Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

I grew up in the affected area, which is an important part of our food bowl. Desecrating this land is maddness, Are you people mad? Just the logistics of trying to set this up is maddness. You will be destroying our beautiful countryside, this is never going to supply the energy we need. Nuclear energy is what we need.

The EIS for CWO REZ Transmission project by EnergyCo is a blueprint for enormous change for the Central West Orana region. Most of this change will be adverse. This is acknowledged by EnergyCo throughout the EIS. For example, Chapter 20 - Cumulative Impacts, includes the following categories of impacts: 

- Land use, property and agriculture
- Landscape and visual
- Biodiversity
- Aboriginal heritage
- Social
- Economic
- Noise and vibration
- Bushfire risk and general hazards
- Traffic and transport
- Waste management
- Surface water and groundwater supply
- Air quality

Each of these impacts are substantial in their own right, and this list cannot be considered comprehensive. Importantly, there has been no coordinated assessment on the planned and foreseeable future projects in the CWO REZ that attempts to model the interaction of these impacts, or attempts to address potential cascading adverse outcomes. There is no attempt to quantify or even consider any limits to damage on the environment and communities in the CWO REZ from rampant renewable development. Instead, EnergyCo is mostly focused on the ever increasing gigawatts they can extract from the region. Their approach is akin to removing the speed limits from roads in an attempt to increase traffic. There is a growing sense that rampant renewable development in the CWO REZ is more like the wild west, even anarchy.
EnergyCo have limited their research to individual impacts (listed above), and to certain cumulative impacts centred around the development stage, as listed in 20.3 Management of Impacts:

- Workforce accommodation
- Road upgrades and traffic management
- Training and skills
- Waste management
- Mobile connectivity
- Social infrastructure

Data gathering has mostly centred around the impacts on the provision of services. While these issues are critical, there is also a vast shortfall in assessing how the implications of multiple impacts listed above will interact with each other, compounding issues with a large number of renewable developments which potentially lead to catastrophic outcomes. For example, EnergyCo state their transmission project in the CWO REZ will be built through habitat subject to SAII (Serious And Irreversible Impacts):
Five threatened fauna species are identified as being at risk of an SAII. This includes two threatened microbat species (Eastern Cave Bat and Large-eared Pied Bat), Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby, Boradheaded snake, and the Regent Honeyeater. (10.19)

These SAII to threatened species relate to the EnergyCo transmission project alone. The construction and operation of giant transmission infrastructure through the habitat of this fauna can only lead to adverse outcomes on these Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (CEEC). However, it is also clear that EnergyCo are not considering the cumulative impacts to biodiversity across the CWO REZ as a whole. The transmission project will enable proposed and ongoing renewable projects to be developed, and given their supposed coordinating role, EnergyCo should be investigating the potentially catastrophic cumulative and cascading SAII on biodiversity of all projects in the REZ. 

Direct damage to biodiversity from construction of EnergyCo transmission infrastructure is only one of many impacts that contribute to cascading adverse outcomes. For example, how will water use during development of all projects affect biodiversity? What are the implications of a major bushfire event with water under development stress, and how will this interact with the SAII on species that have been devastated already by rampant development across the REZ? Firefighting teams in other proposed transmission projects have announced they will refuse to fight fires near them as they are too dangerous - how much more damage will occur from uncontained fires? How will communities cope with dramatic and adverse changes in the landscape right across the CWO REZ from extensive towers, wire and steel? Most residents don't want to live inside a 'modern day power station', they choose to live in the region largely for its scenic quality. With this lost, what will be the cumulative social effects on the majority who had no say in becoming a REZ?

The NSW Network Infrastructure Strategy (May 2023) suggests that the CWOREZ may require an increase up to a total 9 GWcapacity by 2043. This would result in an extraordinary adverse transformation of the region.  And why should residents believe that it will stop there? Very few people knew they were even in a REZ until recently, let alone knowing that it can be increased at any time 'if required'.

ACTION REQUIRED

There are TWO critical steps that can be taken as an initial step to help mitigate catastrophic outcomes for the CWO REZ.

1. To put as much of the transmission infrastructure underground as possible, where environmental and social impacts can be dramatically reduced. No further action should be taken by EnergyCo until the Upper House Committee led by Cate Faehrmann to 'Further Investigate Underground Transmission Lines' has been fully conducted. There has been recent media coverage of consulting group Amplitude who state that undergrounding can be done for little more financial cost than overhead (in relation to Humelink). The undergrounding approach must be fully considered given it will mean a true attempt at mitigation for the communities affected and the environment.

2. There must be a moratorium placed on all SAII to CEEC, given the enormous potential development in the CWO REZ. By any reasonable metric CEEC destruction must be off the table altogether given the risk of species extinction cannot be mitigated by a credit-based system. The limits to the BAM/eco credit approach must end at TEC on a REZ wide basis. The sheer scale of renewable development in the CWO REZ must exclude CEEC where SAII are acknowledged, as considering each development in 'silos' ignores the cumulative destruction across the CWO REZ.

Response to EIS energy co

Our local consultation by energy co does not attract many , as the people have lost confidence in government actually listening to their concerns ; they say “ the government will just do it any way”.
Our local government was disempowered when this REZ DECLARATION was state significant.
The normal process to raise concerns has been denied .
Our community has not be adequately consulted to express what they value and what they don’t want to lose. We should have had consultation that show what the community value and the ‘No go zone’ declared by local citizens and landowners. Rural Resouces , amenities and quality of life will be significantly impacted as the landscape will change and we will lose our scenic amenity. The government financially supports the notion of renewables, value the objective to produce renewable at any cost; A cost of losing and not valuing rural agriculture and land with habitats for our precious rural region.
There has been no parallel information campaign to reduce power consumption across the state population, only a strategy to continue to meet the ever growing demand for electricity.
The EIS was a document individual and local
Government lack significant Resouces to process the report adequately access the impacts within a small window of time 6 weeks or so. Our local governments did notice the lack of 29 supporting reports ( see attached list ) missing from the EIS; how is it possible to make informed response under these circumstances? just because rural areas a sparsely populated it may appear as though there a not many responses that because the population reside urban areas and consume the power. We envisage a reason why the government decides to creat REZ in the regions was falsely implied ie creating benefit for bush job and drought proof farmers. This is false as the job will be buy the attracted trade and labour . The main beneficiaries in the REZ scheme is the proponents and a few compliant hosts. Giving a green light to this REZ is falsely representation as it not the full story; it is only the beginning of proposed infrastructure. The department and energy co need to demonstrate the full story and full carbon cost of renewable like wind and solar and all subsidies paid to proponents .
Tell the truth about how much energy actually reaches the destination as the proponents may produce so much energy on site and the losses enroute over many kilometres is more than a third produced! It’s a disgrace to continue to misled the people that this Rez is going to save the environment when it is actually costs the precious environment , through the destruction of many natural environment areas, tree and habitats along with all the energy used to produce solar panel and wind turbine and power lines . It does not equate the carbon foot print of the renewable in regions to short lived wind and solar conductors . There are better, less impactful ways to produce energy that have not been seriously and equitable considered. The energy needs to be produced more efficiently; closer to the energy consumer ; with longer life proponents with less impacts of our regional and rural areas along with a parallel information campaign to encourage energy consumers to save power and produce their own energy.

Objecting to the project on the grounds of destruction of wildlife habitat and the viability of present and future agricultural pursuits',along with the visual characteristics of the region . There has not been sufficient study published or carried out as to the economic benefits or otherwise of the project. nor has there been detailed the plans for offsetting environmental impacts and provisions for present and future biodiversity offsets. Consideration must be given to placing underground transmission lines in sensitive areas.

I object strongly to this project. The wind and solar farms are definitely not RENEWABLE energy. The waste of resources and funds is beyond belief. In 10 years it will be landfill.

I object to the Energy Co CWO REZ transmission line project.

The NSW Upper House committee, established to further investigate
underground transmission lines led by Cate Faehrmann, is due to deliver
findings by 31 March 2024. Is Energy Co pushing this project through prior
to the delivery of these findings?

The Australian Energy Market Commission's National Electricity Amendment
(Enhancing Community Engagement in Transmission Building) Rule commences on
5 December 2023. Is Energy Co pushing this project through prior to the
commencement of this rule?

"Hosts" for the transmission lines received letters in May 2023 marking the
start of the compulsory acquisition process. Yet the Energy Co
Environmental Impact Statement was not released to the public until 28
September 2023. "Hosts" have only until mid-November to complete their
valuations and negotiations before their land is compulsorily acquired and
further negotiations rendered impossible. Does this sound like a just and
fair process?

The NSW Department of Planning and Environment in conjunction with Energy
Co, allowed the community only 28 days to examine the 8000 page EIS that
will irreversibly change their landscape and environment. This forced the
community to spend days lobbying politicians to try and gain an extension on
the 28 days. A two week extension was granted following a huge effort by
the volunteers who work to defend their environment. These people are not
sitting around on centrelink benefits, apart from working full time and
raising families they are also defending their environment, homes and
communities from the avalanche of wind/solar/battery projects that the NSW
Government has unleashed.

The Transgrid Humelink project was given 6 weeks exhibition, yet DPE and
Energy Co only gave 4 weeks exhibition for CWO REZ until the community
lobbied against this time frame. Is this a deliberate tactic by the Energy
Co to push this project through as quickly as possible with no regard to the
people who live here?

This Energy Co project plans to link over 31 projects that the community has
resoundingly objected to and most not even progressed through the planning
process. Is the planning process a tick-a-box exercise? It appears that
all the unapproved projects in the CWO REZ will be approved whatever the
environmental or social consequences.

I strongly object to the Energy Co CWO REZ transmission line project

At no stage were we consulted on being forced into a “Renewable Energy Zone”.

At no stage were we consulted on our homes becoming a “modern day power station”

At no stage has TILT or ACEN received social licence from our community to build hundreds of wind turbines in our environment YET here is Energy Co (a NSW Government authority) rolling out the red carpet for them by providing a transmission link.

The fact that Energy Co is proposing this transmission line to link projects that have NOT yet been approved by the Department of Planning and Environment says it all. One does not have to look far to see that these “unapproved” projects have been overwhelmingly rejected by the community.

Every person who lives in regional NSW is now aware we live in a pseudo democracy where your land can be compulsorily acquired and the environment destroyed to satisfy the desire to undermine our economy with expensive unreliable power. The urban elites who demand this infrastructure do NOT represent the majority of the NSW population.

I strongly object to this project



Every landowner in NSW should be deeply concerned about the actions of this government agency and know that we now live is pseudo democracy in regional NSW.



The landowners in this project have been called hosts, they are not hosts they are victims of government coercion. There is no social licence for this project or the wind and solar projects that these transmission lines will connect.



Energy Co (a NSW Government authority) is bullying landowners in order to build transmission lines to connect projects the community objects to. There is more than one project in this transmission link that has recorded 100 % of submissions as objections (at both EIS and amendment stages). Yet the NSW Government via Energy Co are pushing on with this transmission link.



The result will be environmental destruction, permanent loss of agricultural land and unreliable power at huge cost.



Energy Co is the architect of the renewable energy roll out in NSW and therefore 100% responsible for this unfolding disaster.

I object completely to the Central West Orana REZ Transmission project. This is going to directly impact our lives. We brought our property which is 15km East of Dunedoo and 3km south of Leadville NSW. We like most working Australians brought our property with the hopes of having our children brought up with a rural lifestyle in a small country area. We pay our taxes, manage a mortgage, both my husband and I work as PAYG employees as well we are small business owners who contribute to our local area. I fear the project will not only completely change our outlook visually, I am mainly concerned with the impacts of noise, infrastructure, road and traffic implications, native wildlife changes, possible fire risk and just the general flow on effects into our lives that we have not had a choice on. Our property will most likely lose value?? This is with no compensation for the development happening so close to our property. After 10.5 years of paying our mortgage, raising a family, is this an ok outcome for us?
I understand renewable energy is positive as the world moves away from mining. However, this wonderful agricultural land does not make sense to me to disturb. The actual development does not sound green in any way, is this just a tick box development that actually doesnt make sense?
Locals do not want this, it is affecting people in so many ways and is incredibly upsetting. Please consider the area and the people it affects

I OBJECT to the Transmission Project .
I live & work & own property impacted by the proposed transmission lines .
In our initial discussion with Transgrid in early 2o22, the discussions was for the proposed transmission lines involved running along the boundary.
We did not want the lines on our land at ALL.
Even running along the boundary.
We had said No we DO NOT WANT THE TRANSMISSION LINE’S
To find a different way, for the transmission lines to go, eg bush, national parks ,underground .

I feel Energy Co has been very deceitful - going on property without permission to get the soil tests ,environmental studies etc
I feel Energy Co has bullied and lied to us, we wrote in complaints regarding this REZ Transmission lines , Which has put us under due stress and wasted a lot of our time

The current plans provided by energy co have the lines running through the middle ,the guts of my property which will have a devastating impact on the way the farm is currently farmed and future farming, with no discussion on this change prior to it being made.
The current plan will adversely impact the following

-Fencing- existing fences will be destroyed I have 4 adjacent boundary fences that will be destroyed , opened up and 9 internal fences that will also be destroyed ,opened up and 1 internal fence that is above height restrictions, it’s because that main fence is to run cattle along and into the cattle yards .
New fencing- I have to write a letter and ask Energy Co for permission and I may get permission- what an appalling joke” may get permission “
Any new structures-building sheds , dams , extension’s to yards , water bores etc .. I have to do the same … to write in for permission .
-Stock movements and rotations of stock and holding of cows calving, holding weaners to prepare for sale , holding bulls ,
-Cropping for feed for stock, to sell , loss of income
- inability to move large farm equipment for one paddock to the other end of paddock, which means the loss of crop in them paddocks because I can not get the harvester under the Transmission lines or move the large farm machinery from one property to another property
-Shedding I’m told the sheds will have to be moved, the sheds are put there for the convenience and the purpose etc
-Cattle yards; I’m told they will have to be moved, the yards are put where fences and height of fences flow to and gates also flow towards the cattle yards and the cattle yards are placed close the roads for the convenience’s of livestock cartage trucks can get to yards in wet times they don’t get bogged and we can still receive an income.
Dams -REZ lines going over dams ; I cannot move dams because you put dams where the catchment of the flow of rain water is.
Trees which will be knocked down, Trees in paddocks which are shade trees for stock eg cows calving, cows with young calves ,weaning calves to get ready for sale and trees are left in areas to prevent environmental impacts.
Feed for livestock stock , hay & pellets & water
-Impacts on what that amount power will cause on static electricity with storms and then causes of fires.
-Ability or the inability to fight fires ; where the fire brigade trucks can come on my property or will have to wait for the the fire to come to the fire brigade trucks because of the instability /danger of the power lines .eg safety of the fire fighters and also of the helicopters and planes - which means my property has a higher risk to be burnt out and live stock has the intense chance to be burnt or worse burnt alive , my cows have taken years to build up; that distresses me immensely .
-Power line structures, huge and dangerous , what would the high wattage do to my health., being around, under these proposed power lines and structures ,farming ,day to day .
I feel Not enough resources has been allocated to find out the truth of what the long term effects will be to my health and health of my family and families and any one that owns my property after me.
let alone every other farmer.
-Land Rates and rents ,per annum in the future on the loss of land that each of these huge transmission structures suppose to stand ..
- Land value-Devaluation of my land because of these hideously huge, Dangerous structures , the Land devaluation NOT only happens for 4yrs (four) it happens for the rest of my life approximately 30 yrs tho the true devaluation is for eternity, so how do you put a true value to that and if my precious property is sold ,the devaluation will be immense, and who would want to purchase land with hideous and huge dangerous structures on there property.


I am appalled with the lack of consultation and willingness to work with us exhibited by energy co .
I do not trust that this project will take into account the importance of our concerns of the people who live on the land out here. our properties our homes .
The money on offer as compensation DOES NOT adequately compensate for the major changes to our way of life , It is an insult and the mental stresses they have and are putting us under ..
I DO NOT WANT THE TRANSMISSION LINES ON MY LAND.
The Transmission lines should go UNDERGROUND which is the most appropriate way to go. So we can continue to farm our land..

I would like to lodge my opposition to this project. This project is detrimental to our environment and will destroy people’s health, valuable agricultural land, their animals, people’s livelihoods, the peace and sanctuary one finds in their property and home, the native animal habitats, bird life and the value of properties in rural communities and in rural towns. The land and properties will be devalued and will become hard to sell. The damage done by these unsightly structures is unacceptable and the mental damage done to people is unforgivable. The “green dream” - in a vet’s world is death. This is the green dream and needs to be stopped or it will spread like a plague. The ones to benefit are the ones who are making money out of this. You can nearly guarantee that it will be the people behind desks who are not affected by this project who are the ones who are rubbing their hands together as they become wealthier while land and property owners in the path of this project will be buried by those who do not look beyond their hip pockets and give no thought to what has been destroyed. Take all these projects into areas of no value agriculturally. Take them to where everyone of you pushing this live. Put them in your backyard not ours. You are driving up power prices that people on average are already struggling with and destroying our precious and delicate environment. What you are doing will not save us, it will destroy our beautiful Australian environment and economy in the bush.

I strongly object to the transmission project and the associated projects that go with this. I object to our district being named the Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone. There is nothing renewable about permanently clearing trees and vegetation, removing farmland from production, using up huge amounts of natural resources, and littering the landscape with solar panels and wind turbines that have a short life span and cannot be recycled. A more fitting name would be the Central West Orana Industrial Energy Zone. Or even better, scrap the whole proposal. Mass energy generation should be happening closer to where it is required. I also object to the name Wind Farm and Solar Farm, they are factories not farms. Let farmers be farmers and leave us be to produce food and fibre, not energy. The only reason this area has been chosen is because of our low population and there are less people to object. However, we still have a voice and we will make sure it is heard.

I have major concerns about the amount of water that is required during construction of these projects. The Talbragar River doesn’t always have water in it and our underground water supply is an essential resource for existing residents, our livestock and for the irrigation of crops. We don’t have any water to spare, especially during a drought.

We don’t have the resources to deal with the amount of waste that will be generated from the construction projects and from the workers camps. The council can’t be expected to take it all, where will it go?

An influx of thousands of people in the area is going to put a huge strain on our roads, health facilities, emergency services, policing/public safety and our quality of life.

It is already extremely difficult to find people to work in the agricultural industry. Having to compete against private investment companies and government salaries is going to make it even more difficult.

The cumulative impacts have been vastly underestimated. The current proposal is only Stage 1, what is it going to be like once we reach Stage 2 and Stage 3? We already have 17 proposed wind and solar projects in various stages of planning and development in our district. From the information available to me on the Planning Portal I have calculated that we will have up to 250 wind turbines visible from our property. We will have years of traffic disruption, construction noise, bushfire risks, biosecurity risks, an increase in mental health and stress related health problems, friends/fellow farmers will leave, properties will be devalued, productive farmland ruined, and there will be thousands of strangers living amongst us. Will we feel safe having so many strangers living near isolated properties?

The landholders that are expected to host the transmission infrastructure are under huge amounts of stress and have been burdened with copious amounts of paperwork. They should be highly compensated for what is being done to their properties.

In fact, we have all been burdened with copious amounts of paperwork. It is very time consuming trying to keep up with everything that is going on and sift through thousands of pages of reports. Plus we have to wonder what is next? Will I soon receive a call and have transmission lines on my property? When/where will it end?

I am a 5th generation farmer in the Dunedoo district and I can’t see the future is looking too bright for the 6th generation. I will leave the final word to them.

E, aged 10: All the energy stuff is silly. Why can’t the solar panels be put on the roofs of houses and why can’t you put the turbines in the old mines where is already the powerlines to transfer the energy to the city. If you want more food, I suggest you don’t build the turbines, solar panels and powerlines on farmland.

A, aged 8: This nonsense is just silly. If you want food well do not do it. Do you want this place to look good? Yes? So don’t do it. A lot of people do not like this.

I, aged 6: I don’t like it.

The following submission has been prepared by the Chair of the Cassilis District Community Group on behalf of its members and Cassilis citizens who attended a recent community meeting.

Please find attached my project objection document and reasoning.

I object to the project. See attached.

1. The consultation on this project was lacking and did not cover all the impacts on neighbours and the environment.
2. Given the extensive geographical, economical, environmental and social impact his project will have, the exhibition period is too short.
3. Very few of the impacted parties have the capacity to work through the thousands of pages of the EIS and other documents. Even when I did try to access the documents, they would not readily download for viewing.
4. The visual impacts of the REZ on my property and other nearby will diminish the future value of the property compared to others that are not visually impacted.
5. Exclusion zones to inhabited buildings and other activities near wind turbines and power lines will impact future land use on my property. I wanted to build a farm stay cottage near a dam , but this will be within less than 2 km of a future wind turbine.
6. The visual impact of wind turbines on my property will make it useless as a tourist attraction / farm stay business.
7. My family and I considered the unimpeded view to beautiful sunsets as a huge bonus when purchasing the property and all our friends loved sharing it with us. This will be forever gone, once the wind turbines are erected.
8. The impact of low frequency noise from wind turbines are hugely ignored by the developers and no enforceable undertakings are given to ensure that it does not impact our quality of life.
9. High value developments like these , billions of dollars, raises an enormous question of the liability of private landholders adjacent to these facilities.
10. It is unfair to expect an individual to be liable for damage or loss caused to such a facility, when usually public liability insurance is only $20 MIL . Imagine a fire starts on my property and spreads to the REZ infrastructure; it would be ridiculous to be liable for that sort of coverage. Landholders should be indemnified from any claims against themselves for any loss through accidental or even negligent damage to these billion dollar developments. Else insurers would refuse insurance anyway.
11. Neighbours to these facilities should also have protection from frivolous claims against themselves by the REZ operators.
12. Especially with the location of power lines, no consideration is given to the well-being and livelihood or financial impacts of neighbours. Why do power line intersect land, rather than running along existing boundaries.
13. Generous compensation may be given to hosts of REZ facilities, but parties impacted by power lines are hard done by.
14. This project might be for the "greater good", but the people out here just have to make all the sacrifice, without any of the "good".
15.The premise of the deployment of solar panels and wind farms and impacts on the environment, rely on very vague research data, dating back more than ten years.
16. It appears that a lot of relevant, but unfavourable data and expert advice is simply being ignored or not published or referenced.
17. This is a unacceptably big threat to National Security! Nothing can function as it should with an unstable electricity grid. It is alarming that most of the hardware for these projects are supplied by China, not a very reliable trade partner for a project of critical national infrastructure, which offers no turning back. Once we are reliant on the solar and wind facilities, we will be 100% reliant on China to supply us with hardware for future replacements and expansion, which may be needed much sooner than anticipated. A hostile political regime in the supply line could totally cripple Australia within weeks by either refusing to supply, fail to supply due to manufacturing shortfall or by having shipping routes disabled. Imagine a pandemic response with 3 year delays on supply for expansion. This is a big red flag, not to be ignored by political policy dreams.
18. Environmental impacts of the project are deliberately under estimated and have not been fully disclosed. In our direct area are various breeding pairs of raptors: wedge-tailed eagles (Aquila audax), black-shouldered kite (Elanus axillaris), Nankeen kestrel ( Falco cenchroides) and various hawk species. All of which are vulnerable to impact with wind turbines. (Various studies on this topic are available).
19. The impact of land clearing associated with this project are also not fully considered for the detrimental impact on bio-diversity in general, but especially smaller bird species that rely on scrub and undergrowth cover between major wildlife corridors. An independent study of bird species, along Cockabutta Creek, adjoining our property, has found a significant number of vulnerable and even endangered species, not listed in the EIS.
20. Numerous smaller marsupial species, such as Antechinus spp. are prevalent in the area and will be heavily impacted as well, by habitat destruction.
21. Loss of vegetation will have a huge impact on storm water run-off and will have a detrimental affect on riparian zones and probably increase erosion in some areas and sediment deposits in others.
22. The potential impact on local weather patterns from large solar arrays have not been comprehensively researched or accounted for and neither is reasonable consideration given to the impact of reflective glare.
23. There is a significant increase of fire risk to local residents from the commercial and construction activity on these development sites and the increased presence of contractors that are not as fire aware as locals.
24. Ongoing operations of these facilities, especially battery storage, also pose an increased fire risk, due to lightning strikes and equipment failure.
25. Contamination of groundwater and soil due to oil leakage from wind turbine gearboxes are also of concern, despite these impact being denied by many. Initially all will be well, but after ten years the scrutiny will be less and problems will go unresolved. There is no long term accountability.
26. The maintenance of facilities, especially exclusion zones and corridors under high-voltage transmission lines should be the sole responsibility of the operators and not impact land owners.
27. Land owners should be fairly compensated on an ongoing basis for the impact of these corridors on their properties and not be held liable in any way for associated risks.
28. The impact of EMF radiation from transmission lines are not satisfactorily addressed.
29. We rely on satellite reception for all our communication and internet; should this be impacted or disrupted due to increased EMF, it will need to be rectified.
30. We rely on hand held radio communication around the farm for operational purposes; this may be affected.
31. The detrimental impact of the CWO REZ project on rural residents versus benefits, is a very poor outcome for many residents. It is an extreme price to pay for the benefit of decision makers and east coast residents that are so far removed form the reality and social and mental health impacts of the hand full of voters in the bush, which are being walked over and bullied into acceptance of a forgone decision. The EIS and other documents are just a formality, to whitewash everything the whole project. When it all comes down in a screaming heap, the bureaucrats will be nowhere to be found and our complaints will go unanswered and unresolved. Even now nobody in government is taking any responsibility and there is no accountability, as they simply avoid answering questions or give extremely evasive answers and rhetoric.
I say NO to this whole mess and the ruining of peoples lives, that others might reap the benefits and others, make huge profits at our expense.

Please see attachment

The whole REZ should be built on the eastern side of the Blue Mountains where the bulk of the existing power generation system is already located and where the bulk of the power is used.
The people affected by the planned Central-West Orana REZ Transmission line are being treated with contempt by Energy NSW.
The compensation they receive is a fraction of those that have Wind or Solar projects built on the property. Local Councils and some community organisations are also receiving far greater payments than the Landholders having to host the Transmission line.
Property owners that host these huge transmission lines will see their valuable asset greatly devalued and, in some cases, it will make it virtually impossible to continue to run them as an efficient farming enterprise.
Those landholders under acquisition orders are only being offered three to four times less than the true value of their properties.
Some of the smaller properties will be virtually unsalable once the line is built over their land.
If this project must go ahead then the power lines should be put underground. If this is not possible all affected parties should receive fair and EQUAL compensation that is equivalent to what those hosting Wind and Solar installations receive.

This project had years of government research, planning and management before any information whatsoever was provided to landholders and communities directly affected by the zoning. The manner in which the projects are established appears to be deliberately obscure and complex to make objections and legal challenges impossible. The general feeling within the community is that we will bear all of the negative impacts of these projects with very few positive impacts, all for the benefit of those living in cities who would have no idea of the upheaval caused by their “green energy”. This already happens: our area produces some of the best quality meat and grain in Australia, and most in the cities have no idea of the source of these premium products, and the whole community effort that goes into producing them. These projects are causing major divisions within the community as the compensation for turbines/panels goes to very few when the community disturbance/upheaval/loss of prime agricultural land/loss of landscape is borne by all. Loss of accommodation and loss of local workforce are also major contributors.

I hope this message finds you well. As a landowner whose property has been targeted for compulsory acquisition, I would like to express our profound concerns regarding the negotiation process. It is our belief that a more transparent and comprehensive approach is necessary to ensure the fair treatment of all affected parties.

The negotiation process, as it stands, has been hindered by several key issues:

Insufficient Time: Landowners have not been afforded ample time to fully comprehend, access, and evaluate the true impact of the proposed project. The complexity of such projects necessitates a more extended period for property owners to make informed decisions.

Limited Compensation Scope: The current compensation framework solely considers the impact on the actual strip of land that is being affected. It fails to account for the broader consequences of the project on the community and our way of life. This includes but is not limited to additional security concerns, disruptions to fire and flood prevention measures, increased noise and pollution due to heightened traffic levels, and the devaluation of agricultural land due to the uncertainty of the project.

Lack of Transparency: There has been a notable lack of transparency regarding the project's construction methods and how the accommodation of the additional workers will be managed. This lack of clarity has left landowners in a state of uncertainty.

We understand that the uncertainty surrounding the project has led to a significant devaluation of agricultural land, affecting the livelihoods of local farmers.