Hunter Transmission Project

Biodiversity
This impact on biodiversity on a region already under pressure is unacceptable:
Direct impact to 38 threatened flora
Direct impact to 28 threatened fauna
Other impacts on 4 threatened birds and 4 threatened mammals
Serious and irreversible impacts to 16 hectares, containing 8 threatened flora and 7 threatened fauna species

Missing data
This Impact Statement is based on survey data. But some of the private properties EnergyCo haven’t even visited yet. I know this because of my own property, which is proposed to host about 6km of roads and corridor, as well as blank sections in the EIS survey maps. However EnergyCo is treating these blank sections as containing no ecological value. As an example of this, my own property (1205/DP1033443) contains rich fauna (koalas, gliders, etc) and flora (pokolbin ironbark, several species of Persoonia including Persoonia pauciflora which is critically endangered). Yet this property appears on the survey as containing no flora or fauna (see survey map p339 EIS)

Taking over public land
I object to EnergyCo taking over public state forests and parks such as Watagans, Corrabare and Pokolbin State Forest. This is a shared asset that we can all enjoy, which will now have massive cleared sections. We all own and enjoy this asset, but EnergyCo has now taken this over to build roads and clear forest. It's our land, and they've given themselves permission to do this.

Clearing land with no justification
This project will impact over 761 hectares of native vegetation. This is not acceptable, especially when there is already an existing, cleared corridor a few kilometres to the north (through Neath). There has been no community input in selecting this path, or justification. Since the budget for this project is unknown, it can't be to save money.
The result of clearing this land will be increased crime, rubbish and burnt out cars.

Road widening
In the EIS analysis, the impact of clearing and road widening is not addressed. There are hundreds of planned road works and track upgrades planned, which have an ecological and community impact. These have not been addressed.

Long term analysis missing
There is no analysis of the long term impact of clearing these corridors and additional roads. There is increased fire risk, crime and ecological problems that need to be dealt with long term, but EnergyCo will no longer be responsible for these

Ignoring social and community impacts
Several of the impacted properties have been set up as wildlife care sanctuaries. Our communities have invested funds and time in building these up. They are critical for injured animals and supporting an ecosystem already under pressure. EnergyCo has ignored people like Peter & Kathy Morris and this report ignores the impact of destroying these important assets - they don’t even get a mention.

Ignoring the human impact
Our elderly and vulnerable should be treated with respect and care. EnergyCo have treated this as an opportunity to bully, threaten and swindle. I know this from my own experience. Making ridiculous low offers, trespassing and treating them with aggressive disdain. Cases such as my neighbours Ian & Vicky Barry don’t even get a mention, yet EnergyCo have had the time to use their stories as part of their recruiting process

Meaningless Offsets
To address all this destruction, EnergyCo plan to buy 234,753 offset credits. Essentially they are paying someone else (with our money) so they can destroy our pristine bushland. Study after study have illustrated how these credits can be dodgy and don’t offset anything. Surely the sensible approach is don’t destroy our native bushland in the first place - use the existing corridor to the north.

Traffic impact
There will be daily traffic movement of almost 1000 heavy vehicles through small towns like Millfield. 7 days a week. For at least 2 years, and probably more. This is not something we should have to accept - especially when there is an existing corridor already available.

Workers Villages & Compounds
The creation of these worker villages and compounds will increase traffic and load on community and council resources. This is not acceptable that the developer imposes this on our community and gets this “for free”

No analysis of Fire resilience
There is no analysis of the impact of this project on our fire resilience. On my own property, we have a significant dam (200ML) which is used by helicopters to collect water for firefighting, which will now be blocked by high voltage transmission lines. The presence of high voltage lines also restricts movement of some firefighting equipment. High winds may result in towers or lines down, which at 500kv may start more fires. EnergyCo isn’t funding any additional fire fighting capacity - it’s up to our communities to support this. This is not acceptable.

Improved vehicle access to bushland means more traffic, and unfortunately more arson during high risk times. Any easement or track access that EnergyCo demands (either on private land or state forest) means they essentially own it freehold (their easement terms are "full and fair"). This means a landholder can no longer erect gates or restrict access to prevent firebugs getting through. None of this issue is analysed or the impact evaluated.

I object to the impacts on waterways from this proposed transmission line. The plan fails to adequately assess run‐off, sediment, and chemical contamination that occurs during construction and maintenance near streams and wetlands. Also the new infrastructure across farmland places residents at increased risk: transmission towers and lines are potential ignition sources in periods of drought or heatwave. Aerial firefighting may be impeded by electromagnetic fields, conductor height, operational safety limits. The EIS does not convincingly show that risk is negligible. There are countless precedents where lines have caused devastating fires because maintenance was insufficient. If this overhead line is approved, what binding operational guarantees and monitoring will ensure that waterway health and fire suppression capacity are not compromised?

Please accept this submission as my formal objection to the Hunter Transmission Project

The transition to renewable energy requires unprecedented development across NSW. The planning and delivery of many generation projects in Renewable Energy Zones and the required interconnecting transmission projects in the grid across NSW are collectively ALL currently required to meet targets and to successfully deliver both the NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap and to successfully contribute towards delivering the Nations Integrated System Plan as designed by AEMO.

The fact that the entire Scope and Scale of (a) each REZ and (b) for the full NSW REZ and Transmission plan has not been presented to the NSW Public, in my mind, is neither fair or just. Assessing each project individually, is taking advantage of the current dated and flawed NSW planning system and fails to present the transition transparently and with adequate due-diligence and accountability for impacts, particularly cumulative impacts to the State and to the people, lands and water of NSW.

As a resident of rural NSW, I am concerned that the planning process for this type and scale of transition is not protecting NSW Agriculture, rural communities and the future of rural and regional NSW and Australia.

I liken this type of assessment for Australia’s first Renewable Energy Zones and associated transmission infrastructure to building a Nation-first Hospital but presenting only one room or ward at a time for assessment.

Across the vast rural areas of NSW collectively, there is and will be, a mostly unknown permanent change to landscapes and rural community character, a significant interruption to and reduction of farmland and food and fibre production, a permanent change to rural tourism products, the destruction of community cohesion and the introduction of a multitude and magnitude of new electricity generation and associated transmission infrastructure – these are all critical and fundamental reasons that this transition needs to be presented to the people of NSW holistically, not in part and 1 project at a time.

Residents within a REZ have never been presented with what a REZ fully entails. The EPA Act requires public exhibition of certain development proposals, allowing rural communities to provide input on projects that may alter their landscapes or way of life. This ensures community voices are considered in decisions affecting rural areas. Presenting each project within a REZ and projects required for bringing this generation to the grid one by one, pushes on the boundaries of project fragmentation or project splitting, which the EPA Act explicitly tries to prevent. It is the responsibility of the NSW Government to recognise this.

The NSW Government is committed to delivering the NSW Electricity Roadmap and is significantly funding EnergyCO as the Infrastructure planner for each REZ, a REZ cannot deliver what is required by the State without the culmination of generation, storage, firming and transmission projects. Assessing each project one by one is pulling the wool over the eyes of every NSW resident and taking advantage of legislation written before a REZ concept was even thought of.

It appears to me, that the NSW Land and Environment Court has played a critical role in preventing project splitting. Courts have ruled that assessing components of a larger project in isolation may breach the EPA Act’s requirement for comprehensive environmental assessment. Eg. In Mach Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (2019) NSWLEC 55, the court emphasised the need to consider the full scope of a project’s impacts, including related infrastructure.

I firmly object to the approval of this project until such time as the entire NSW REZ rollout, associated/required generation, storage, firming and transmission projects are transparently presented to the public of NSW for their full consideration and participation.

This is critical infrastructure to support the change to a renewable energy system. We have no choice to make this transition away from coal and gas and this project is a critical part of the long term solution.
Get on and build this project.
The project has clearly been planned to minimise impact on private landowners, and in large part is through existing power station and mine lands to the north and state forest and power station lands to the south. I support the use of public land for this project - there also should be some offset contribution and works done in degraded areas of the parks and forests to partially improve the overall landscape and biodiversity outcome.
There are already significant transmission lines right through the Hunter, Central Coast and into northern Sydney. Obviously nothing comes without impact, but local scale impacts must be balanced against the greater good for the community (stronger new power grid) and the need to mitigate climate change impacts.
Having lived in Northern Sydney, Central Coast and Lake Macquarie for most of my life I have always been aware of transmission lines - just like I am aware of highways, railways, urban development etc. In my local area the landscape is already criss crossed with transmission lines related to the NEM and existing and past coal plants like Eraring, Vales Pt and Lake Munmorah. Whilst not attractive these have always been essential for improving and maintaining our modern lifestyle - this addition is no different. I literally drive past and under existing transmission lines daily and my house has a view of Eraring power station in all its faded glory. You get used to infrastructure and new development - it is the change that is difficult. We can't be that precious when we need this transition to a new energy system to speed up, not be slowed down by small disaffected groups, even those with valid complaints of some impact.
I also note the extensive landscape damage from the existing coal plants, coal mines, conveyor belts, ash dams, oil tanks and all the associated infrastructure. Presumably the government will require these scars on the landscape to be rehabilitated when they are no longer required - the same (or better) standard should be applied to the transmission project. In particular, the coal ash dams are an appalling scar on the landscape as well as a long term safety and health problem. Anyone with google maps can easily see how the provision of the current transmission (and other infrastructure) has not been without impact, however is no different to the scale of this project.
As a volunteer firefighter for over 20 years I am unaware of any bushfire ignition related to HV transmission ever occurring in NSW. I have used fire trails and other access tracks associated with transmission lines frequently. These are a positive benefit in bush fire fighting, as are those associated with pipelines and the road network. There should be a fund established to ensure there is money available and required to be spent every year on maintenance and upgrades where necessary on the access trail network. These should be built to at least RFS standards and signposted accordingly. The entire access network should become part of the Fire Access & Fire Trails Plans as designated fire trails, and the responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the trails should fall to Energyco for the life of the project. As a previous bushland manager this lack of responsibility for trails except when maintenance was being done was a huge problem - if the trails are going to provide access they need to be maintained always.
Claims of preventing access to dams for aerial firefighting are overblown. This can be remedied by building additional dams nearby to the transmission route but still accessible (if necessary) or by providing water sources via tanks where trails access the wider road network.
Change is very difficult for some people - perhaps there should be a fund for purchasing properties where people are so horrified by the change to their local environment that they can be bought out at market value (or at a slight premium). This has been going on for decades for communities affected by coal mine subsidence so is hardly a new idea. Those lands may be on sold later to recover part of project costs, with suitable easements in place for access etc.
I strongly support the project being approved and built with suitable conditions attached and an ongoing fund for land management and fire trail access to be established to manage long term impacts long after the fuss has died down.

Aviation Projects states, “aircraft typically reach an adequate height above the HTP corridor on a takeoff to the east” and provides a table of heights typically reached from the start of the take off roll. This is a disingenuous simplification of the circumstances and ignores the risks to aircraft when a take off or landing is not typical. By that measure it would be acceptable to build a tower block 500 feet tall on the end of the runway at Sydney or Brisbane because aircraft taking off ’typically reach an adequate height” to clear it. Safety measures such as the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, Runway Strips and Runway End Safety Areas are not there for when aircraft are operating normally. When an aircraft experiences an atypical take off, it may climb at a lower-than-expected rate and it may not follow the expected (typical) track, not least because the pilot probably has their full attention on trying to keep the aircraft flying. I can speak from experience - please see my video on YouTube describing an engine failure after take off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iybe-wlH4Ts

Furthermore, arriving aircraft may also be affected by the pylons and cables. The paper correctly points out that the lowest an aircraft can legally fly is 500 feet above obstacles except when taking off or landing. During poor weather an aircraft may descend lower than typically expected on the approach to maintain visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and to maintain sight of the runway. The HTP corridor is approximately 1 NM from the threshold at which point an aircraft would typically be expected to be passing 350 feet on descent. However, as stated, there may be atypical weather conditions or other reasons for an aircraft to be lower than usual and off the centreline of the approach track. All pilots, especially trainee pilots, may be blown through the desired final approach track during the turn from base leg to final. In Warkworth’s case this would easily place the pilot in proximity to the pylons when the aircraft is flying left hand circuit to runway 28 with a southwesterly wind as the pylons are only about 300m off the centreline.

Aviation Projects states that, "the HTP is not anticipated to adversely impact the Warkworth Aerodrome" but provides no assessment of the risks other than their own, subjective, opinion supported by some quasi-scientific climb out figures for a typical operation. The OLS, even for certified aerodromes is only a starting point for consideration of the risks. I consider that a more formal assessment of the hazards, some of which I have identified here, should be assessed for likelihood and consequence to establish more objectively the tolerability of the risks to aircraft presented by the pylons and cables.

The optimal result would be to change the route of the corridor to move the pylons further away from the aerodrome.

Failing that, if for no other reason than a ‘duty of care', the pylon should be fitted with an obstacle hazard light - it’s not like there is a shortage of electricity! And such a light could be fitted with a sensor so that it is visible during daylight only as aircraft and gliders don’t operate at Warkworth at night. This would also avoid the flashing light annoying any neighbours.

In the interests of full disclosure I believe Aviation Projects ought make an explicit statement about who commissioned and paid for the report so that readers may make their own informed judgement about potential bias.

I object because the HTP’s route crosses multiple sensitive waterways and farmland that are not expendable. The argument that we need a 500 kV ring “for the grid backbone” is unconvincing when existing infrastructure could be repurposed or strengthened. The visual, environmental and agricultural disruption is far too great. Transmission lines at this voltage present severe safety risks: they can spark, arc, breakdown insulation; during storms or bushfires, parts may fail. Aerial suppression is restricted around transmission lines, limiting firefighting. Worldwide, when lines fail, the costs are enormous in human life, property, ecosystem destruction. If this line is critical, why is there no comprehensive cost‐benefit comparison with alternatives (underground, reroute, strengthen existing towers) in terms of safety, environmental, agricultural, fire risk?

As a glider pilot and instructor the addition of transmission lines near Warkworth airfield is a significant risk
We train our pilots to manage their energy and the resultant flight path however there are times that downdrafts can cause a glider to return to the field lower than the normal flight path.

Adding high power lines nearby creates significant risks. Mid or low experience pilots may be tempted to overfly the powelines or even underfly. In other environments it would be suitable options to land away from the airfield as a precaution and therefore avoid going close to the power lines.
Warkworth does not offer the usual out landing options due to coal mines, roads and the Forrest. On this basis it is important that power lines be away from the field and ideally near landable areas such as paddocks when they are nearest the runway at Warkworth.
As a former RAAF tactical transport pilot we would fly low level near HV lines and be trained to do this safely. As a glider pilot my options to overfly safely when near the airfield are much reduced.

Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Submission in response to Hunter Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement
Upon review of the above mentioned EIS prepared by EnergyCo on behalf of the NSW Government. I have found the document is severely lacking detail in regarding the cumulative impacts that the project presents to the local residents who will be negatively impacted by the proposed development through the construction phase and operational phase. The community although being consulted throughout the planning process has had very little influence on conveying their concerns throughout this document and have been consistently overlooked through the planning process. The following impacts of traffic, social/economic and visual need further investigation as there are likely to be serve negative impacts for local community.
Traffic/ Roads Impact
HTP will have a negative impact on the local road network as it will be a traffic generating development. Local roads in their current condition are unsafe, increased traffic including construction and oversized loads during the construction of the project putting road users lives at risk. My main concern is Pokolbin Mountain Road a narrow winding road that links bitumen roads with the Pokolbin State Forest (HTP Central). Suggested mitigation measure would be to undertake road widening, bitumen to minimise dust and erosion potential, increase the number of under road drains to allow water off road network and provide funding to local council to maintain the road once the project reaches operational phase.
Social/Economic Impact
HTP will have a serve negative social/economic impact for my family living at 340 Pokolbin Mountains Road, Pokolbin. The project during the construction phase will dramatically increase construction in the early hours of the morning resulting in sleep interruptions for residents and guests on the property. Upgrades and widening of Pokolbin Mountain Road is likely to cause long delays to commute a recent example of this was battering repairs to the road resulting in wait times greater than 45mins for a journey that normally takes 5mins to complete. My family have a tourism accommodation business on their property where guests pay to stay at peaceful location away from this kind of disruption and will be impacted negatively by the proposed development. Suggested mitigation measures compensation to business owners who will impacted by the development HTP rents the tourist accommodation during the construction as compensation for loss of income.
Visual Impact
Viewpoint reference PR-C19 is incorrectly referenced as 340 Pokolbin Mountain Road, Pokolbin in this report. The correct reference for PR-C19 is 1384 Wollombi Road, Millfield. The development looking from the Eastern Boundary looking West will have a significant visual impact on the sunset vista. HTP will detract from the natural landscape through clearing of transmission line and construction of towers an unnatural/ industrial vista in a scenic rural landscape impacting amenity of area and detracting from future property value. Suggested mitigation is compensation for the projects loss of view. Secondary mitigation on property tree planting to provide a vegetation screen from the proposed development.
There are many more issues with this development that have been raised by the Pokolbin Mountain Road Action group that need further investigation.
I look forward to hearing your response and encourage any questions you may have in relation to my submission.

I object to this.

object to the HTP because it is predatory: it imposes harm on landholders for questionable public benefit. Farmland is being severed, waterways disrupted, shade and microclimate altered. Overhead 500 kV lines are not just unsightly—they pose health, fire, loss of property value issues. The project will limit aerial firefighting; in emergency conditions, aircraft cannot safely operate near high‐voltage lines. The EIS glosses over this risk. Transmission disasters globally illustrate the catastrophic consequences of lightning or conductor failure igniting fires that escalate rapidly. If the electricity grid is genuinely critical, why are no undergrounding or alternative alignments being seriously costed that avoid waterways and farmland, rather than forcing us into ruin?

I object on behalf of downstream water ecosystems. Construction and ongoing works carve into catchment landscapes. Pollution, sediment, chemical leakage from tower foundations, vehicle tracks will all impact creeks and rivers. Also, farmland beneath overhead lines is less usable for shade‐sensitive crops, stock suffers from electromagnetic interference, and insurance risk increases. Fire risk is not theoretical: high‐voltage lines have caused ignitions during storms in many nations. Furthermore, firefighting aircraft are highly constrained by the presence of such lines; aerial suppression may be too dangerous. If deemed vital, where is the requirement that this infrastructure be built underground along waterways or routed away, so that fire suppression and ecosystem protection are not compromised?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Word document (8 pages) - attempts to upload have not worked - have therefore copied below but format changes - please advise

Hunter Transmission Project - EIS Review Submission

EIS Review Timeframe – What a farce!
Properties are being acquired, construction road pavement testing is being conducted, new project delivery staff are being recruited, the construction tender process has been started, bidding contractors have people checking the landscape ...... did I miss that the project has already been approved?
Clearly EnergyCo think this is all a fait accompli.
With a strong gut sense of why bother getting involved in the process again, I have bothered to commit some precious time and throw a few challenges to the Department in the expectation this proposal is still getting a serious test before it gets the inevitable ‘green light’.
EnergyCo has spent 3 years in the project development / planning phase for this critical infrastructure project. It helped itself to an additional year to complete the EIS beyond the earlier notified exhibition timing of late 2024. Stakeholders are now afforded 1 month to navigate and digest over 1100 pages of EIS and over 30 supporting technical reports.
Many stakeholders, myself included, actually have busy lives and it is just plain impossible to absorb the content of interest to them and provide solid feedback with such a timeframe. Government organisations with dedicated resources would also struggle to make comprehensive reviews in this time
This EIS review period is frankly farcical, disrespectful and just plain unfair to community stakeholders. My neighbour called it a “snow job" on the part of EnergyCo and I can only but agree – we have been buried under a dumping and finding it hard to dig a way out.
Of course the consequence of this arrangement is that there will be many interested people too daunted to even bother getting involved and for those that muster the motivation, the review and feedback will be more restricted and superficial than could otherwise have been the case.
While 1 month of EIS exhibition may fulfil EP& Act obligations, this is far from being in the spirit of productive community involvement as envisaged by the objectives of the Act. For a large and complex EIS of this nature, the good citizen credentials of the proponent would allow more time for the stakeholders to have a proper say. Shame on EnergyCo....the planning process has been compromised as a result.
Mindful of this, the following comments in this submission are limited to a few matters of particular personal concern:
• Preferred corridor choice has still not been proven as the most suitable alternative in the documentation made public (including the EIS)
• Project justification as presented is inadequate due to failure to address some matters vital to such a question, in particular the economic benefits and costs and the massive biodiversityimpacts. This in addition to the failure to comprehensively demonstrate that the most suitable corridor was adopted
• Some local community impact issues in the Millfield / Mount View area which are substantially understated in the EIS and require further close scrutiny

Personal Situation
The perspective I bring to this submission includes:
• Support for the NSW Government strategy for transformation of the energy system so we can move rapidly to a more sustainable future.
• Support for the concept of the HTP as a vital transmission link between major nodes in the NSW electricity supply network
• Real interest and concern about the quality, robustness and transparency of the planning effort that goes into the development of major linear infrastructure and especially publicly funded proposals such as this HTP
• A rural resident in the Millfield / Mount View Rd area and hence some NIMBY reaction to local issues, most particularly the intended use of Mount View Rd for construction access

Corridor Selection Process
With a long running professional interest in linear corridor planning and assessment, I was motivated to explore the robustness of this crucial phase of HTP development. Living in a potential impact area also heightened my interest. However, I was essentially ‘sidelined' by EnergyCo’s refusal to share its deliberations with transparent access to the documents it prepared to inform its corridor selection decision. In this regard, the timeline is very pertinent .... to be clear I was seeking the information generated up to and used at the time of the preferred corridor selection. The EIS chapter on alternatives was produced long after that crucial project decision was made.
In early 2023 EnergyCo released initial details about the three corridor options being examined for the HTP and announced the Southern corridor as the Preliminary / Preferred corridor in December 2023. My submission of 18 December 2023 (on behalf of ~15 local north Millfield rural residents) focussed on this and requested the detailed corridor options evaluation documents used to inform the decision. Specifically, we asked for details of all options considered, preliminary route maps and concept arrangements (eg. tower locations), assessment criteria and any criteria weightings / priorities, comparative analysis of short-listed options (hopefully in tabulated form), and the decision rationale based on that analysis.
We had reckoned this to be a very legitimate request to EnergyCo given the vital phase reached in the project development process and noting that the public information documents released were very generalised and 'light weight' in terms of technical and quantitative content. Subsequent project updates also did not provide any detailed information. The project Scoping Report subsequently issued to DPIE says a detailed evaluation of the corridor options was conducted, so we assumed the documentation did actually exist. Being a high cost critical infrastructure project, nothing less would be expected! While EnergyCo was not legally bound to address this crucial issue of project alternatives until the EIS release, I repeatedly made the point that EnergyCo had the opportunity to gain a community imprimatur for the project by sharing the evaluation details before the formal project EIA progressed. All to no avail!
On at least 6 occasions over a 7 month period from December 2023 I made the same document request, mainly through the EnergyCo communications team. I was either ignored or “fobbed off" with the typical response being they will follow up and respond. A final attempt to access the requested documents to the EnergyCo CEO in July 2024 actually resulted in a definitive refusal on 29 July 2024 - see extract below of response from the then Project Director:
“Tim, we acknowledge your request to ‘release the comprehensive documentation that proves they got it right’ and hope this summary of the key alternatives that have been considered and rejected proves helpful. At this stage we do not intend to present any further detailed evaluation of the initial corridor selection ahead of the formal project assessment phase”
The “summary of comprehensive documentation” referred to was an assemblage of material from the previous public information releases and was therefore not at all helpful.
It is possible the EnergyCo project team did select the most suitable corridor based on a comprehensive best practice multi-criteria evaluation. However, we still don’t know if this is the case. EnergyCo refused to yield up documentation at the time of the corridor decision and the EIS assessment of alternatives was crafted well after the event and makes no reference to the supposed documentation. This leads me to the conclusion that the supposed documentation does not exist
While EnergyCo represented that it was seeking stakeholder feedback to help shape the project, it remains very obvious that it found my want to interrogate the corridor selection process an unwanted challenge. In my view EnergyCo took no heed of the findings and recommendations arising from the Dyer review regarding early and meaningful community engagement in such projects.
So in summary ..... EnergyCo has not released the documentation that contains detailed, objective, quantitative data that was essential to professionally and adequately evaluate the HTP corridor options during 2023. Consequently the evidence is not available to demonstrate that the southern corridor (which is the foundation of the proposed route) is the most suitable alternative for the HTP. That renders the EIS unreliable and deficient.

Economic Assessment & Project Justification
With the limited EIS review time I have not located any information about project capital cost and conclude it has not been published. Results of a typical project input – output analysis are provided in the economic assessment chapter and this indicates the value proposition expected for the regional and State economies .... although there is no critical commentary or conclusion as to whether those benefits are good, bad or indifferent for the magnitude of capital investment required for the HTP by Sate and Federal governments. Does the investment actually represent a good spend of public money to realise these predicted benefits. The fundamental questions are not addressed.
The EIS is the sole opportunity for community stakeholders to scrutinise the proposal and as an absolute minimum there should be very clear assessment of the project benefits and costs. This is a major and critical public infrastructure spend of national importance – we must know ..... what will it cost us? Is it good value? Is the intended spend better placed into an alternative solution? The questions must be answered satisfactorily as part of the assessment before stakeholders (and the Department as approver) can know if the proposal is justified.
The seeming absence of information about a fundamentally important project assessment criterion is perhaps unsurprising insofa

I, Bradley J Traynor, would like to address my concerns over the proposal for transmission line and placement of the Olney switching station due to the unacceptable damage they will have on the Watagan’s population of endangered Littlejohn’s tree frog. While I fully support a transition to renewable energy sources, I would like to see the selection of a more suitable alternative location for the switching station and believe that further consideration should be given to options including underground construction.
For the past eight years the University of Newcastle’s (UoN) Centre for Conservation Science has studied Littlejohn’s tree frog (Litoria littlejohni). This species is already at high risk of extinction (Endangered on the IUCN Red List, Commonwealth EPBC Act, and the NSW BC Act). The University has implemented captive breeding, genetic rescue, and habitat creation in the hopes of saving this rare species, but it is only through continued diligence and action that it has any chance.
Amphibian fungal disease and low effective population sizes (18 to 181 breeding individuals across a few isolated populations) have seen declines in the populations. Fragmentation of populations has brought about reduction in available genetic diversity and sees inbreeding at high rates. These threats alone are likely to reduce the fitness of the populations, without further disruption to their habitat.
The findings of the research carried out by the UoN Centre for Conservation Science indicate that Littlejohn’s tree frogs are known from only three regions: the Woronora Plateau, the Blue Mountains, and the Watagans. Despite the presence of fairly robust forest in the Watagans, the species is restricted to a narrow 5 km (approx.) range which unfortunately lies in the middle of the planned switching station and transmission line location. Genetic studies on the supposed metapopulation in the Watagans have demonstrated very little interaction between populations in the disparate pond clusters, and the threat of complete isolation from one another will further reduce genetic diversity. I believe that the University, along with NPWS and NSW Forestry Commission, have installed (built) numerous additional ponds in the hope of connecting the populations further and to increase viable breeding grounds.
This vulnerable Watagans population is at risk from the Hunter REZ Transmission Project. The positioning of the Olney switching station immediately over the southern end of the population, cuts through habitat at the northern end, and suggests placing transmission towers next to both the natural population and the recently constructed ponds. The entire population would be greatly impacted by these activities, which would destroy important breeding habitats. The Giant Burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus), Southern Stuttering frogs (Mixophyes australis), and Red-crowned Toadlets (Pseudophryne australis) are among the other endangered frog species in the region. These species, especially the Giant Burrowing frog, which has a broad terrestrial range, will probably be impacted as well because they share comparable habitat. If the proposed construction increases stream sedimentation, stream frogs in the vicinity could also be at risk.
Although a variety of conservation measures can benefit a species, there is nothing more crucial than preserving the unique habitat of a given species. This is due to the fact that within a species’ habitat there are intrinsic aspects of that habitat that maintains the species’ health and breeding potential.
I strongly urge that the location of the Olney switching station be altered and that the southern portion of this proposed route stay clear of habitat for threatened species. At present, the proposal would see the loss of around one-third of the species' known sites, which would greatly raise their risk of extinction, especially given its poor capacity for dispersal and the hazards (mine, fire, inbreeding, isolation, and illness) facing populations further south.
It seems, from the EIS that the fear of affecting visual amenity ranks higher than threats to biodiversity. I think that in the current enlightened environmental society that biodiversity would rank higher in the minds of most people. I would hope that any future public education or media coverage be open and honest about the effects on the biodiversity in the region, explicitly stating that the southern route will have a detrimental effect on 66 vulnerable species. This fact seems to be non-existent in the current information available to the public forum.
In conclusion, I would again state that I am all for the move toward a greener future in the production of power, but that the transition to renewables should carefully balance impacts upon both human and the natural environment and its biodiversity. I feel that the current proposal seems more focussed on image than ecology, and the projected loss of habitat and biodiversity should be a greater priority. The costs involved in the underground power lines require further investigation to fully assess the viability of this option. I would suggest that underground cables, at least in some parts of the route, would be less impacted by fire, flood, tree-fall, and weather, thus requiring less maintenance, which may offset any costs incurred in construction. This option would remove or reduce the threats to the health of the local environment and its inhabitants.
My real question remains, what is the cost to our country if any of our endemic species are threatened or lost through our actions?
Bradley J Traynor (BAppSc, Grad Dip Ed, MSc [pending])

I'm horrified by the EnergyCo plans first and foremost.
I had zero idea that this company had total disregard for so many issues that many of us in the adjacent areas hold dear.
Highlights below...

I object to EnergyCo taking over public state forests and parks such as Watagans, Corrabare and Pokolbin State Forest. This is a shared asset that we can all enjoy, which will now have massive cleared sections. We all own and enjoy this asset, but EnergyCo has now grabbed it for their own use.



Clearing land

This project will impact 761 hectares of native vegetation. This is not acceptable, especially when there is already an existing, cleared corridor a few kilometres to the north (through Neath). There has been no meaningful community input in selecting this path.

The result of clearing this land will be increased crime, rubbish and burnt out cars.

Road widening

In the EIS analysis, the impact of clearing and road widening is not addressed. There are hundreds of planned road works and track upgrades planned, which have an ecological and community impact. These have not been addressed.

Long term analysis missing

There is no analysis of the long term impact of clearing these corridors and additional roads. There is increased fire risk, crime and ecological problems that need to be dealt with long term, but EnergyCo will no longer be responsible for.

Massive impact on biodiversity

This impact on biodiversity on a region already under pressure is unacceptable:

Direct impact to 38 threatened flora

Direct impact to 28 threatened fauna

Other impacts on 4 threatened birds and 4 threatened mammals

Serious and irreversible impacts to 16 hectares, containing 8 threatened flora and 7 threatened fauna species

Missing data

This Impact Statement is based on survey data. But some of the private properties EnergyCo haven’t even visited yet - this is evident by landholder testimony and blank sections in their survey maps. But EnergyCo is treating these blank sections as containing no ecological value.

Ignoring social and community impacts

Several of the impacted properties have been set up as wildlife care sanctuaries. Our communities have invested funds and time in building these up. They are critical for injured animals and supporting an ecosystem already under pressure. EnergyCo has ignored people like Peter & Kathy Morris and this report ignores the impact of destroying these important assets - they don’t even get a mention.

Ignoring the human impact

Our elderly and vulnerable should be treated with respect and care. EnergyCo have treated this as an opportunity to bully, threaten and swindle. Making ridiculous low offers, trespassing and treating them with aggressive disdain. Cases such as Ian & Vicky Barry don’t even get a mention, yet EnergyCo have had the time to use their stories as part of their recruiting process



Meaningless Offsets

To address all this destruction, EnergyCo plan to buy 234,753 offset credits. Essentially they are paying someone else (with our money) so they can destroy our pristine bushland. Study after study have shown these credits to be often very dodgy and don’t offset anything. Just don’t destroy our native bushland in the first place - use the existing corridor to the north

Traffic impact

There will be daily traffic movement of almost 1000 heavy vehicles through small towns like Millfield. 7 days a week. For at least a year, and probably more. This is not something we should have to accept - especially when there is an existing corridor already available.

Workers Villages & Compounds

The creation of these worker villages and compounds will increase traffic and load on community and council resources. This is not acceptable that the developer imposes this on our community and gets this “for free”



No analysis of Fire resilience

There is no analysis of the impact of this project on our fire resilience. Several dams that have been used by helicopters to collect water for firefighting will now be blocked by high voltage transmission lines. The presence of high voltage lines also restricts movement of some firefighting equipment. High winds may result in towers or lines down, which at 500kv may start more fires. EnergyCo isn’t funding any additional fire fighting capacity - it’s up to our communities to support this. This is not acceptable.

Improved vehicle access to bushland means more traffic, and unfortunately more arson during high risk times. Any easement or track access that EnergyCo demands (either on privatr state forest) means they essentially own it - a landholder can no longer erect gates or restrict access to prevent firebugs getting through.

The transition to renewable energy is well underway. Projects such as this need to proceed to ensure the transition is timely and cost efficient.
The affected land holders will be generously compensated for their inconvenience and their fears regarding the land use will prove to be unfounded.
We as a nation have a chance to build and enjoy cheap clean electricity, the misinformation spread by fossil fuel companies is main reason people disagree with these projects. The greater good of our future depends on these projects continuing.