Hunter Transmission Project

These transmission lines exist to benefit billionaire investors, not everyday Australians. They destroy the public good to enrich private empires.

This project demands an immediate halt, a full forensic audit, and a Royal Commission into collusion, corruption, and foreign influence.

Dodgy, deceitful Energy Co are planning a blueprint for Grid collapse!
Built on ideological fantasies for the CCP, they ignore all engineering fundamentals and are a disgrace to every principle of responsible energy planning and energy security.

Energy Co is Destroying What Keeps the Lights On.
Reliable coal and nuclear would secure Australia’s future, but instead we get a dangerous fantasy of intermittent energy and subsidised grid failure for CCP benefit.

Parasitic Energy Co’s Fake Green plans have no Australian benefit - bringing invasive weeds, biosecurity breaches, permanent scarring of prime agricultural land—ecocide under the banner of decarbonisation and major misery for the public.

Dear EISCommittee
I have previosuly made a submission about these new powerlines to the east of the airfield.
I would like to add the following sensible suggestion:

The energy company should approach the farm owners to the east of the strip and enter into some sort of agreement whereby they reserve a portion of their field/s to be maintained for emergency glider landing UNDER THE NEW LINES as required on an emergency basis.
This would involve:
> No Low power lines
> No fences
> No animal feeding infrastructure
> Bush/scrub maintenance
This proposal might work out to be surprisingly affordable, and actually preferable to most members of the gliding club.

This totally unnecessary plan is Unjustified, Unwanted, UnAustralian!
There is no proven need for these transmission lines. They serve no public good—only the private interests of transnational parasites.

This CCP CONtrolling project would embed strategic vulnerabilities into Australia’s grid—turning energy from a national asset into a sabotaging national liability.

trong objection on the basis of the line’s impact on waterways, farmland and fire safety. The overhead transmission line may interfere with drainage, cause erosion, disrupt wetlands. Meanwhile, overhead lines are known ignition sources under extreme conditions. Smoke, winds and high voltage prevent aerial firefighting near these towers, delaying response. The EIS does not demonstrate adequate contingency planning for fire scenarios involving aerial suppression failure. If this project is approved, who will pay for loss of life, property, wildlife or infrastructure resulting from such failure, and will those liable include the proponent or government?

This is a fake green, rip-off solution for a fake green, vested interest manufactured crisis.

Building more transmission lines for unreliable "renewables" that don’t deliver power on demand is scientifically illiterate and strategically suicidal.

the HTP route threatens waterways running through farmland, affecting both water quality and availability. The visual, environmental and health consequences of overhead 500 kV lines are non‐trivial. Farmland near those easements will suffer due to constrained land use and liability concerns. Overhead lines are more exposed to natural hazards: storms, lightning, heat—leading to fire risk. Aerial firefighting is compromised: safety regulations prevent operation near high voltage lines, leaving ground crews to face worse conditions. If the line is built, what enforceable standards will there be to ensure maintenance and operations minimize fire risk, safeguard waterways, and ensure aerial suppression is never impassable?

Predatory Energy Co is putting Australia’s productive base under siege with these Energy Poverty plans.

With power prices skyrocketing and grid stability vanishing, manufacturing, mining, farming—our backbone industries—are being methodically destroyed.

The project is not strictly necessary in its proposed form. Why build a brand new double circuit overhead 500 kV line when existing 500 kV lines could be upgraded, or additional capacity added to current corridors, avoiding farmland and waterways entirely? The proposal undermines waterway integrity—creeks and watercourses are at risk of erosion, contamination and destruction of habitat. Fire risk is real: conductor failure or arcing in heat will start fires; aerial fire suppression will be restricted, as safety zones around high voltage lines limit aircraft operations. If this project proceeds, who assumes responsibility for any agricultural losses, ecosystem damage, or fire suppression failure resulting from architectural/design choices?

Energy Co are pathological liars!
Energy Co’s ‘CONsultation’ process is a farce—predatory, intimidating, and fake.
They don’t listen because they never intended to.

the proposal fails to sufficiently consider harm to waterways along the corridor. Sedimentation and interruption of natural drainage patterns cannot be mitigated fully. Also, the visual impacts and property damage (shade, interference with operations) are long term. Overhead lines are known fire risks; in dry/fuel‐rich terrain, a single conductor fault can spark a disaster. Aerial firefighting is limited by safety clearances and hazard zones, reducing response ability. If this new line is so vital, why are we not requiring the highest fire safety design (e.g. fault detection, automatic shut‑off, undergrounding segments) especially where farmland and waterways are crossed?

Dear EIS Evaluation Committee
While I do not object to the improvement of infrastructure in general, especially if it will allow the grid to be more flexible and viable for alternative energy sources, the increase in height of the power lines in the vicinity of Warkworth Airfield, home to Hunter Valley Gliding club, does concern me greatly and personally.

I am a long-standing member of the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA), membership No. M19692, and of the Hunter Valley Gliding Club, Colorei Road, Warkworth, NSW.
Location/Placement
Recently [approx. 5 years ago] we as a club acquiesced to the movement of existing high tension wire pylons closer to our airfield.
From memory the existing lines extend to about 70 metres above the ground.
The new proposal is for those pylons to be increased to 85 metres above the ground.
In my opinion, the increase in height is unjustified.
Cannot the new levels of transmission wires be accommodated at the same or lower levels?
Alternatively, could additional power lines be accommodated at the same height, slightly to the south within the same power line corridor?
Gliding Operations
Gliding operations cannot use power to adjust to new obstacles. Our landing patterns are determined by the conditions of the day and the height at which the glider returns to the field for landing. Gliders generally speaking cannot maneuver to avoid new objects, or ignore the prevailing meteorological conditions.
While no one has yet to hit the existing power lines to the south of our field, the possibility of such a tragedy is real, acknowledged by club members, and planned for with each flight. So far we have successfully planned to accomodate the obstacles.
Raising the existing pylons to 85 metres adds exponentially to the risk involved in any low level approach, circuit and landing.
Generally on planning a landing [in gliding, each landing has to be pre-planned, and cannot be aborted - There is NO "go-around" for un-powered flight] we employ the concept of "angle" meaning we judge the landing based on the performance of the aircraft, the height the landing circuit is "joined"/commenced, wind speed, and the distance from the strip to the aircraft.
If the top of an 85 metre pylon is visible within a glider's landing "angle view" significant additional measures will be required to avoid the obstacle and the safety afforded by a well planned, unobstructed, landing approach will be compromised.
I fly cross-country and after a flight of 3-4 hours I cannot guarantee to EnergyCo or anyone else how high I will be or at what "angle" of approach I will be on when I plan a landing. Gliding is a sport and we are not daredevils, but we do not need additional hurdles that Mother Nature does not throw up to us.
If any fatal accident were to occur, the height of adjacent power lines would certainly be canvassed by a Coroner's investigation.
I think it would be instructive if one of the members of your evaluation committee came out to our club and took a flight with our President, Mr Ben Coleman, to better appreciate the planning, risks and considerations involved when flying in more restricted airspace.
Sincerely,
George S Chapman
GFA No. M19692
Mob 0478 640 408

The project is not strictly necessary in its proposed form. Why build a brand new double circuit overhead 500 kV line when existing 500 kV lines could be upgraded, or additional capacity added to current corridors, avoiding farmland and waterways entirely? The proposal undermines waterway integrity—creeks and watercourses are at risk of erosion, contamination and destruction of habitat. Fire risk is real: conductor failure or arcing in heat will start fires; aerial fire suppression will be restricted, as safety zones around high voltage lines limit aircraft operations. If this project proceeds, who assumes responsibility for any agricultural losses, ecosystem damage, or fire suppression failure resulting from architectural/design choices?

unnecessary clearing of waterways, riparian zones and farmland for an overhead 500 kV line when alternative routes exist. The EIS fails to prove that using existing transmission corridors or undergrounding near sensitive areas is uneconomic. Fire hazard is exacerbated: overhead lines are more exposed to storms, wind damage and lightning. When these lead to faults, the chance of fire increases. Adding to that, aerial firefighting is severely constrained near high voltage infrastructural corridors due to safety distances—meaning by the time ground crews arrive, fire may be out of control. What mechanisms will guarantee rapid aerial response, and who will be liable if that fails due to the location of these lines?

Please see attached submission