Mount Piper to Wallerawang Transmission

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.

Greedy bully TransGrid 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.

TransGrid 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 TransGrid’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 misery for the public.

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.

the transmission line’s steep terrain alignment exacerbates maintenance hazards and failure risk. Tower maintenance in remote slopes is inherently dangerous; failure or misinspection is more likely. Electrical faults are more probable under stress. Fire ignition is thus a perpetual risk. Aerial firefighting remains constrained. If we accept this project, will the proponent commit to zero tolerance on defect detections, immediate power shutoff under hazard conditions, and full liability for all damage, including ecological, financial, personal?

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.

scenic and cultural grounds as well. The upland wilderness is part of our natural heritage, scenic vistas and Aboriginal cultural landscapes. Transmission towers will scar ridgelines and vistas. Fire risk is increased by line erection in remote bush. If the proponent claims insignificant visual or cultural impact, will they supply line‑of‑sight visual simulations (day/night) and engage with traditional custodians to assess possible damage, with power to relocate if irreversible harm is found?

Predatory TransGrid 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 route bisects wilderness areas offering high conservation value. These areas have limited human disturbance and constitute core habitat for many species. Introducing tall transmission infrastructure will open corridors for weeds, increased human access, noise, edge effects—raising stress on sensitive flora and fauna. If proponents suggest the “footprint” is minimal, can they publish a before/after habitat loss quantification (including indirect edge effects) and commit to offset programs only if scientifically verified?

TransGrid are pathological liars in high-vis vests!
TransGrid’s "consultation" process is a farce—predatory, intimidating, and fake.
They don’t listen because they never intended to.

public risk grounds. Should a tower fail, conductor sever, or insulation fault occur, the high voltage line could fall into steep terrain, ignite forest, damage property or threaten lives below. Aerial suppression would likely be restricted near live wires, exacerbating damage. The EIS does not satisfactorily model failure modes in slope contexts. If they assert structural safety is assured, can they provide third‑party engineering risk assessments (fault analysis, failure likelihoods) and binding compensation for worst‐case outcomes?

this project compounds existing infrastructure stress on the region. Already wildlife corridors and wilderness areas are fragmented; adding tall lines and access tracks worsens edge effects, erosion, weed invasion. The construction demands will involve heavy machinery, earthworks, blasting on slopes, all risk destabilizing soil and water flows. If mitigation is promised, can the proponent guarantee no net loss of habitat, fully funded restoration plans, and binding revertible bonds if ecological targets fail?

fire propagation risks. In this upland, vegetated environment, the line is a vector for ignition—from faulting, arcing, conductor swing, or lightning. Once ignited, fire will race upslope, threatening biodiversity, catchments, and downstream communities. Aerial suppression is often the first line of defense but may be precluded near high voltage lines. The EIS understates this danger. If they claim they’ve designed safe spacing and insulation, can they release worst‑case fire spread models including suppression constraints, and legal indemnity for impacted landholders?

fire propagation risks. In this upland, vegetated environment, the line is a vector for ignition—from faulting, arcing, conductor swing, or lightning. Once ignited, fire will race upslope, threatening biodiversity, catchments, and downstream communities. Aerial suppression is often the first line of defense but may be precluded near high voltage lines. The EIS understates this danger. If they claim they’ve designed safe spacing and insulation, can they release worst‑case fire spread models including suppression constraints, and legal indemnity for impacted landholders?

I object due to high risks of avian strike and electrocution. Persistent movement of conductors, wind sway and blade tip clearance create danger zones for birds in flight. In rugged terrain, species like eagles, falcons, honeyeaters and threatened woodland birds are especially vulnerable. The EIS does not present rigorous, site‑specific collision modelling or mitigation (bird diverters, conductor marking). If the proponent claims negligible bird mortality, will they commit to annual independent monitoring, mortality thresholds and removal or realignment if deaths exceed safe levels?

I object because the route forces infrastructure into steep, remote wilderness. Access roads will scar slopes, cause landslip risk and destabilize soils. The transmission towers and lines will be visually dominating, degrading wilderness character. In fire conditions, aerial suppression is hindered by both terrain and the electrical hazards, reducing emergency response effectiveness. The risk to human safety, flora and fauna is too high. If the line is approved, will the proponent ensure redundant shutdown systems, continuous monitoring and immediate de‑energising in extreme fire weather days—and who will enforce that?

I strongly object based on biodiversity and habitat fragmentation. The corridor cuts through remnant bushland, fragmenting habitat for endangered and threatened species. Tall transmission infrastructure may create barriers, edge effects, and increased predation and invasion of weeds. Particularly vulnerable are aerial species (raptors, woodland birds) whose flight routes may be severed or made deadly. If proponent documents claim negligible impact, can they provide up‑to‑date species surveys, flight path intersection risk studies, and commitment to removing or rerouting if mortality incidence exceeds threshold?