The Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal
Plans to develop the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal (VRET) in the Port of Hastings require rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the sensitive Western Port environment is protected.
The purpose of the VRET is to import and assemble the components needed to construct and service windfarms planned for Bass Strait. It is located between the existing wharves owned by Bluescope Steel and Esso. (Image above, credit Port of Hastings Corporation).
We strongly support the move away from fossil fuels, but only if alternative energy projects can demonstrate that they can manage their environmental impacts through rigorous and transparent environmental approval processes.
Recently, the Port of Hastings Corporation submitted the VRET project to the Commonwealth government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This is required because Western Port is listed under the Ramsar Convention, which imposes legal obligations on the Commonwealth to protect environmentally important wetlands that are crucial for migratory bird species covered by the Convention.
The Institute’s submission to the Commonwealth government is shown below.
Update 1 October 2025
The Commonwealth’s decision, dated 28 July 2025, regarding the VRET, stated that the project would be assessed under a Bilateral Agreement with Victoria. This prompted the state government to open the revised Draft Scoping Requirements for the Environmental Effects Statement for public comment, which closed in mid-September.
The Dolphin Research Institute’s submission about the Scoping Requirements is shown below.
We will keep this post updated as more information becomes available.
DRAFT SCOPING REQUIREMENTS
VICTORIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY TERMINAL (VRET)
ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT (EES) (Environmental Effects Act 1978)
September 2025
Dolphin Research Institute Submission to the Victorian Minister for Planning.
Introduction
The Dolphin Research Institute (DRI) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft Scoping Requirements for the EES which will now operate under a Bilateral Agreement with the Commonwealth and State of Victoria, to assess the project’s likely impacts and inform statutory decisions.
The DRI is based in Hastings at the Western Port Marina where we have had our office and Marine Education Centre since 2001.
The Institute is an evidence-based research and education organisation that has worked to achieve impacts for Dolphins and Whales, the Marine Environment and the Community since 1991.
In many ways, Western Port is seen as a “poor cousin” to Port Phillip. They are ecologically very different, but they are both highly significant environments subject to international conventions such as Ramsar and protected under other state and federal environmental legislation.
We are on the public record that we wait until we understand the outcome of an EES process until the knowledge in the EES is published. We then respond to both the adequacy of the process based on the adequacy of:
- The characterisation of the environment and ecology
- The thoroughness of the risk capture and assessment
- The effectiveness of the Environmental Management Framework in addressing the risks.
DRI’s comments on the Draft Scoping Requirements follow and focus primarily on issues related to marine mammals and the broader marine environment they rely on.
Comments
The overall document seems thorough and highlights the importance of characterising the existing environment that has been left wanting in other similar EES processes.
Section 3.1.3.iv
Offset measures should acknowledge the challenges of offsets in the marine environment upfront and be integrated into the overall approach throughout later considerations in the draft.
Section 3.6
Dot point 6: The General Environmental Duty of Care under the EP Act 2017 importantly adds a higher layer of responsibility than only being at fault IF a problem happens.
Dot point 9: Is important to ensure at least one of the potential “environment positive” outcomes of the project (even if it doesn’t proceed).
Section 4.1
The inclusion of “Cumulative effects” in Table 1 is important to stress.
Section 4.2
Water and catchment values. The project’s potential to achieve a net gain in the wider area’s current inputs into Western Port could be added here.
Section 4.3 Biodiversity and ecological values
Dot Point 7: “… impacts on marine biota, including benthic …” should be … including benthic and pelagic…
Dot Point 9: The last dot point under Key Issues on page 19 mentions offsets that are relevant to terrestrial considerations. The difficulty of offsets in the marine context should be considered, and perhaps a net gain consideration should be introduced, recognising that like-for-like offsets are not possible.
- Environment Characterisation should include
- Spatial and temporal patterns for bottlenose dolphins (and possibly common dolphins), humpback whales, southern right whales, killer whales and Australian fur seals.
- The above can benefit from fresh and wider field surveys in addition to desktop surveys.
- The behaviour of sound in the underwater environment in the construction zone and the nearby area. This should cover a 12-month window of data. This can inform timing and shutdown criteria (if needed) during heavy construction and may be relevant during operation.
- Modelling vessel traffic before, during and after construction to assess the potential for ship strike.
- Develop mitigation measures for construction and operation periods. This could include additional surveys, monitoring, and having Marine Mammal Observers present at key times and locations. It could also include protocols for vessels.
Section 4.5
Dot Point 4: Biosecurity issues are not limited to “biofouling”, which implies species on the hulls of ships, but include larval and planktonic species in ballast water. Not all exotic species would be classified as “biofouling”.
Overall
The revised scoping requirements appear to have benefited from the additional time and new knowledge, as well as revised design elements, to lessen their impact. We offer the following:
- The opportunity to broaden the scope of studies in response to significant new knowledge is an important tool in these scoping requirements. However, thorough engagement will be necessary to explain why certain matters may not be included.
- The requirement for peer review of each significant study should be included in these scoping requirements to ensure access to expert perspectives on the quality of the work and conclusions.
Conclusion
The VRET is a significant part of Southeast Australia’s transition to renewable energy. However, it should only progress if it can demonstrate its environmental sustainability.
A rigorous process must be undertaken to adequately characterise the environmental values in the region of the proposed project, the risks the project poses to those values, and the risk management framework to manage the risks.
The Dolphin Research Institute understands that the final Scoping Requirements will guide the EES process and, ultimately, the framework to inform the approval process. We hope that our suggestions assist in achieving a stronger process.
Finally, the Institute urges incorporating an “environmental gain” principle into the evaluation process for these projects.
For more information:
Jeff Weir OAM, Executive Director | 0419356388 | director@dolphinresearch.org.au
The Institute’s submission to the Commonwealth Government in response to the Port of Hastings Corporation’s referral under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act follows.
Response to Referral #2025/10224 2025 Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal
15 July 2025
Introduction
The Dolphin Research Institute (DRI) is based in the Western Port Marina in Hastings, where we have had our office and environmental education centre for 24 of our 34 years of work. Our interest in the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal (VRET) relates to the potential impacts to the overall environmental sustainability of Western Port and to marine mammals in our region. Our data on dolphins and whales have been contributed to the Port of Hastings Investigations.
Western Port is an internationally significant environment with marine and coastal values that underpin its status as a Ramsar Wetland, a UNESCO Biosphere and home to three Marine National Parks.
DRI strongly supports the government’s policy to shift to a renewable economy and away from the use of fossil fuels for power generation.
Plans by both federal and state governments to develop offshore windfarms in Bass Strait offer a huge opportunity for our region to move towards sustainable energy production. These plans rest on the development of a shipping hub for the import, storage and assembly of windfarm components before they are offloaded to jack-up barges for offshore installation.
The VRET proposed by the Port of Hastings Corporation (PoHC) is strategically important for the development and maintenance of proposed Bass Strait wind farms. However, it is important to view this referral by the PoHC as a separate matter to the offshore windfarms, so this discussion will be limited to the referral for VRET project for the Port of Hastings.
Context
The 2025 referral to the Commonwealth regarding the VRET is in a context where both Victorian and Commonwealth governments have made previous decisions:
- In October 2023 Victorian Minister for Planning determined that an Environmental Effects Statement (EES) is required and invited comments on draft terms of reference. However, this remains an unfinished process.
- In February 2024, the then federal Environment Minister, determined that the PoHC’s 2023 Referral to the Commonwealth was a ‘Controlled Action’ and also that it would have ‘clearly unacceptable’ impacts. The Minister rejected the referral without enabling the matters raised in the Minister’s Statement of Reasons to be tested through a rigorous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or EES in Victoria.
The 2025 Referral to the Commonwealth to develop the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal (VRET) in the Port of Hastings
- DRI notes that the PoHC has responded to the previous federal Environment Minister’s statement regarding the February 2024 decision, undertaking substantial marine and terrestrial environmental and engineering investigations, alongside wide community and indigenous engagement.
- The 2025 Referral benefits from the above-mentioned investigations and community input through a deeper understanding of the issues and refinements to the design of the project.
- The design changes have significantly reduced the footprint, risk from sediment plumes, use of spoil as land fill for example, to manage and minimise environment impacts.
- The 18 attachments to Referral present a huge volume of new knowledge that help to clarify the potential risk to key values relevant to the EPBC Act.
- However, this new knowledge does not replace a formal environmental impact assessment. There are clear gaps such as the limited timeframe for acoustic studies that need to be extended, to give one example in DRI’s area of interest.
- This work has certainly provided a rich knowledge base to inform a revision of the Terms of Reference for the EES required by the Victorian government.
The Question of the Project Being a ‘Controlled Action”
A controlled action is one that the minister decides has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a protected matter.
The PoHC Referral, Section 4.1, lists potential impacts relevant to the following sections of the EPBC Act: S16 Ramsar Wetland, S18 Threatened Species and Ecological Communities, and S20 Migratory Species.
The PoHC Referral, Section 4.1.4.8, states that:
- Marine Ecology: seven EPBC Act listed species were potentially present in the region of the Project Area, but significant impact on these species is unlikely.
- Waterbirds: Three EPBC listed species were assessed to trigger the significant impact criteria. However, the small extent of habitat in the Project Area, relative to the whole Ramsar site, suggests that it is unlikely that the impacts to these species will be significant.
- Migratory Species: Later sections note that migratory species may be impacted by the project but not at a significant level.
- Threatened Flora and Fauna: Direct impact to the small Swamp Skink population and habitat in the southeast sector of the Project Area is unavoidable and clearly, a significant impact.
The above points clearly show that there is potential for “significant impact on a protected matter” and DRI urges the Minister to declare the project a ‘Controlled Action’.
The response to the declaration of a ‘Controlled Action’.
DRI urges the Environment Minister to use a ‘whole system’ lens to view the VRET proposal, considering:
- The VRET’s importance to the system of offshore wind.
- The relative scale in the Western Port and Ramsar system.
- The potential for the VRET to leverage net benefits for the Western Port environment, which DRI will expand on in the future.
DRI considers that the new knowledge presented in the PoHC’s 2025 Referral is substantial and suggests that many of the potential risk factors are minimal or manageable with appropriate measures.
With the above said, the referral as a whole does not equate with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). There are clear data gaps that need further investigation and more detailed risk and environmental management plans. Completed studies also need independent peer reviews.
There is a strong precedent with another project in the Westernport Ramsar Site, the AGL Liquid Natural Gas Terminal, where the project was declared a controlled action and the Commonwealth Environment Minister required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be undertaken to inform the final decision.
In the AGL example, the project was assessed under a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth and Victoria, so that the Victorian EES process was used to inform the Commonwealth’s decision.
DRI urges the Minister to require an EIS to be undertaken, requiring the exploration of all questions and concerns captured through the referral and other processes, including community consultation. The EIS should be transparent and include independent reviews of all investigations and environmental management plans.
Further, it would make sense, as with the AGL precedent, to come to an agreement with the state government to undertake a single, thorough process that satisfies the needs of the EPBC Act, the State Environment and Planning Laws, the community and most importantly, the environment.
In conclusion
The Dolphin Research Institute recognises the VRET in the Port of Hastings as a strategically important asset for the development of offshore wind energy as part of the government’s strategy to move away from fossil fuels.
DRI believes that there is sufficient cause to declare the project a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC Act and urges the Environment Minister to do so.
PoHC’s 2025 referral presents the results of numerous environmental and engineering studies. This new referral shows amended designs that reduce the environmental footprint and suggest that many of the risks to the environmental values relevant to the EPBC Act can be managed.
The 2025 referral, however, does not take the place of an EIS, with studies over a longer timeframe that address all the previous concerns, in addition to new questions that will flow from this referral and other engagement processes.
DRI believes that VRET project should proceed to an EIS process where all questions can be fully tested and appropriate Environmental Management Plans are in place to manage risk. Reports and plans should be peer-reviewed and publicly accessible.
Ultimately, the VRET must only proceed if we can be sure that risks to the Western Port and Ramsar values are not significant and can be managed.
Jeff Weir OAM, BSc; MSc; DipEd; MFIA, Executive Director, Dolphin Research Institute
director@dolphinresearch.org.au | 0419356388
Disclosure Statement: Jeff Weir is a member of the VRET Community Reference Group.
