security required for livestock and cropping (Williams, 2013). Furthermore, farmers routinely raise concerns over the fragmentation of “Priority Agricultural Areas.” The encroachment of mining infrastructure introduces cumulative dust impacts on crop yields and violates strict farm biosecurity protocols, raising the risk of weed and pathogen contamination across boundary fences (Taylor, 2020).

The Local Landholders’ Perspective: Social License and Infrastructure Strain

For regional residents who do not directly host or financially benefit from resource projects, industry expansion is often experienced as an unchosen, disruptive burden (Baldwin, 2024). Landholders frequently express anxiety over the “boom and bust” economic cycles typical of major industrial developments. Research confirms that rapid construction phases cause localised spikes in housing costs, rental squeeze, and demographic shifts that can alienate long-term communities (Measham et al., 2020).

Furthermore, residents face cumulative local annoyances, such as increased heavy vehicle traffic on rural roads, elevated baseline noise levels, and a perceived loss of self-determination as multi-billion dollar projects reshape their quiet, intergenerational rural viewsheds (Baldwin, 2024).

The Environmental Perspective: Cumulative Ecological Footprints

From an ecological standpoint, the continuation of coking coal extraction presents a complex regulatory challenge. Even as domestic electricity grids transition to zero-emissions renewables, the extraction and export of metallurgical coal continues to generate substantial Scope 3 emissions when processed in overseas blast furnaces (Croucher, 2023).

Locally, environmental groups emphasise that the physical footprint of mining operations causes irreversible landscape fragmentation, clearing remnant native vegetation and destroying critical biodiversity habitats (Williams, 2013). The long-term risk of un-rehabilitated voids, cumulative groundwater contamination, and the slow deployment of emerging commercial “green steel” technologies (such as hydrogen-based direct reduced iron) remain central pillars of environmental concern for regional ecosystems (Croucher, 2023; Nicholas, 2022).

References

Williams, J. (2013). An analysis of coal seam gas production and natural resource management in Australia. ACEDD Publishing.

Measham, T. G., Fleming, D. A., & Schandl, H. (2020). Lessons from 5 years of GISERA economic research. APPEA Journal, 60(1), 45–52.

Queensland Competition Authority. (2021). Review of the economic life of DBCT assets. Qld Government.

Nicholas, S. (2022). Iron ore quality a potential headwind to green steelmaking. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

Croucher, A. (2023). Australia’s clean industry and future: Making things here in a net zero world. Climate Council of Australia.

Baldwin, S. A. (2024). The contestation and coexistence of rural landscapes under resource expansion (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Queensland.

Weldegiorgis, F. S. (2025). Australian coal mining and economic diversification in the energy transition context. Resources Policy, 100, 105429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105429

Taylor, M. (2020). The contestation between and coexistence of agricultural land protection and unconventional extraction (Doctoral dissertation). Bond University.