Response to the Queensland Energy Roadmap 2025

This is an open letter to the Queensland government.

The Queensland government released an Energy Roadmap in October 2025.

Here's the government's overview of the Roadmap.

This is the actual Roadmap [PDF], which prominently states:

A balanced energy plan means affordable, reliable and sustainable energy for all Queenslanders

Commendable aspects of the Roadmap

The government is to be commended for

Disappointing aspects of the Roadmap

A. The Roadmap does not stack up scientifically

The consensus of IPCC scientists for some time has been that:

  1. No new fossil fuel facilities should be opened, yet the Roadmap allows for new gas facilities, increasing the generation capacity using gas from the current 3.5 GW up to 8.3 GW by 2035.
  2. All current fossil fuel power generation should be phased out as soon as possible, yet the Roadmap allows for coal-fired power plants to remain open to 2050, and indicates the government is intending to spend 4 times as much on keeping fossil fuel facilities open compared to the amount it’s planning to use for direct renewable energy support. (Of course, there is significant infrastructure spending like $2.4 billion for Copperstring to support - but not mandate - renewable energy distribution.)
  3. All current fossil fuel extraction should be phased out as soon as possible, yet the Roadmap allows for continued extraction of coal “for as long as needed” and a commitment for 1 GW of new gas-fired energy generation with no stated expiry date.

Queensland’s carbon footprint includes all aspects of energy extraction, use and export. It does not appear possible that the legislated target of 75% reduction of emissions by 2035, nor net zero, can be met with these policy settings.

It is very troubling to us that David Janetzki writes,

“State-owned coal assets will continue operating for as long as needed in Queensland’s electricity system and supported by the market”.

This ignores the science regarding the dirtiest energy source.

It’s telling that the Energy Roadmap page on the Treasury site uses a photo of a gas field as the hero image, and the still for the video is a coal facility. In “The Road Ahead” section further down, coal and gas comes before storage and renewables. This suggests the real priorities for the government.

Further, in the Roadmap overview box on page 7, it has in part:

Section 2 outlines Queensland’s energy system outlook to 2030 and beyond, considering a range of potential pathways for coal-fired generation and new investment.

It appears to us that the LNP’s decision to ignore the clear science that says coal-fired power should be the first to be phased out, followed by gas, is somewhat more “ideological” than the previous government’s intention to actually follow that scientific advice.

B. The Roadmap does not stack up economically

The cost of energy is rarely accounted for in its entirety. While the models that the government have used could well indicate an "annual avoided cost" of $1,035 a year in energy costs, this clearly doesn’t allow for:

  1. The falling cost of solar and batteries which is ongoing. It’s already much cheaper to create new solar farms, so it doesn’t make economic sense to increase gas production or gas power plants.
  2. Increasing insurance costs as the effects of global warming become more severe. Many people are already seeing house insurance costs rise more than $1,035 per year, to the extent some are left with no choice to become uninsured.
  3. Increasing housing costs as the spread of cyclone risk becomes greater and moves further south, it’s likely houses in SEQueensland will need to be cyclone proofed

At the local and state government level, the costs of mopping up after increasing natural disasters are becoming unsustainable. Rates and state taxes will inevitably increase to fund mitigation and cleanup costs.

The Roadmap does not address the issue of the high proportion (85% - source) of Australia's - and especially Queensland's - gas that is exported. If Queensland ensured abundant gas for domestic use and the federal government collected proper taxes and PRRT, power prices would plummet.

One of the reasons the gas companies lobby governments about “gas shortages” is their well-founded fear of being left with stranded assets. Since governments support the gas industry, they (meaning us taxpayers) are also facing high costs for keeping this infrastructure afloat. Spending $1.6 billion in this area is not wise economics, when coal and gas are not the future.

Reliable energy is crucial for economic health. Propping up our most unreliable energy source (coal) does not square with the government’s stated aim of delivering reliable energy in an economic way. A recent Reliability Watch report found from 1 Apr - 30 Sep 2025, an average of 26% of Queensland’s coal-fired power station capacity was offline, despite being the youngest coal fleet. There were 119 unplanned breakdowns.at coal-fired power stations across the NEM. Despite forecasting 93% availability, coal-fired power stations were only available 78% over the winter period.

I expect most Queenslanders, if they were really made aware of the actual costs involved, would rather pay an extra $1,035 for energy if it means assurance of sustainable and reliable energy, and a stable climate, rather than massively increased costs for insurance, housing, taxes and writing off stranded assets.

C. The Roadmap does not include the Community Solar Banks programme

The federal government has made funds available for the states to support shared solar systems and lower electricity costs. Currently, NSW, Victoria, SA, WA, NT ans SA all make use of these Community Solar Banks funds in a shared funding arrangements to provide solar for body corporates and apartments. The Roadmap makes no mention of plans to use these funds.

D. The Roadmap does not adequately address the issue of demand

Governments seem to assume that ever-increasing energy demands are a “good thing”, because it indicates increased economic output. However, if demand can be reduced, there is less need for polluting power generation and ever-increasing environmental destruction for the sake of new energy sources. GDP output per unit of energy demand has been decreasing worldwide for decades - and Australia needs to do more in this space to address ever-increasing demand.

After the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan and the subsequent shutdown of nuclear plants, energy consumption dropped by 8.5%, but there was only a 0.1% hit to GDP. We don’t have to continue ramping up energy production like there’s no tomorrow.

E. The Roadmap does not indicate how emissions will be reduced 75% by 2035

The word “emissions” only appears 8 times in the Roadmap, in sentences such as:

“Changes in the operation of coal assets over time drive a reduction in Queensland electricity sector emissions, consistent with the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050.”

But this is not a roadmap to 75% reduction in emissions by 2035. It's a framework with quite a bit of wiggle room that may produce the desired results, but without clear targets to measure progress against, it will not be clear what has been achieved.

In “Other modelling assumptions” on p 26, it has:

“Emissions: The model did not apply renewable energy targets, consistent with the Queensland Government’s position. Emission reduction outcomes in this modelling are primarily driven by scenario-based operating timeframes for coal assets, rather than a carbon budget as per the ISP”

Since there are no clearly articulated targets for renewables in the Roadmap, it appears that the Queensland government is just hoping the adopted measures will produce emissions reductions targets. It’s not clear how this can be achieved, given that enforceable targets are usually the only way to achieve required outcomes..

F. The Roadmap lacks transparency

The government has committed to retaining all existing publicly owned electricity assets, but we're concerned that a higher percentage of the assets will end up in private hands, given that the government is enthusiastic about private investment in this area.

The stated renewable energy targets, the requirement to report on renewable energy targets and public ownership of assets that were put in place by the previous government were dropped by the current government. It's difficult to square these decisions with the stated aim of keeping the Net-zero by 2050 target, while allowing the public to see how well it is progressing.

While the CopperString project is very promising, without clear renewables targets it's quite possible the gas companies will convince those in power that it will be easier to supply the West with gas-fired power.

G. The Roadmap does not stack up politically

The LNP lost a significant number of seats federally in the last two elections. At a state level, the LNP is almost non-existent everywhere in Australia, except in Queensland and the NT. Polling has shown many of the LNP votes bled away because of the LNP’s weak policy responses to climate change, or indeed antipathy and outright hostility to doing anything about it from some members. There’s still the desire to keep coal and gas in the energy mix for as long as possible.

As the demographics change, and as more people realise it’s governments that have to be the big movers in solving the issue of climate change, the votes will slip away here in Queensland, too.

Why risk our future, the future of our children, the future of the planet, and your own political future, with policies that keep fossil fuel extraction and use in play for as long as possible?


Signed,

Concerned Queensland citizens

Posted by Murray. Last modified: 20 Dec 2025.

top