Go to top of page

Use and selection of Experts

6.1. Observations

The design and approval of a proposed wind or solar farm relies heavily on third-party consultants (or ‘experts’) to prepare a range of reports including assessments related to noise, visual amenity, shadow flicker, aviation, flora and fauna, hydrology, vegetation and various other environmental assessments.

Experts are selected and paid for by the developer. The expert reports are typically included with the developer’s planning permit submission to the responsible authority when seeking approval for the project. Many of the assessment reports rely on complex calculations or results from predictive computer modelling. These reports also rely on assessing the project against standards that are not always clearly defined.

The accuracy of the assessment reports and recommendations is therefore highly dependent on the quality and precision of the assumptions used, correct application of calculations, the integrity of computer modelling applications, the accuracy of the data used and the skills of the expert in interpreting the output of the resulting analysis.

Once the wind or solar farm is built, experts are engaged to carry out any required post-construction assessments. These assessments, and resulting reports, utilise actual data from the operating project, however may still rely on assumptions and modelling to collect and analyse the data and to then present in a format to support the conclusions.

It is very common practice that experts engaged to perform the design and predictive assessments during the planning phase are the same experts engaged by the developer to perform the post-construction assessments. Developers may also often use the same experts on multiple projects, establishing a long-term relationship between the parties.

The selection and use of the same expert in both the design and then post-construction phases of a project may give rise to perceived or real conflicts of interest between the developer and the expert as well as expectations effectively placed upon the expert to confirm the project’s compliance.

As a hypothetical example, an acoustician engaged to assess a proposed wind farm’s design for compliance with the noise standard – is then engaged to assess the constructed, operating wind farm to confirm compliance with the noise standard. The expert acoustician may then be placed in a difficult situation if the acoustician discovers some aspects of the operating wind farm are potentially non-compliant, particularly if those areas of non-compliance may be a result of errors or assumptions made in the original acoustician’s design assessment. There may be enormous pressure on the expert acoustician to measure and/or interpret the operating noise data in such a way that would demonstrate compliance, rather than non-compliance, of the operating asset.

There is certainly scope for a clearer separation between the experts used for the predictive assessments used in the design/application stage versus the experts used for the post-construction assessments of a project, along with the inclusion of independent audits of the expert’s reports. A more rigorous process would yield a range of material benefits including minimising costly expert errors during the assessment phase, minimise or eliminate perceived or real conflicts of interest and give all stakeholders greater confidence in the integrity and reliability of the expert assessment process.

Best practices that has been observed or implemented are as follows:

  • A suitably qualified expert be appointed by a developer to carry out the relevant assessment during the planning application and project design activity. The appointed expert must be free of any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Before approving the design or planning application, an independent, accredited auditor be appointed to scrutinise and review the expert’s assessment/design report. The auditor’s report and findings/recommendations are provided to the developer, the developer’s expert, the responsible planning authority and other relevant agencies for the subject matter (e.g. Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Country Fire Authority, Environment Protection Authority, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment etc.).
  • Once the project is constructed, a different expert (that is, different and unrelated to the ‘predictive assessment’ expert) be appointed to carry out any required post-construction compliance assessments, as specified by the planning permit or equivalent instrument.
  • The post-construction compliance report is then reviewed by a different (that is, different to the auditor of the ‘predictive assessment’ report), independent, accredited auditor to confirm the accuracy and integrity of the post-construction report. The auditor’s findings/recommendations are issued to the developer, responsible authority and other relevant agencies.
  • Project compliance is confirmed once the responsible authority is satisfied with the findings of the experts, accompanied by unqualified audit reports.

    These additional steps and appropriate separation of experts and auditors will go a long way to facilitate confidence for all stakeholders in the significant decisions that are made on the basis of expert reports. The process will also provide better protection for industry from very costly errors and risks of subsequently being found to be non-compliant.

    This type of approach for noise assessments was piloted, on a voluntary basis, at a proposed Victorian wind farm. In applying a more conservative approach than the initial assessment, the process found that a material number of turbines at that wind farm were at risk of breaching compliance if deployed as planned. Early identification of these issues allowed the proponent to adjust the operational design and parameters accordingly to ensure compliance – before construction commenced.

The Victorian Government has now formally adopted the accredited noise assessment auditor framework for all new and modified wind farm planning permits. Other states have implemented or are considering implementing variations on the above. In some cases, industry proponents have also adopted some or all of these best practices, even if not required, to ensure integrity and accuracy of the expert reports they are relying on.

In addition to noise assessments, other expert disciplines that have led to material issues in recent times included aviation safety assessments and vegetation clearing assessments for transportation routes. Errors and/or omissions in those assessments lead to either significant project cost overruns or cancellation of the project as a result.

Finally, it is expected that these reforms will increase the market opportunities for additional experts and auditors as well as help facilitate growth of skills and firms in the relevant disciplines.

6.2. Recommendations

6.2.1. Given the heavy reliance on advice and assessments provided by experts in a project’s design, planning, construction and compliance decision-making, qualified experts used for assessment engagements should be ideally selected from an accredited panel or list. The panel or list could be maintained by the relevant responsible authority (or environmental regulator). Alternately, the panel or list could be maintained by a relevant industry body or association.

6.2.2. To ensure independence and remove any real or perceived conflicts of interest, the expert organisation (or expert) selected to perform post-construction compliance assessments of a project should be a different expert organisation (or expert) to the one engaged for the design/planning phase of that project.

6.2.3. Expert reports, assessments and techniques used for planning submissions, such as the predictive noise assessment, should be reviewed and assessed by an independent auditor, appointed or accredited by the responsible authority and/or relevant regulator. Further, expert reports prepared with respect to post-construction compliance should also be reviewed and assessed by a different, independent auditor, also appointed or accredited by the responsible authority and/or relevant regulator.

6.2.4. The appointed independent auditors (refer to Recommendation 6.2.3) should be suitably qualified, experienced and accredited, have the ability to assess the integrity and accuracy of the expert’s report and be able to identify and confirm compliance or non-compliance with the relevant permit conditions and/or prescribed standards.

6.2.5. Planning approval processes should carefully take into account the advice of independent auditors and/or referral agencies, such as CASA, before deciding on whether to approve a project. Where appropriate, designated authorities (e.g. the relevant road authority), may be deemed to be a statutory referral agency, whereby their advice and recommendations must be adhered to by the responsible planning authority.

Further information