In my last piece, I argued that WA’s immunity to the renewables pushback sweeping Australia was real but temporary. The question was never if communities would push back against wind and solar developments, but when, and whether WA would be ready.

Last week, the State Government answered by releasing its Community Benefits Guideline for large-scale renewables in the South West Interconnected System (SWIS), drawing on lessons from the East and building something more structured in their place.

Large-scale renewable investment came earlier to the eastern states and even to WA’s Pilbara before it did to the SWIS. But that is changing fast. Systemwide coal retirement in WA is now among the earliest in Australia, and private investment is increasingly looking to fund the gap in the market this will create. How communities share in the energy transition has never mattered more.

Learning from the East

The Eastern States have each taken their own approach to community benefit sharing, and the experiences are instructive.

Queensland became the first Australian jurisdiction to legally mandate Community Benefit Agreements when its legislation commenced in July 2025, requiring them before a development application could even be lodged. The intent was good. The feedback from industry was pointed.

“This will only deter investment in the State and make it much harder for communities to realise any benefits.” Clean Energy Council, July 2025

The concern was practical. Queensland required a binding agreement to be executed before a single planning document could be submitted, committing developers to significant financial obligations for a project not yet assessed, with no published guidance on how much to contribute, and through negotiations with councils who often had no experience doing this.

Victoria took a softer, guidance-based approach with more positive regional outcomes in places like the Wimmera Southern Mallee. But consistency was hard to achieve at scale.

Three themes emerged from both states that WA has designed around:

• Investment certainty matters. Regulation (or regulatory ambiguity) at the wrong point in the development process can delay or redirect projects.
• Communities need tools. Without a structure to guide the investment, outcomes are inconsistent.
• Individual councils cannot carry this alone. The resourcing demands are beyond the capacity of smaller regional shires.

A structure that works

The Guideline is worth reading in full, but its four key design elements are:

• Published contribution rates. Tiered benefit rates mean both developers and communities start from the same page, a transparent baseline, adjusted for inflation, for the life of the project.
• Place-based plans. Community Benefits Plans are developed collaboratively with LGAs, developers, Traditional Owners and community groups, reflecting local priorities rather than generic goodwill gestures.
• Regional administration. Regional Development Commissions (RDCs) serve as fund custodians, pooling contributions from multiple projects and managing governance and reporting. This directly addresses the resourcing problem that overwhelmed individual councils in Queensland.
• Investment-friendly timing. Developers commit in principle before lodging a DA, but contributions only begin once the project is operational.

What communities can expect

The figures are meaningful. A 200 MW wind farm contributes $200,000 per year to its host community. A 500 MW wind farm contributes $500,000 per year, or $12.5 million over a 25-year operational life.

For comparison, NSW’s wind rate is $1050/MW per annum. For smaller wind projects (10-50 MW), WA’s rate of $1500/MW is notably more generous. For larger projects, rates are broadly comparable. The more significant difference is structural: WA’s RDC model provides regional administration and pooled governance that NSW’s more localised approach does not.

The practical difference between the two states is not so much in the dollar amounts as in the structure around how that money is identified, administered and spent.

The Wimmera Southern Mallee model

The Guideline references a Victorian case study worth noting. The Wimmera Southern Mallee Development Commission partnered with The Energy Charter and ten renewable energy developers to establish a regional pooling model addressing the project-by-project inconsistency seen elsewhere in the state. The collaboration built a shared vision, directed funding toward skills training and infrastructure, and delivered stronger community participation and improved regional planning.

“This three-year partnership focuses on pooling resources and expertise to ensure funds deliver collective, meaningful, and enduring outcomes.”

WA’s RDC-based structure is designed to replicate this from the start, rather than discovering its value after years of inconsistency.

What this means for proponents

In my experience, the majority of renewable energy developers in WA want to do the right thing for the communities in which they intend to operate. The challenge has rarely been intent. It has been the absence of a clear process for translating that intent into outcomes communities value.

The Guideline removes that uncertainty. It gives developers a clear process tied to familiar approval milestones, a published funding amount rather than a negotiating position, and a regional partner that reduces the administrative burden on developers and councils alike.

In my work in community engagement, stakeholder management, and development approvals, this is the kind of scaffolding that makes genuine partnership possible.

The voluntary question

The Guideline’s most obvious limitation is that compliance is voluntary. Unlike Queensland’s mandatory framework, WA has not legislated these standards.

That is a fair observation, but also a considered design choice. Mandatory pre-DA requirements in Queensland created the very investment hesitation the scheme was intended to avoid. WA has opted for a framework that gives developers every reason to participate, through transparent expectations, an efficient process, and a clear social licence benefit, without a regulatory barrier that sends projects elsewhere.

The government has, in my view, made the right call: structure and incentives first, mandate if necessary.

The State Government has indicated it may mandate standards in future, and compliance will be encouraged through the Commonwealth’s Capacity Investment Scheme. The smart move for any developer active in the SWIS is not to wait.

A better foundation

WA is at a pivotal moment in its energy transition. Thousands of megawatts of wind and solar need to come online over the next decade, and the communities hosting those projects deserve to share meaningfully in the benefits.

The Community Benefits Guideline provides that foundation. For ReGen clients navigating approvals and community engagement, my advice is simple: engage early, engage genuinely, and treat the communities your projects will affect as partners, not obstacles.

That is not just what the Guideline asks for. In my experience, it is what actually works.

---

ReGen Strategic provides specialist advisory services in community engagement, development approvals, and stakeholder management for major projects across Western Australia. If you would like to discuss how the new Community Benefits Guidelines affect your project, get in touch.