We must plan for coal mine closures, not approve them because we lack a plan 

The Independent Planning Commission has approved a 19-year extension for the Hunter Valley Operations coal mine, a joint venture between Glencore and Yancoal. The decision came despite more than 3,000 submissions against it, many from Hunter region residents citing flooding, fire damage, rising insurance costs and health concerns. A former coal miner argues the extension exemplifies poor planning: mines will close eventually, but Australia should plan for that transition rather than approve extensions in the absence of a credible alternative energy and workforce strategy.

Where this fits

This story exposes a core problem in Australia's energy transition: the grid is moving away from coal without a firm replacement locked in. Gas is filling the gap, but gas is expensive, imported, and does not solve the emissions problem long-term. The extension buys time but deepens dependence on a fuel source the grid is trying to abandon, while no equivalent firm, low-carbon alternative has been authorised or funded at the scale needed. Nuclear remains banned by law, leaving Australia with no domestic, dispatchable, low-emission option to replace coal's role.

What it means

Coal exit is inevitable and correct on emissions grounds. But absence of planning is not an argument for staying in coal; it is an argument for having built a firm power alternative years ago. Australia will close these mines eventually. The question is whether it does so having secured reliable, affordable, domestic generation to replace them, or whether it stumbles through higher gas costs, grid stress and security dependence on China's battery and solar supply chain while pretending transitional firmness is no longer needed. The longer coal lingers without replacement, the harder and costlier the eventual transition becomes.