• I support the provision of essential infrastructure and services for the rapidly growing areas of Logan - growth that in large part stems from development approvals by the Logan Council.  The electricity load growth for the area is massive, which is why the proposed powerline is needed.
  Energex has determined the best overall route for the powerline, taking into account economic, social and environmental factors.  I support the community consultation process that Energex is undertaking to inform the alignment within the powerline corridor.  It has resulted in changes already to the powerline alignment that was originally proposed
• I have not seen any proposal from Logan Council for a substation, nor where the council has set aside land for such a substation
• I am not aware that a final decision on the powerline's alignment has been made, or appears to have been made.  The community consultation process that is underway has resulted in changes to the original proposal.  I am advised these changes include a proposal from the Logan Council to move the powerline away from the road alignment near where a bridge is planned to a private property not impacted by the original proposal. 

 EVAN MOORHEAD, MEMBER FOR WATERFORD

• Yes
• The current proposal is a route which minimises the impact on the community, both through impact on properties and impact on electricity prices.
• I met with Mayor Parker and Energex and Powerlink representatives last week. I support the investigation of the proposal. The preliminary advice from Powerlink and Energex is that Council's proposal for Energex to build a substation at Greenbank would be more costly and require more powerlines to be constructed through residential properties in Munruben, Park Ridge South and North Maclean. Essentially, the energy network works on a hub and spoke model. The Council's suggestion for another "hub" would require a new set of "spokes" to be constructed.
• No decision on a route has yet been made. The current proposal is just that, a proposal. Consultation is an opportunity for other proposals to be put forward for consideration. The current proposal is being considered because of its lower impact on the community and electricity prices. Should another proposal better meet these objectives, I am happy to support the proposal. I understand that Energex have consulted beyond their statutory obligations and there is a further round of consultation to come.

AIDAN McLINDON, MEMBER FOR BEAUDESERT

• No
• It makes no sense in this day and age to construct such a project along a river, across a river, and above ground with such serious environmental impacts
• It would certainly be worth investigating this proposal by the Logan City Council and would make an interesting comparison to what we are currently faced with. 
• If the consultation is a genuine approach in seeking alternative proposals rather than merely 'addressing the concerns' of the community, I would ask Energex to clarify its position on the possibility of engaging in alternative proposals so as not to give the community false hope. This will prevent the consultation process from becoming a token gesture in order to fulfill the criteria for the applications requirements

MARGARET KEECH, MEMBER FOR ALBERT

• No
• After listening to local residents, I have requested Energex to investigate alternative route options to reduce the current proposed seven river crossings.  Residents have told me their concerns include ecology, risk of flood damage, local river amenity and future property losses.
• Energex is currently examining all public proposals, including Logan City Council's submission.
• I'm advised that a preliminary report will be released by Energex in October and that the public will once again be able to have their say.