Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

I am very concerned that when the proponent/developer of the various wind and solar farm in the area conduct so called community information meetings or presentations that they are not required to disclose "who is paying who" for the information.
When the developer pays for an environmental impact study their naturally may be a bias in the report.
Evidence of this bias and therefore deception, is obvious in the visual montages presented by Umwelt as part of the EIS for Barneys Reef Wind Farm.
Umwelt clearly stated on their website that their role is to "assist companies to gain approval."
The industrialization (Concrete, Plastic and Steel) of agriculturally and environmentally important lands, its impact on the environment and people's lives is just wrong and I strongly oppose.

Na

I understand that the state is invested in finding alternatives for current power supply. But feel that with the current plan of renewables. There is going to be far more economical consequences and the energy sector will still struggle to supply the state. We need more investigation and consultation with communities! I realise this is not going to happen!

I am objecting to this project because:
- I cannot put up with the terrible visual impact the high-voltage transmission towers and power lines will have on our landscapes. EnergyCo will ruin our way of life with their project.
- I cannot put up with the subsequent industrial wind turbine factories that will destroy our landscapes.
- I cannot put up with the subsequent industrial solar factories that will destroy our paddocks; they will look like an ugly black sea of death.
- I do not want to be surrounded by the noise that is associated with the above infrastructure, or hear the noise when I travel around a beautiful countryside.
- I do not want our town to suffer due to absentee farmers. When the numbers of absentee farmers increase, local unemployment will also increase as a result. With unemployment numbers increased, there will also be an increase in drug related crime.
- EnergyCo’s project and all future renewable energy projects will be the nail in the coffin for rural NSW. Without the finance that the local farmers / local agricultural industries inject into our local economies, many small businesses will have to close up as a result. These are people’s lives EnergyCo are playing with.
- I do not believe that EnergyCo engaged sufficiently enough with the local communities. Their EIS outlines that they only interviewed 44 people out of a population of over 154,000 people; this is a representation of 0.03% of our population. How is this number sufficient?
- EnergyCo did not engage with enough local businesses to determine local economic sentiment on their project. Again, community consultation was poor.

I don't want the central west covered in high voltage transmission lines and towers. I don't want the central west of NSW to be turned into an industrial landscape of wind turbines on the hills, fields of solar panels and the associated environmental costs. I object to this monstrosity of environmental destruction of rural and regional NSW for the sake of the energy requirements of the city.

The Dunedoo Region has been a vibrant rural community for decades, this project will turn our rural vistas to industrial. It will divide the community, detrimentally affect people's sense of belonging, make it much harder for the farmers to source rural workers to assist with farm jobs. It will also have a negative impact on our water table. It will have a negative impact on property values. It will result in loss of biodiversity, create anxiety amongst the farming families about the ability of future generations to farm. The project will also increase the risk of bushfires.

My objections to the project are based on the following points:
- The increase of public liability insurance on both residents and farmers: This may simply be too much for some operations to continue, and he added financial burdens can be detrimental to family dynamics.
- The increased risk of fires from EnergyCo’s transmission infrastructure, industrial solar factories and industrial wind turbine factories: When there are fires associated with renewable infrastructure/bushfires, management of fires via methods such as air control will be impossible due to aviation restrictions of flying near and around structures. Rural NSW is simply not armed to manage major fires. This alone presents significant safety risks to communities, and for this reason, the project should be rejected.
- Renewable energy infrastructure will make it impossible to undertake air pest control. The inability to manage pests via air control will therefore impact neighbouring properties and put more of a burden on these landowners. This will be detrimental to neighbourly relations and destroy community cohesion.
- EnergyCo’s transmission project and subsequent infrastructure will make it difficult for farmers to air spray their crops should this infrastructure be placed in their paddocks or on neighbouring properties.
- During construction, there will be increased traffic on the roads where school busses have their routes. This traffic is not just limited to actual transmission construction, but also traffic from workers’ camps daily waste management and water management vehicles etc.
- There will be issues around locust management. The Australian Plague Locust Commission will not be able to operate near infrastructure. This will have significant impacts local agriculture.
- The visual pollution from EnergyCo’s and future renewable energy infrastructure on our landscapes; they will turn our area to that of an industrial zone.
- The noises associated with both construction and day-today operations of transmission and renewable infrastructure.
- Biosecurity risks associated with construction and day-to-day operations of transmission and renewable infrastructure.

There is plenty of evidence to show that wind farms are not nearly as effective at producting energy as they claim. Add to that the enormous co2 emissions needed to produce the equipment that is not recyclable at the end of its relatively short life span. This is without considering the cost to the ecology of not only the immediate environment but also all the land that will be needed for power lines.

If winds are too high the turbines need shutting down. If the wind drops 10% below ideal wind speed the energy generated is only half. This is not a reliable source of energy.

The emissions generated by producing one turbine will take several years of use to off set. Making the net gains far below the advertised carbon neutral.

The wild life can be drastically impacted by construction of the wind farm and the thousands of kilometers of power lines. The bird life can be decimated.

This whole project is to reduce carbon emission while creating a reliable energy source. Only a small amount of research into currant wind farms demonstrates they don’t life up to they hype of a reliable energy source. They lead to massive damage to the environment and after only a few decades they are installed they need upgrades or replacements. A complete waste of money. This is to say nothing of the disruption and damage to locals both human and animals.

I am a resident & business owner in the community of Cassilis, NSW. I am making this submission as I have numerous concerns about the proposed EnergyCo project in our area. I also feel that community consultation for the project has been very poor & not met DPIE guidelines. My key concerns are outlined in the attached document.

I object to the CWO REZ Transmission project.
Farmers, towns & communities in western NSW should not be surrounded by wind turbines and transmission lines via this project.
~People can’t live around them.
~Destroying farm land & surrounding environments
~Massive exploitation by foreign corporate entities
~Sneaky non disclosure contracts
~Environmental concerns regarding the vibrations, the toxic chemicals present (BPA and others).
~They are a fire hazard
~Turbines and Solar panels are unreliable and they are not cost effective.
~They have a short lifespan and can not be recycled.
I do not want the district covered in high voltage transmission lines and towers. I don't want the area to be turned into an industrial landscape full of wind turbines over the hills and fields of solar panels. I object to the associated environmental costs, which have not been appropriately considered. I don't want them being dumped or buried in landfill at the end of their short life span.
In the best interests our environment, our communities and our farmers, I don't want this project to go ahead.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************************

My objection points are as follows
Visual impact to my dwelling
Noise impact to my dwelling. We have no outside noise only nature and will now experience Corona Noise
No Biosecurity plans the very best way to lower risks to our business...
No consultation at all with land holders of host blind sided this is not a democratic, the cumulative affect of being a REZ to so many different projects in our area.
Not enough investigation has gone into Social License many people that are affected had no idea this project was happening. Therefore they don't have Social Licence to proceed.
BUSH FIRE RISK - Not only do these project increase the risk. It impleads on all facets of fighting fires from management , insurance and overall risk leaving the land holder and neighbours screwed yet again.
Negative Social Impact to our community, impacts safety, security of place, diminishes our health . Depletes the way people enjoy the environment, stresses from bushfire, environmental impact, noise and the complete unknown.
Property values deceasing for all people in this community by at least 30% ...
Impact on Biodiversity - wildlife corridors and native vegetation and habitat that will be impacted of at least 1032ha where is this good for our enviroment.


The negative impact to our landscape changing it into an industrial are not a prim agricultural area.
Impact of our water tables if construction require 700,000,000 million litres especially when we are coming into dry time. Where is the consideration to the environment now.
This is such environmental vandalism .
Forced acquisition, offers of inadequate compensation for the damage, impacts to properties and the decrease in property values. Caveat on landholder land .. Unable to run business properly because of all the requirement that Energy Co are wanting to enforce . The cost of living is rise but Energy co want a decrease in productivity for our personal business so unfair.
Heritage impacts - Need to be surveyed. Ignoring community history and delicate site that construction will cause great loss.
Waste Impact on our community and landscape and the cumulative effect of multiple projects...
Uncertainties - No confirmation on full planning...

The project is ecologically unsustainable

I don't want the area covered in high voltage transmission lines and towers and don't want the area to be turned into an industrial landscape of wind turbines on the hills, fields of solar panels and the associated environmental costs!

I don't want the district covered in high voltage transmission lines and towers and I don't want the area to be turned into an industrial landscape of wind turbines on the hills, fields of solar panels and the associated environmental costs is enough!

I don't want the district covered in high voltage transmission lines and towers and don't want the area to be turned into an industrial landscape of wind turbines on the hills, fields of solar panels and the associated environmental costs!

The wind turbines planned are an ecological disatster, not to mention most likely a financial one too. People can’t live around them. They are destroying farm land.
It is a massive exploitation by foreign corporate entities
The whole process has been sneaky non disclosure contracts
There has been a lack of full consideration and community attitudes to the huge environmental concerns regarding the vibrations, the toxic chemicals present (BPA and others).

We were never consulted about our area being turned into a renewable energy zone. As a citizen who contributes to our community, I believe we should have been briefed about this, and had our opinions heard. I would suggest that there are other suitable locations to construct and operate EnergyCo's transmission project and future renewable infrastructure.
I am employed by a local rural supplies store and I believe these projects will have a significant negative impact on our industry with the risk of absentee farmers. This will therefore expose a risk to my own job security, in a role that I enjoy.
My husband is a shearer and a farmhand, and I have fears for his health and safety should he have to work amongst EnergyCo’s and renewable energy infrastructure. Some of these fears are based off my husband working amongst EMF from EnergyCo’s project. I also fear that should my husband be out working in a paddock and EnergyCo’s project causes a fire, I fear for his ability to safely evacuate.
The issue of absentee farmers is also of concern regarding my husband’s employment; as with no farmers on land there will be no need for his farmhand work, or a need to shear the sheep within our region. Shearers are already in short supply and great demand, and if these workers are forced to look for other avenues of employment, this will have a significant negative impact on the Australian shearing industry.
I do not think it is reasonable that we should be forced to live within a giant power station; that is essentially what the Central-West Orana will become. As contributing members of society, we should have a valid say in this matter and our voices heard. I do not want our landscape ruined due to this infrastructure. For these reasons, I object to this project.

I do not support this project as it will affect the wildlife, the health of the Coolah community and beautiful valley views of our wonderful town. These turbines that are proposed to be built are of no benefit to the environment and still require electricity etc to run. The plan is a hoax and only benefits the companies that build them to create them wealth. They are a fire hazard which could lead to major catastrophe to the surrounding farms/properties and town. The farmers/people that have accepted these turbines to be built on their property is only for monetary benefits without consideration of consequences!

I do not support this project as it will affect the wild life, the health of the Coolah community and the beautiful valley views of our wonderful town. These turbines that are proposed to be built are of no benefit to the environment and still require electricity etc to run. The whole plan is a hoax and only benefits the companies that build them to create them wealth. They are a fire hazard which could lead to major catastrophe to the surrounding farms/properties and town. The farmers/ people that have accepted these turbines to be built on their properties is only for monetary benefits without consideration of the consequences.

Ms Nicole Brewer & Mr Iwan Davies
Director, Energy Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
Locked Bag 5022,
Parramatta NSW 2124

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Dear Ms Brewer and Mr Davies,

Submission in Response to Proposed EnergyCo Central-West Orana REZ Transmission Project (SSI-48323210)
Thank you for the opportunity for my family and I, as impacted landholders, to make a submission in relation to the abovementioned proposed development.
My family and I object to the proposed development.
The reason for our objection are:
• Biosecurity – Vehicles travelling through multiple properties causing risk.
• Water – will use 700,000,000 million litres of water per year during construction (3.5 years).
• Visual Amenity – homes up to 2km from proposed towers/infrastructure are the only ones considered for visual amenity. The unwilling hosts are not considered for mitigation.
• Cumulative Impact of being in a REZ – A REZ is a “modern day power station”. “This infrastructure would change the landscape character to one where the presence of energy and electricity infrastructure is more frequently encountered and prominent, resulting in a cumulative landscape character impact”. In other words our rural vistas will become industrial.
• Economic – Prices are likely to increase in the region for construction materials.
• Noise - Multiple dwellings will experience noise levels exceeding maximum for 3-5 years of construction. Just advising people there will be noise is NOT noise mitigation.
• Property Values – estimated up to 30% loss in property value if “hosting” transmission infrastructure, similar losses for those who are nearby and have transmission towers in their viewshed.
• Biodiversity – Energy Co. admits current wildlife corridors will be removed/affected. Will directly impact 1032 ha of native vegetation (and habitat).
• Negative Social Impacts - as identified by Energy Co – detrimental effects to community cohesion, impacts to sense of safety, diminished sense of place, road delays and sense of safety, capacity of health, food and social services, the way people enjoy the environment, stress from bushfire risk, diminished sense of belonging, loss of aesthetic values, loss of biodiversity, impact to agricultural land and food production, worry about future generations ability to farm.
• Bushfire Risk – increased risk of bushfire ignition.
• Uncertainties – many project details are still not confirmed, fully planned etc., so all risks are unknown at this stage.
• Waste – eg 265,000 cubic metres of green waste, 1,000t on excavation spoil, 12,500t of concrete waste, 2,100t of steel/metal, 200t of cabling waste, 85t of hazardous waste, 105t of road base/concrete/gravel waste, 33t of empty oil and other containers, 130t of oils, 1,200t of packaging waste, 2,500t camp/compound waste, 300,000,000litres of liquid waste (including sewage). Where will it go? Mid Western Council has said no, Gulgong has said no. Other facilities are not detailed as to their agreement, within 150km of the site.
• Heritage impacts – many places were not surveyed. Ignored community history studies that list places of historical interest, some sites are delicate and will be impacted by construction activities (eg. vibration which may collapse/destroy the sites), do not recommend sufficient protection for historical sites.
• Cumulative Aboriginal heritage impacts – will result in a cumulative loss of 5-16% of Aboriginal sites identified within the construction area including rockshelters, grinding grooves, culturally modified trees and moderate or high significant stone artefact deposits.
• Social Licence – Social Impact Assessment - only 7 landowners were interviewed. Only 44 interviews were undertaken in their social impact study including councils, landowner “hosts”, neighbours and community, out of a regional population of 152,418 (only 0.03% of the population). An online survey had 104 responses (0.06% of the population). Only 54 people answered the question in the online survey on perceived benefits and only ONE PERSON said that the delivery of renewables was a benefit. They do NOT have social licence to proceed. Energy Co say they will “consider” feedback from the public but do not state they will act on that feedback. A number of concerns were raised in the limited interviews/surveys but these have not been adequately resolved.
• Decommissioning/Rehabilitation – only mentioned for construction, not for infrastructure (transmission towers, switching stations, energy hubs etc).
• EMR/Magnetic Fields – Energy Co EMF advisor at Dunedoo Info Session advised it is “BAD to stand under the powerlines, if you stand there for too long it will boil your skin”. Same advisor would not comment on the safe distance for humans and animals and maximum exposure time.
• Traffic – Additional 100 vehicles per HOUR during peak construction on local roads. Some roads will go from 1 vehicle per day to 32 per HOUR. Cumulative traffic from this and other projects at the same time - from just six projects (out of over 40 projects) would be additional traffic on roads of 2307 PER DAY, for 3-5 years.

Yours sincerely,
Impacted Landholder