Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

My comments are in the attached document.

My comments are in the Attached 13 pages.

I would like to express my objection to this project for the following reasons.
The development of the Renewable Energy Zones in general have not been properly planned and the impacts of these zones and associated infrastructure on the local areas have not been properly assessed. Energy Co’s own data shows that traffic movements, water use, medical and waste disposal issues far outweigh the ability of the local community to cope. Already we are seeing serious mental health issues, divide in the community, relationships destroyed and land values declining. Not forgetting serious biosecurity issues. Also the concentration of power generation and the reliance of transmission lines exposes the grid to increased terrorism susceptibility. Micro renewables minimises this risk.

The destruction of our environment, landscape and community for the pursuit of “green energy” for the masses on the coast to use so that they feel good is so wrong. What is happening at Wellington with that beautiful farm land being covered by solar is a disgrace. There is nothing environmentally friendly or “green” about it. All of these proposals are planned to be placed on productive farm land. It seems the production of food and fibre is no longer important.

There are too many proposed projects for this one area turning our beautiful landscape and environment into an industrial zone and destroying our land values. If large scale renewable projects are to used, they should be placed closer to the point of consumption, utilize land already degraded by coal mining and the infrastructure that is already there.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Submission: Objection to Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this project.

While I support renewable energy, I believe this project could be greatly improved, with stronger biodiversity protections. The project has significant biodiversity impacts that have not been addressed. The cumulative impact on critically endangered vegetation and species has not been fully identified. The project has failed to avoid existing biodiversity offset areas on three coal mines in the project area and passes through an area of national park estate.

I therefore object to this project for the following reasons:

• The easement for proposed transmission lines will affect a significant area of critically endangered species habitat across the Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone.
• Underground transmission has not been assessed as an option that would better protect biodiversity and significant remnant bushland.
• A final assessment of biodiversity impacts does not appear in the Environmental Assessment Report.
• Final decisions on the method of biodiversity offset arrangements have not been made and do not appear in reports for public comment.
• The project has not avoided existing biodiversity offset sites on three coal mines.
• The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report fails to identify or assess the current Wilpinjong Coal Mine Regent Honeyeater biodiversity offset requirements impacted by the project. The Regent Honeyeater is critically endangered and is protected under federal law. The species credits for the project fail to account for the loss of existing Regent Honeyeater offset areas.
• The project area includes the protected national park reserve in the Durridgere State Conservation Area.
• The project does not adequately consider the loss of critically endangered Grassy Box Woodland.

Before the project is approved, these items need to be addressed.

Yours sincerely, Fiona Sim

1. If the government is serious about CO2 emission reduction then all options including nuclear power should be on the table. This is not the case.
2. If the goernment is concerned that nuclear power may be a viable alternative to renewable energy it must ensure that renewable energy is cost effective and has social licence. That this is not the case is evident in the existing plan of the CWO-REZ. If all the electricity generated by the CWO-REZ is to be fed into the existing Muswellbrook to Wallerawang power line, which is approximately double the lenght of the proposed Wollar to Wellington line, would it not be more sensible to connect renewable energy projects directly to the existing line and so avoid the cost, envirionmental impact and social impact of a new line? Further flaws are outlined in the attached "CWO-REZ - Robodebt Revisited?" submission.
3. If the government is concerned it will not meet the 2030 emission targets, would it not be more sensible to prioritise rooftop solar and residential batteries, which are not subject to the lenghty delays associated with approving, commissioning and building large scale renewable energy projects?
4. If the government wishes to be seen as accountable in the rollout of the CWO-REZ, why does it not apply the same oversight of the IPC to the CWO-REZ as a whole, as is applicable to the individual projects within the CWO-REZ?
5. If the government is not prepared to divulge planned future extensions to the CWO-REZ does this not make the present EIS invalid?

As a retired farmer and still living and working on the family farm I object to this project on the grounds that generating power and building massive power lines for it to be use hundreds of kilometres away will not be productive, feasible or cost affective. The so called experts that complied the 8000 pages of the EIS obviously have never seen this area.
The transmission lines that are dividing farmers properties are not high enough to allow farming equipment to operate safely or allow them to fully utilise their property, which in some cases is divided in half or crosses a major laneway multiple times. Some machines are now 5 metres plus high. There are also cases where the lines are proposed within 500m of the main outlook of farmers houses.
There is mention of workers camps but no specific building details.
A lot of water is needed per year for this project, and it is uncertain where EnergyCo is going to source this water. The water supply in this valley is very restricted, and there is not a lot of underground water at the main energy hub. If there is no water available locally ie. the Talbragar River is not in flood, where will the water be carted from? Is is feasible to cart this amount of water from outside the project area?
There is talk of the main access road to the Merotherie Energy Hub, along the Merotherie Road which is a flood plain, being upgraded and a new bridge placed over the Talbragar River. Upgrading this road could have major implications to the water flow and on the whole Talbragar River system. Back roads in the energy hub area have been rated as being able to handle 1000 vehicles per lane per hour at 100km/hr; this is ridiculous as some parts of these roads are single lane with trees very close to the edge of the roads.
There is no mention of the Decemeber 1979 bushfire that started West of Dunedoo and ended up at Ulan, and burnt through the Birriwa area, a lot of which is now the proposed project area. It is noted that in the EIS for fire fighting within the accommodation camps and construction compounds there is to be 20,000L water tank with a 38mm outlet and a slip on fire fighting unit. This is not adequate! The Fire & Rescue and RFS in the local area does not have enough equipment or volunteers/staff to support your work load. EnergyCo should be supplying adequate fire fighting water and equipment within camps and have trained personnel to look after the camp and construction sites. There is no mention of where workers would evacuate to in extreme and catastrophic fire danger rating periods, local evacuation centres cannot handle that extra number of people.
The way EnergyCo has dealt with farmers is very unAustralian, and has made the district anti CWO REZ.

Please see attached word document submission

I object that my home, my quality of life, my environment , the wildlife, koalas, the platypus who depend on the creeks and water ways, they also feed into the Goulburn River. This whole project is a monstrosity and how dare you think it’s ok to force this at my feet, over my head & home. The fact that its on record that these types of transmission are known to ignite fires in itself is madness. I don’t have a superannuation fund to support my lifestyle the only thing I have is the way of assets to fund my geriatric age is the value of my property which at this stage is valued at $700/800 thousand dollars, this gross development will decimate the value of my property. Would you buy a property with these things in your backyard looming over you? I do not approve of this development in any shape or form. The whole process has been designed to confuse residents and ramrod it through the numerous channels over the welfare of the very people this development will affect the most. Were disposable, our rights stand for nothing.

I am the Solicitor acting on behalf on Mr and Mrs Campbell, the proprietors of 654 Blue Springs Road, Stubbo 2852.
I now attach hereto their objection to the project as currently proposed.

I am a land holder affected by this project. I have a second dwelling that will be too close to the 330 kv line for any one to live there. My property value will decrease because of the transmission line. Energy Co's letter of offer to buy an easement is not as much as my unimproved value that is used for rating purposes. My property is in a lightning prone area, this transmission line will make fire fighting difficult, especially for aircraft. We are meant to reach net zero by 2050, all renewables have a life span of about 30 years, which means they will need replacing about that time. What happens then?

We request the realignment of the transmission line route through our property.

The construction of the proposed Central West Orana Transmission Project is going to have major impacts for the area.
The workers camps and the employees needed for this project is going to cause enormous problems for the area including socially and environmentally.
The roads are not designed for the added heavy traffic that is going to be required for this project.
There is going to have to be major road works and upgrades needed from the Port of Newcastle to construction site.
The Golden Highway is a major route east west but is not designed to carry all the extra traffic required for these projects.
The Golden Highway transports grain livestock fertilizer along with general goods plus inland rail and mining now you are going to add the supplies for the transmission lines and the generators.
The road network where the transmission is to travel is mainly narrow dirt roads servicing farming families.
It is interesting that Minister Bowen stated that behind coal the the next two biggest emitters are cement and steel. what does all this infrastructure consist of - steel and concrete.
The proposed alignment will cut some properties in half restricting aerial firefighting and agricultural activities. The transmission lines will be close to houses and will interfere with the operation of the property crossing sheds stock yards etc.
Energy Co has stated that they will need 1.91 million litres of water per day during construction that is 700 megalitres of water per year. Where are they going to supply the water needed the power sewerage waste management etc.
There are going to be 2 X 500kv towers plus a 330kv tower all running along side one another. this will equate to an easement of 240m wide going through farmers properties with an 80x80m area around the base of each tower to be permanently cleared of vegetation. Is this going to be removal of vegetation or is it going to be chemically done sterilizing the soil.
All renewable sites solar and wind and the transmission project are all going to have to supply their own fire equipment and staff.
You will be virtually building at least three more towns in the area. they will need to have their own full equipped medical services with doctors nursed and ambulance as our local towns are all ready struggling to cope with the local community.
They will have to supply emergency services like RFS and Fire and Rescue etc. These communities are not equipped to handle the additional influx into the area.
There has not been any cumulative impact done.
Construction of the transmission would cover some 4000ha of mostly valuable agricultural land.
They were told there is plenty of low value scrub country they could use the answer was they would have to apply for clearing permits and then clear and that would take time.
You might be able to supply power to Sydney and the coast but where is the food going to come from???
It is amazing that Energy CO can come in and destroy regeneration work tear up flood plains and remove enormous amounts of vegetation yet as farmers we would not be able to do any of this.
To replace Eraring Power Station with wind you would need 2,352 turbines each turbine requires approximately 250ha including all infrastructure so total land area occupied by turbines would require nearly 600,000ha.
A 2,000 tonne anchor of concrete releases 392 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere (no including heating emissions)
Cement is made by heating limestone.
Nobody has come out and said how much emissions all these renewables put into the atmosphere.
These solar and wind instillations have a life of approximately 25-30 years. The blades on the turbines are 10 years. All the blades and solar panels have to go into land fill. A standard blade takes 3 semitrailers to dispose of it.
The transmission lines have to go underground.
If you are going to replace coal we need nuclear no emissions.

Refer attached submission

The proponents have not adequately considered the alternative of undergrounding. As an example: the cost of undergrounding Humelink 360kms has recently been determined to be potentially only 1.5 times the cost of overhead transmission lines, not the 11 times the proponents hoodwinked Govt with. And if the entire 10,000kms of proposed 'rewiring the nations' lines were to be put underground, the cost would decrease even further. If fair compensation for overhead lines was to be paid to all members of affected communities, to the extent of the full environmental and social damage the overhead lines will create (bush fires, tourism, endangered flora and fauna) the cost of overhead lines would well exceed 1.5 times the proponents current costings. Undergrounding needs to be considered.

The communication from Energy co to the host landowners has been inadequate and the information that has been provided is differing from what has been submitted in the EIS. The visual montages that have been provided in the EIS from our property do not show the actual visual impact from our home as they are taken from the wrong position of the home and with the altered location of the connecting sub station as now planned places it in direct view from my home. Energy co has not provided any details or agreed to providing any visual mitigation measures to block the view from my home looking towards the Cassilis sub station. I have made suggestions for suitable mitigation measures that we would like to be considered.
We have a further problem with a line location through an agreed no go zone .I feel if the line is moved to the East a short distance it will avoid the agreed no go zone and also avoid the destruction of a large group off trees.

I support renewable energy and appreciate we need power and power lines, but i would like to suggest, instead of placing them on valuable productive farming country, could they be put in more isolated areas (or closer to the cities it is going to benefit- why should we have to live with ugly infrastructure and destroyed natural views, not to mention not be able to make the most of our incredible land, just so cities can have more power for their ridiculously ever expanding populations). This project, and all the other ones that are going to follow it, are being built on extremely productive farming land and bring with them a huge amount of infrastructure and chaos that is going to turn our beautiful community upside down. There has been a complete lack of consideration and respect for our entire community and the value of the land these projects are being built on. Especially considering the power these projects are bringing isn't even going to benefit the communities they are affecting. These projects show a complete disregard for the local people and their businesses. Even though city people seem to think food just comes from the store, WE (the ones who's land is being taken and communities turned upside down) are the ones who work hard to produce it.

We live on magnificent productive farming country with beautiful views, and that is all going to be taken away from us and our community.

We have part of the power line being placed on our property (St Edwards) which was originally going to be running within 20 meters along our house. They have changed it so it is now cutting across the road and will not be going near the house, however, on the maps online they still have it going right near our house (the map we have is the corrected one showing it not near our house). We would just like to make note of this so that when it comes to building the power line it is placed in the proper and corrected position away from our house. Thanks

I wish to strongly object to the project on several counts
1. Water
The amount of water that will be required for the project is enormous. This is an acceptable risk to the environment and for farmers and graziers. There lively hoods depend of this water. Why are they being put at risk.
2. Value of Land
We have been advised that this project and what could stem from it will devalue land in the area by 30 per cent. My family has been in our area since 1972. We have worked hard over the last 50 years to build infrastructure and improve the country. We now face the prospect of that being put at risk by this project and again what will stem from it.
3. Bush Fire Risk
This will only be heightened if this project is to proceed. It will impede and inhibit the ability to fight fires not to mention the prospect of potentially igniting fires. Increased use of transport also heightens the risk of fire.
4. Visual Impact
Not enough consideration has been given to all land holders about these towers and the visual impacts it will have across the country side.
5. Nature
Many birds and ground animals will be out at risk. Corridors will be lost with the construction of this zone.
6. Uncertainty
There is still a lot of uncertainty around subsequent projects that will rely on this. Roads, positioning of infrastructure is all to be determined in many cases.
7. Workers
This area is not set up for the impacts of the work force that will be required to establish this infrastructure. The noise and extra traffic, six or seven days a week will be overwhelming.
8. Waste
Are facilities going to be expanded to deal with the waste and sewage that these workers will obviously bring to our region.
9. Mental Health
Most importantly I don’t think this has been taken into consideration. We deal with drought, fire and floods and now this. This will push people to the brink. At what cost will this come at. It needs to be reconsidered immediately.
I reserve the right to add to my objection at a later date.

Stop the green washing! This project is just to facilitate "renewables" projects, which will not result in lower retail electricity prices nor effect the climate. Nor will it be reliable as it is dependent on highly variable weather conditions. This year my electricity cost will already be 4.38 times greater than it was in 2019 for exactly the same consumption pattern and number of days. It rose every year despite changing to the lowest cost retail plans five times. Why? Because subsidized projects such as these cannibalize reliable near 24/7 base-load power plants. There are now low emissions high efficiency 24/7 base-load power plants being built around the world to meet emissions, affordability and reliability requirements. The Proponent knows this but is driven by ideology regardless of the realties for Australians and the damage it will do to them and our businesses. Shame, shame, shame and shame!

The proposed project is not "fit for purpose". It will not reduce electricity costs to consumers, as evidenced by not only the huge frequent increases in Australian NEM prices to date, but also the experience in every country where wind and solar are 30% or more of the capacity mix. Sweden recently dropped its target of 100% renewables as wind and solar generation do not work (unreliable and intermittent). Instead, Sweden is to build more zero emissions nuclear plants, as other countries are doing. Australia must do the same! The project must therefore be rejected.