The decision itself is a week old and is on the Commission’s case page, which as at 7 October 2026 shows the case as determined and approved. We reported the slipping deadline in August and Singleton Council’s support in our piece on its submission. What is new is the paperwork published alongside the decision: the Commission’s own draft conditions, the department’s reply, and the conditions that ended up in the two consents. Read together, they show a decision-maker that tried to write emissions rules into a single mine’s approval and, on the department’s advice, did not.
The mines sit about 26 km north-west of Singleton, mostly in Singleton Council area with a small part of HVO North in Muswellbrook Shire. The Commission’s Statement of Reasons records 10,109 written submissions in the main submission period and 133 speakers over three hearing days, and its summary puts employment at the mine at up to 1,407 jobs. The consents name the applicant as HV Operations Pty Ltd.
The emissions at stake
The Statement of Reasons (Table 3, p. 14) estimates the project’s lifetime emissions at 809,082 thousand tonnes of CO2-e, about 809 million tonnes. Almost all of it is Scope 3, the coal burned by its buyers overseas: 793,763 thousand tonnes, or 98.1 per cent. Scope 1, the emissions from the mining itself (methane released from the coal, diesel, explosives, clearing), is 15,104 thousand tonnes, 1.9 per cent. Scope 2, the emissions from the grid electricity the mine buys, is 215 thousand tonnes.
Scope 1 is the part that counts against NSW’s own legislated targets, and the Commission records that the applicant already cut it by redesigning the project, dropping a high-gas mining area and about 220 million tonnes of coal, for a reduction of 11.5 million tonnes or 43 per cent (p. 21).
What the Commission drafted, and what the consents say
On 15 September the Commission sent the department a table of potential changes to the conditions the department had recommended in June, and asked for advice on their workability, enforceability and any unintended consequences by 22 September. The department’s reply is dated 23 September. The table below sets the three versions side by side, using HVO North’s condition numbers.
| Emissions | Department’s recommended conditions, June 2026 | Commission’s draft, 15 September 2026 | Approved consents, 30 September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 (mining) | A Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Plan prepared with the EPA, with emission goals, annual reporting and a review every three years (B1). | Offset every tonne of gross Scope 1 emissions above an annual allowance. An allowance exists only in years when NSW coal sector emissions are below a benchmark derived from the State’s targets, shared between eligible mines. Independently assured annual reports (conditions W and X). | The June plan, now also tracking the mine’s share of coal sector emissions against NSW Government targets and whether its offsets come from NSW projects (B1). The EPA may set stricter requirements (B2). |
| Scope 2 (electricity bought) | No specific condition. | Each year, match all grid electricity used with an equal amount of accredited renewable generation, independently assured (condition Y). | From four years after commencement, implement reasonable and feasible measures to maximise the use of renewable energy for the development(B3). |
| Scope 3 (coal burned by buyers) | No specific condition. | Export only where the buyer’s jurisdiction is identified and is a Paris Agreement party or Taiwan; after later Paris global stocktakes, supply only to jurisdictions complying with their targets (condition Z). | A plan with protocols so exported coal is consumed only in Paris parties, or places the Planning Secretary considers have consistent policies; revised every five years; Commonwealth policy prevails on any inconsistency (B4 to B8). |
On Scope 1, the Statement of Reasons (p. 20) says the draft would have
required the Project to offset all of its Scope 1 emissions, less any headroom made
available by the coal sector performing well against its targets
. The department
was blunter about the likely effect. Its advice (p. 4) says the draft conditions
would likely require the offsetting of all Scope 1 emissions from the development
from its commencement
, and records DCCEEW’s view that there may be limited
headroom.
Why the department advised against them
The advice opens (p. 1) by saying the department is very concerned that the
proposed conditions to regulate Scope 1 emissions are not consistent with NSW Government
policy for the coal sector
. Its argument, in its own terms: the EPA is the lead
greenhouse regulator and environment protection licences, not development consents,
should be the main tool; a separate allowance scheme for one mine, or a handful of
eligible ones, cuts across the government’s economy-wide approach; and setting
sector targets is the government’s job. It also argued the Commission’s
headroom calculation would count the project’s emissions twice, because they are
already in DCCEEW’s projections (p. 4).
On exports, the department wrote (p. 6) that the power to restrict trade rests
with the Commonwealth Government
, and relayed NSW Resources’ view that the
conditions could be unconstitutional. It said the Paris Agreement’s own reporting
and review system already does the job the Commission wanted (p. 8): The
condition is not required given the position of the Department outlined in this
letter.
It nevertheless offered revised wording for an export condition, and that
wording is what the consents now carry as condition B4. On the facts, it said (p. 7) the applicant had shown that all its
proposed export jurisdictions are party to the Paris Agreement, with the exception of
Taiwan, which the department says has equivalent commitments.
On renewable power, the department suggested (p. 6) a four-year transition like the one in the NSW Data Centre Guidelines, with the requirement met where reasonable and feasible.
What the Commission said in accepting the advice
The Commission accepted the advice on each scope. On Scope 1 it said a separate
framework for a single development would represent a departure from the NSW
Government’s broader policy approach
(p. 20). On Scope 3 it accepted that
its draft could result in a development consent effectively regulating international
trade, a matter that is principally the responsibility of the Commonwealth
Government
(p. 24), and that it could have penalised buyers with more ambitious
targets while favouring less ambitious ones (p. 24).
It did not adopt the department’s optimism wholesale. The Statement of Reasons
(p. 20) says regulation not yet in force is a prospective policy measure, whose
timing, content and application to this Project remain uncertain
, and that the
assessment cannot assume future regulation will cure the impacts. It also says it does
not rely on offsets generated outside NSW as showing the project is consistent with the
State’s emissions path (p. 12).
Two other routes to fewer emissions were considered and not taken. The Net Zero
Commission’s 2025 coal report, quoted in the Statement of Reasons (p. 12),
found that Continued extensions or expansions to coal mining in NSW are not consistent
with the emissions reduction targets in the Climate Change Act or the Paris Agreement
temperature goals it gives effect to.
The Commission said it does not consider
that Finding 4, of itself, requires refusal of the Applications
(p. 19). It
also looked at approving a shorter mine life, and decided against it, giving
determinative weight
to the applicant’s evidence on mine planning, capital
recovery and operational integration (p. 19).
How we read the documents
All seven documents are on the Commission’s case page; the request, the advice, the consents and the Statement of Reasons are all dated 30 September 2026 there. Page numbers for the Statement of Reasons are its printed page numbers. The first pages of the Commission’s 15 September request are scanned images; we read the covering letter by eye and quote nothing from it. The draft conditions in its attachment carry a text layer. The draft’s Scope 3 clause names Taiwan; the Statement of Reasons (p. 24) says the assessment referred to the coal being exported primarily to Paris signatories, and Taiwan. Emission shares are the Statement of Reasons’ Table 3 figures: 793,763 / 809,082 = 98.1 per cent and 15,104 / 809,082 = 1.9 per cent; 11.5 / (15.1 + 11.5) = 43 per cent. The department’s advice attaches agency and applicant responses we did not read in full. We did not contact the Commission, the department or the applicant.
Our read
This section is opinion, based on the facts and documents above.
The interesting part of this decision is the road not taken, and the Commission let everyone see it. It published its draft, the department’s reply and its reasons for giving way. That is how the process is meant to work, and it means anyone weighing the next Hunter coal extension can see exactly where the limits of a single consent were drawn, and by whom.
The weight now rests on regulators outside the consent. Under the approved conditions, how hard HVO’s mining emissions are pushed down depends mostly on the EPA, which may set stricter requirements under B2, on the Commonwealth’s Safeguard Mechanism, and on sector plans NSW has not yet set. The export condition asks for what the department says the applicant already does, and the Planning Secretary can switch it off if another law covers the ground (B8). Neither is a criticism of the conditions; it is where the control sits.
What to watch next
A note under condition B1 says EPA licensees will have to prepare a Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Plan by 31 March 2027, and that with the Planning Secretary’s approval it could satisfy B1. The department’s advice (p. 3) says the Safeguard Mechanism is subject to review in 2026-27. Both will shape what the HVO consents mean in practice more than the consents themselves.