Summary

  • The NT EPA selected an EIS method on 15 September, but it has not granted environmental approval; the federal EPBC referral remains in “Awaiting additional information” status.
  • The Commonwealth asked for more species information, while the NT EPA suspended its own terms-of-reference decision timeframe to consult the National Environmental Protection Agency.

The two most important dates in Project Ares’ review record do not describe the same decision. On 15 September, the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority (NT EPA) chose an environmental impact statement (EIS) as the method for its assessment. On 7 October, it said the timeframe for deciding the EIS terms of reference had been suspended so it could consult the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA). Neither announcement says that the proposed 1 GW data-centre campus has been approved.

The distinction matters because there are two statutory tracks. The NT EPA’s method decision under the Territory’s Environment Protection Act sets how the Territory will assess potential environmental impacts. It is not the later environmental-approval decision, which follows the EIS and the NT EPA’s assessment advice. The Commonwealth referral sits under the EPBC Act and has its own decision process.

The federal record explains why the tracks have not yet converged. Energy North referred Project Ares under the EPBC Act on 29 June, before responsibility for federal assessments transferred to NEPA on 1 July. NEPA’s 20 August submission to the NT EPA says it requested additional information on 24 July, particularly about listed threatened and migratory species, and stopped the federal statutory decision period under section 76. The requested information had not been supplied as of that letter.

On 15 October, the public EPBC portal still listed referral 2026/10560 as “Awaiting additional information.” That status is a snapshot, not a prediction of the eventual decision.

The request reaches beyond a species checklist. In comments on the draft NT terms of reference, NEPA suggested clearer requirements for renewable-transition milestones, information on migratory species, mapping of groundwater-dependent ecosystems and surface-water features, wastewater arrangements, climate resilience, fire regimes, and monitoring. These were suggestions for the NT EPA to consider, not final terms already adopted.

That distinction feeds into the conditional bilateral path. NEPA said the proposal may be eligible for assessment under the Commonwealth–NT bilateral agreement, pending the EPBC referral decision and its timing. NT EPA guidance says the terms of reference can reflect federal protected-matter requirements when a bilateral or accredited process applies. The practical inference is that the federal decision could clarify whether one EIS is structured to inform both jurisdictions. The agencies have not said that this arrangement is already in force for Project Ares.

The NT EPA’s reasons for selecting an EIS point to the evidence burden. It identified potential significant effects across ten environmental factors and said the referral did not contain enough information on most environmental aspects for it to be confident about impact predictions or the effectiveness of proposed mitigation. The proposal itself remains a set of proposed bounds: up to 4 gigalitres of groundwater a year, extensive solar and battery infrastructure, gas-fired generation, and a preliminary disturbance footprint of 19,150 hectares within a 186,000-hectare project area.

The NT EPA records six government-authority submissions and 63 public submissions during the referral period. Its reasons describe recurring questions about water, habitat, cumulative effects, energy transition, land disturbance and cultural values. Those numbers show the breadth of input; they are not a vote on the project. Participation can identify evidence gaps, while the statutory authorities retain their distinct decision responsibilities.

The next useful signals are documentary: whether Energy North supplies the information requested by NEPA; whether the federal referral status changes; when the NT EPA publishes final terms of reference; and which of NEPA’s suggested evidence requirements appear in them. A later draft EIS should then show how the proponent answers those requirements and how the agencies treat uncertainty. Until those steps occur, “EIS selected” describes a route into assessment, not an environmental finding on the project.

Sources