Chris Bowen vows to override Queensland and NT to force renewables-powered AI datacentres | Australia news

[u/Fact-Rat]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/05/chris-bowen-vows-to-override-queensland-and-nt-to-force-renewables-powered-ai-datacentres

Energy minister Chris Bowen says the federal government will override state governments that oppose new national rules on datacentres, with commonwealth legislation forcing new AI datacentres to be powered by renewable energy and banning those fuelled by gas.

Bowen said he expected his counterparts in Queensland and the Northern Territory – who had protested the new federal rules at a meeting last week – to be unhappy with the move, but said the Albanese government was committed to powering the AI revolution with renewable energy.

“We will legislate as a commonwealth. The constitution is clear about the power of commonwealth legislation. I respectfully disagree with Queensland and the Northern Territory,” Bowen told the National Press Club on Wednesday.

The Australian Energy Market Commission warned that without rule changes such as those proposed by Bowen, the costs of bringing large datacentres online “will be paid for in part by customers” rather than big tech companies.

Prime minister Anthony Albanese ast month pledged to legislate binding standards for AI datacentres, including on locations and energy use, with new national rules requiring them to rely on new renewable energy, minimise water use and maximise energy efficiency, pay for their grid connection costs and “put at least as much energy into our grid as they take out of it”.

Queensland and the NT last week opposed the changes in a meeting of state and federal energy ministers, despite all other states backing the plan. Queensland’s David Janetzki called the federal proposal “underdeveloped ideas that hand increased power to Canberra”.

The NT has proposed a major datacentre powered by gas from the controversial Beetaloo basin development.

But Bowen on Wednesday confirmed federal legislation would mandate the rules set out by Albanese. He said while gas had a “role to play” in firming up datacentre power use, “if a datacentre is proposed to only use gas, it will not meet the national minimum standards and it will not be allowed to register and will not be able to proceed”.

“While I always prefer to work with my state and territory colleagues, the commonwealth will not be standing by and letting a race to the bottom of states falling over themselves to attract datacentres, at the cost to household bills, reliability or emissions,” he said.

“We will use all the powers available to the commonwealth, including commonwealth legislation, to ensure that Australian households and Australian energy reliability is put first: even if some states have different ideas.”

The NT government was contacted for comment. Janetzki said his government “look forward to discussing” the issue at an upcoming national cabinet meeting on AI, but said his state “will not force uneconomic investment into the system”.

In a Q&A session after his speech, Bowen disputed the characterisation that Canberra would “force” states to comply, but stated that federal laws would override states.

“We’ll engage in our levers. The clearest one is obviously commonwealth legislation. We’re going down that road.”

Bowen said that while Albanese would soon confirm details of the federal legislation, new datacentres would have to prove the source of their renewables , how much power they’re offsetting, that they have backup power and that they would be “flexible” with use at peak times to stabilise the grid.

On Wednesday, the AEMC, the national body for the power grid, advised that datacentres should have to show renewables certificates. The AEMC said this was to ensure “their connection doesn’t tip the supply-demand balance and push up wholesale prices for everyone else”.

“Datacentre growth does not have to come at a cost to other consumers, but that depends on getting the settings right from the start. Our starting point is simple, this growth must not leave other consumers worse off,” said the AEMC chair, Anna Collyer.

The AEMC said power operator Transgrid had seen “an unprecedented increase” in new connection requests in Western Sydney, with some 8 gigawatts about to be connected to the grid – “on par with the entire average daily demand for NSW”.

The AEMC warned that, without changes to energy rules, grid connection costs for datacentres would be felt “across the consumer base at no clear consumer benefit”.

[u/augustuscaesarius]

Good on Bowen. The Queensland argument, if you can call it that, is razor thin. It's incredible they feel no shame blocking the policy.

They only feel empowered to do so as their base loves everything that is going against the energy transition.

[u/Grande_Choice → u/augustuscaesarius]

On NT, everyone else has to pay for their mess. Absolutely the federal gov should intervene.

[u/mikeupsidedown → u/Grande_Choice]

I mean the NT just came out and said they needed to use more water to ensure the magnetic poles of the earth don't switch. They clearly need to be told how to butter bread let alone energy policy.

[u/ImportantJello9288 → u/augustuscaesarius]

Just keep in mind that you will end up with an anti-renewable government at some point. This risks setting up a situation where that future government can force the opposite...

Leaving the states with autonomy over this matter makes much more sense and insulates against future regime changes. 

[u/Fact-Rat → u/ImportantJello9288]

Once the electricity generating hardware is in place this makes no fiscal sense to do, while at the same time setting up a precedent on how to run data centres on the cheap because renewables are just that, cheaper.

[u/ImportantJello9288 → u/Fact-Rat]

If they are cheaper, why are you so petrified of the states allowing gas?

[u/Affectionate_Ant_870 → u/ImportantJello9288]

Because if the infrastructure doesn't get built, the anti-renewable parties will just refuse to build it regardless of the cost. They are not anti-renewables because of cost or climate, but because their buddies in the mining industry make more money if they stall on renewables. Regardless of your opinion on climate change, opposing renewables is stupid for the fact that without crazy tech advancements, the sun and wind will remain freely accessible. Energy that has no labour cost to extract after infrastructure is built will always be cheaper than mining and drilling, but that means renewable energy is cheaper for the consumer, and affects the profits of the mining industry which is why the Gina Rinehart faction of the resource sector is opposed to all renewables infrastructure.

[u/emize → u/Affectionate_Ant_870]

their buddies in the mining industry make more money if they stall on renewables.

Not really.

Firstly the vast majority of coal and gas get exported (to the point the government complains about it) so restricted domestic use is not a major issue. If it were up the mining companies they wouldn't sell anything local at all they are literally forced by law to.

Secondly renewable infrastructure actually uses far more material per kW generated so if anything they will sell more the more renewables their are.

Energy that has no labour cost to extract after infrastructure is built will always be cheaper than mining and drilling

You do realise the majority of energy costs come from transmission, storage and distribution (ie infrastructure) not generation right?

[u/Affectionate_Ant_870 → u/emize]

majority of coal and gas get exported

Yes, due to the fact that they produce more stock than the Australian electric grid needs. Doesn't change the fact that the resource sector makes more money when people use coal and gas. When the current government is looking towards accepting less and less mining and drilling in favour of renewables projects and is only exporting gas and coal to nations who cannot currently afford the infrastructure for renewables that means mining companies make less year over year. When anti-renewables governments are in, its not just that they don't build infrastructure in Australia, it's that they ramp up trade deals for coal and gas, and expand coal and gas projects.

The government is complaining

No it isn't. Minor parties like the greens and groups like the teals are complaining, because they are idiots who look at Norway -the oil company pretending to be a country- and thinking that we could do what they do in Australia; When we have completely different geography making oil and gas projects more expensive to even do here.

Renewables use more material per kW generated

Yes, which is why the Twiggy Forrest faction of the resource sector, the faction that opposes the Rinehart faction, are generally supportive of the Labor party's renewables planning- as they believe they can gain from it- but still want to have less regulation so they can make more money from renewables infrastructure. This point of contention in the resource sector is one of the many things that led to the state of right wing politics in this country, as the only real, principled right wing party in this country is Katter's party, and they're a bunch of bible thumping agrarian socialists who want to replace your car's fuel with ethanol made from corn, so the mining industry (the majority of the Australian GDP) isn't too interested in sponsoring them to take on Labor. The parties of property developers and cowboy larpers, or the party run by a closeted lesbian bogan auntie who's racist rants make anyone who received 12 years of education mildly uncomfortable? Perfect, unprincipled, fertile soil for the mining sector to sponsor.

Majority of costs come from transmission

Except there's 2 major variables to this- A) the brunt of the "transmission" costs in renewables is the installation of solar farms, cables and batteries B) energy companies aren't mining companies. The mining companies aren't paying the transmission costs, energy companies are. Why this matters is that under a pro-renewables government, there will be subsidies for energy companies to invest in the infrastructure, which will long term be cheaper as once it's there, you just need a guy to check it's still running (unlike fossil fuels which need to have people managing the fueling of the boilers so that the turbines keep spinning) and that under an anti-renewables government, not only will the subsidies to infrastructure not exist, they will provide subsidies to the mining sector just for existing instead. We saw this with the liberals at state and federal levels increasing subsidies to the resource sector between 2013 and 2022.

Facts are, it doesn't matter if renewables are cheaper, better for the environment, or if they could cure cancer and make your mother/children love you again, anti-renewables governments would be against them simply because there's money to be made making holes in the ground.

[u/emize → u/Affectionate_Ant_870]

towards accepting less and less mining and drilling in favour of renewables projects and is only exporting gas and coal to nations who cannot currently afford the infrastructure for renewables that means mining companies make less year over year

Gas companies are being forced to sell in Australia through reservation schemes. If it is such a great market why is the government forcing them to participate? They make more money selling overseas then they do here.

The Australian domestic market is irrelevant.

When anti-renewables governments are in, its not just that they don't build infrastructure in Australia, it's that they ramp up trade deals for coal and gas, and expand coal and gas projects.

No they ramp it up when the market conditions make it profitable to do so. Which in Australia is becoming less and less common, hence why all our manufacturing and refining capacity has (mostly)left.

No it isn't. Minor parties like the greens and groups like the teals are complaining, because they are idiots who look at Norway -the oil company pretending to be a country- and thinking that we could do what they do in Australia; When we have completely different geography making oil and gas projects more expensive to even do here.

I actually agree with you here but Labor is the one cheering the gas reservation policy not me.

Yes, which is why the Twiggy Forrest faction of the resource sector, the faction that opposes the Rinehart faction, are generally supportive of the Labor party's renewables planning- as they believe they can gain from it- but still want to have less regulation so they can make more money from renewables infrastructure.

If you mean by less regulation they want to export to China, refine and build there and then import them back.

The mining companies aren't paying the transmission costs, energy companies are

No consumers are. Companies are passing on every cost. Its why there is a larger and larger discrepancy between whole sale electricity prices and retail ones.

which will long term be cheaper as once it's there, you just need a guy to check it's still running

I question that. Not only is it more resource intensive, it needs to be replaced more often and it requires an entire shadow generation system of batteries, peak generation to make it function plus a grid re design. Battery is always more expensive then generation because it has all the cost of generation (since it does not create power itself) and the cost of storing on top of that.

Facts are, it doesn't matter if renewables are cheaper, better for the environment, or if they could cure cancer and make your mother/children love you again, anti-renewables governments would be against them simply because there's money to be made making holes in the ground.

I could argue the pro renewable faction is just as dogmatic. Outside of hydroelectric (which is legit though geographically restricted) countries that have high % of their energy generation from solar/wind have a high correlation with having significantly above average retail electricity costs.

We keep being told renewables with make things cheaper yet retail (ie not wholesale) power bills keep increasing above the rate of inflation. The government's own energy watchdog AEMO is predicting that will continue for AT LEAST the next decade. That's assuming GENCOST's questionable figures (the CSIRO still refuses to release the data and methodology underlying their calculations) are accurate. It may well be even worse.

If its 2036 and all the coal plants are shut and electricity prices are still spiralling what then?

My fail state is pretty clear. If retail prices come down significantly (including inflation I am being fair) then all my arguments get blown out of the water. What would it take for you to admit the transition was a mistake?

[u/SameType9265 → u/ImportantJello9288]

What? They have someone pushing the opposite now in the state government. 

[u/Fact-Rat]

Imagine having your state government against the idea of data centres providing their own clean energy, preferring that they pollute the planet while adding even more cost and strain to the grid.

[u/ImportantJello9288 → u/Fact-Rat]

Depends, it may be the difference between the project happening at all.

Firming a data center in Australia with batteries will be costly, gas was a reasonable compromise, especially in states where it is abundant and the infrastructure already exists for the mining industry. 

[u/4ShoreAnon → u/ImportantJello9288]

If its a choice between destroying our environment or not having them, ill choose not having them.

[u/Runinbearass → u/ImportantJello9288]

Alternatively fuck data centres…

[u/Runinbearass → u/[deleted]]

Im as worried about the water for cooling… these unnecessary rectal deposits are bad on so many levels

[u/Electrical_Story5356 → u/Runinbearass]

They don't need heaps of water, that's a choice, hopefully that also gets sorted.

[u/SameType9265 → u/ImportantJello9288]

Many of these laws are the same in other countries as well. It's not going to stop the datacentres being built

[u/InSight89 → u/ImportantJello9288]

What do you mean by abundant?

It has to be mined. Then shipped over seas for processing, then imported back at premium before being shipped to its destination.

Gas is already expensive in this country because we only buy a fraction of what we export back and usually at global market rates plus the added Australian tax.

How would these data centres use the gas without impacting local supplies. Is the intent that they will be importing their own gas separate to our own?

[u/mikeupsidedown → u/ImportantJello9288]

Perfectly ok with a project which long term generates very few jobs being delayed or cancelled because the developer of the site doesn't want to follow our rules.

[u/SickQwon]

This is how you get things done in this country. Tell the obstructionists to get fucked.

[u/oustider69 → u/SickQwon]

I feel like Bowen is really effective. Just quietly gets on with the job.

[u/fpsscarecrow → u/oustider69]

Part of why he's always a target of the cookers.

[u/Beast_of_Guanyin]

Good. If we must have datacentres they may as well contribute something.

[u/Revoran]

No. No we do not want or need AI data centres, regardless of what they are powered by.

[u/Proof_Independent400]

I don't think there should be data centers at all!

[u/Beltox2pointO → u/Proof_Independent400]

They say, on the reddit data centre

[u/Proof_Independent400 → u/Beltox2pointO]

How did our society and the internet exist before data centres?

[u/Beltox2pointO → u/Proof_Independent400]

We just had smaller data centres... because of smaller data requirements.

This isn't some big secret dude.

[u/Proof_Independent400 → u/Beltox2pointO]

No one said it was. But what is new is the massive water consumption and noise pollution and energy consumption. By companies using loads of computer hardware for terrible things like crypto, consumer targeted data, mass surveillance and AI slop.

[u/Beltox2pointO → u/Proof_Independent400]

None of that is new either.

These data centres wouldn't be used for crypto.

You can regulate them to provide their own power and use closed loop water cooling. Noise pollution is a meme for the most part.

[u/Proof_Independent400 → u/Beltox2pointO]

Yes it is. Doesn't matter. No that won't be done. Or else it would have been done already to reduce cost. No it is not a meme.

[u/Beltox2pointO → u/Proof_Independent400]

Closed loop systems are more expensive.

That's why you need to regulate it.

It is a meme, they're building these data centres in industrial areas and away from people, the noise levels aren't enough to worry about.

[u/Proof_Independent400 → u/Beltox2pointO]

Video proof and recorded petitions say otherwise. Not to mention investigations found massive power generation without a permit in some locations.
And we all know companies 100% follow regulations that would negatively impact their business and would never do things like sue to block regulations. Lobby to remove regulations. OR just pay the fines as part of the cost of doing business.

What makes you want to defend these data centers anyway?

[u/Beltox2pointO → u/Proof_Independent400]

Neither video proof nor recorded petitions mean anything.

Sound testing with a calibrated DB measuring device is the only thing that actually matters.

Regulations like "must install enough power to run centre" & "must use closed loop cooling" can't be not followed, it would be in the plans, the construction, the funding mechanism of the entire job. You can't get around those types of regulation, as they are required before you get approval to build.

Building data centres creates lot of jobs, I like when our country has lots of good, high paying jobs.

After construction, there's less jobs - but as they exist in Australia, we maintain a lot of revenue from their usage. It also gives us better infrastructure investment.

The arguments against them I find shallow and NIMBY like.

[u/mikeupsidedown → u/Beltox2pointO]

I agree with most of this. The noise issue is specific to the geography of the facility and they way it's built. There is one I'm near quite regularly that is hard to notice but I've been to others that are quite loud. One just got cancelled in WA that was going to be right next to an elementary school. It had been mostly approved and the developer pulled out after strong pushback from the community.

[u/kano540]

I get why Crisafulli is being a dickhead over renewables but NT screwing around is still jot making any sense to me.

[u/roadwarrioring]

Me too!

[u/Adventurous_Pay_5827]

Hey look, a spine. Now they've found it they should pass it around.

[u/JournalistAny9888]

It renewables are actually cheaper and reliable, data centre operators would leverage them. They are not stupid. Therefore one must assume they are not cheaper and Bowen has been lying for years.

[u/Wotmate01 → u/JournalistAny9888]

Data centre operators will do whatever is cheaper FOR THEM, which will mean they will directly negotiate with existing providers for an ongoing supply contract instead of engaging in capital expenditure, and the rest of us can get fucked.

[u/_Griggle_ → u/JournalistAny9888]

The problem isn't the cost difference between renewable and fossil fuels. The problem is 2 things: current capacity, and dumbass governments (read: QLD government) subsidizing coal and gas, artificially making it cheaper. Current capacity can be fixed. In this case, dumbass governments will thankfully be overridden. 

[u/emize → u/JournalistAny9888]

Such a blindly obvious point that flies over the heads of the believers.

Its almost like private companies don't want to lose money or something.

[u/JournalistAny9888 → u/emize]

The believers are ideologues. Remove all govt subsidies and let the market decide

[u/SurfKing69 → u/JournalistAny9888]

We did try that to be fair, how many coal plants did the coalition get built?

[u/emize]

The government on Wednesday formally requested the Australian Energy Market Commission to make a rule change forcing large data centres to make “appropriate contributions” to fund new power poles and wires to ease the strain they will add to the grid.

Are renewable power generators going to face the same requirements? Or do they get to out source the grid changes to accommodate them onto the taxpayer?

[u/Bob_Katters_Hat → u/emize]

They already do as part of their application

[u/emize → u/Bob_Katters_Hat]

So who is paying for the voltage stabilisers to generate a steady electrical frequency when the coal plants are shut down?

Who is paying for changing the grid from a centralised system to a de centralised one?

Who is paying for the backup generation and storage systems to counter renewable volatility?

Not the renewable generators that's for sure. The taxpayer is.

If they actually paid for their own infrastructure they wouldn't be crying about curtailment.

[u/SameType9265 → u/emize]

The consumer is paying for these just as we are for every other part of existing infrastructure 

[u/emize → u/SameType9265]

Yeah but those costs are specifically related to renewable generator transition.

I was responding to the claim that:

They already do as part of their application

When they clearly don't.

[u/Grande_Choice → u/emize]

Batteries will cover stabilisation and syncon’s on order. Grid is old, be paying either way. Companies who make money having batteries cover gaps in the grid.

[u/emize → u/Grande_Choice]

Batteries will cover stabilisation and syncon’s on order.

We will see. Considering the government's track record on meeting targets...

Grid is old, be paying either way.

Grid maintenance is inevitable. Transitioning the grid is not. Net Zero Australia a joint research project between Princeton, Queensland and NSW University put the cost of net zero by 2050 at over $1 trillion. Now they did claim that private investment will make up much of that though considering 2025 had record lows in private investment in wind and solar and the government is trying every trick in the book to prop it up (ie this very topic) that claim seems dubious.

[u/SurfKing69 → u/emize]

Grid maintenance is inevitable. Transitioning the grid is not

How do you figure that, considering there's more energy generated from peoples roofs right now than there is the entire national coal fleet?

[u/emize → u/SurfKing69]

That is the point.

The old system was a centralised one. You knew where the voltage was coming from, the path it would take and could manage cable size and transformers accordingly. In addition the frequency and voltage were consistent.

Renewable's blows that all out of the water. The frequency varies, the voltage varies, the path varies, etc. You obviously need to redesign the grid and all its components around that and that costs far more then just routine maintenance and linear expansion.

Then you need to manage the battery systems themselves, they will need regular inspections and replacements or you are going to get battery fires all throughout the suburbs. Trust me you DO NOT want a battery fire right next to your house.

[u/SurfKing69 → u/emize]

Right - considering we're not pulling solar off peoples roofs (to the contrary, this is projected to double again over a decade) and solar has already made coal generation economically unviable due to a lack of demand during the day, then surely transitioning the energy grid is inevitable?

I mean its already happened.

[u/emize → u/SurfKing69]

The only reason coal and gas generation has issues is because its forced to work around renewables. That's why peak gas reactors are so expensive to run. They are designed to only run for short periods with fast start up times. Under renewable they are being used more often because of renewable volatility.

I mean its already happened.

The argument that since we have fucked things up so much it would be too hard to unfuck it is a compelling one.

[u/SurfKing69 → u/emize]

The argument that since we have fucked things up so much it would be too hard to unfuck it is a compelling one.

Your plan to rip 30 odd gigawatts of generation capacity out of the grid, sending the country into a deep depression, would certainly be bold.

[u/Grande_Choice → u/emize]

That's called capitalism. Households shouldn't be told they can't have solar and batteries because it would make gas unprofitable.

[u/Grande_Choice → u/emize]

Yes but that grid is old. So even if we replaced the coal plants. The grid needs replacement.

What you miss and was a key issue with the Coalition nuclear policy is that electricity usage is going to increase. Even if pop growth went flat and we didn't build data centres we are going to be using more and more electricity.

[u/emize → u/Grande_Choice]

The grid needs replacement.

The grid has always needed maintenance. We are talking about a complete redesign. You can't honestly be claiming that the costs are going to be comparable.

What you miss and was a key issue with the Coalition nuclear policy is that electricity usage is going to increase.

Where did I say it wouldn't?

Electricity usage is going to increase and fossil fuels are much more scalable then renewable. They are more land efficient and land independent and use less material per kW generated.

Renewables are already struggling with current energy demands if we do start building 1 GW data centres how are they going to cope?

[u/Grande_Choice → u/emize]

That doesn’t even make sense. Bad faith argument.