Mount Piper to Wallerawang Transmission

I object to this proposal on the grounds of severe ecological impact. The line will slice through wilderness areas supporting threatened flora and fauna, including vulnerable and critically endangered bird species reliant on uninterrupted habitat. The tall structures will intersect flight corridors, leading to injury or death of birds. Further, steep terrain intensifies the risk of erosion when access roads and tower pads are built. In a fire event, we risk ignition from conductor faults or vegetation contact, and firefighting aircraft will be constrained by the very infrastructure that threatens ignition. If the proponent claims they will avoid harm, will they commit (in legally binding form) to remove line segments or disable sections if endangered species mortality is observed?

I strongly object to the proposed 8 km overhead transmission line between Mount Piper and Wallerawang. The route traverses pristine wilderness, rugged terrain, and steep slopes, cutting across multiple watercourses, gullies and drainage lines. Such construction will cause erosion, sedimentation, and pollution in fragile waterways. The area is habitat for endangered and critically endangered bird species whose flightpaths will be intersected by tall pylons and conductors, risking collision and mortality. High voltage lines on slopes increase fire hazard: wind, conductor sway, component failure and lightning strikes are amplified in exposed upland terrain. Aerial fire suppression in steep terrain is already difficult; adding high voltage infrastructure further restricts aviation access. If the proponent claims minimal impact, can they provide independent, peer‑reviewed modelling of bird collision risk and aerial fire suppression capability across the steep slopes?

This submission opposes the proposed Mount Piper to Wallerawang
Transmission Project on the grounds that it is both unlawful and
environmentally indefensible. The 8-kilometre, 500 kV double-circuit
transmission line—intended to connect Mount Piper substation to Wallerawang
substation—is presented as a minor extension within the NSW transmission
rollout. However, in law and in fact, it represents a major escalation of
cumulative environmental pressure across a landscape already saturated with
ecological degradation, legacy industrial pollution, and expanding
infrastructure.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is legally non-compliant. It fails
to meet the mandatory requirements of both Commonwealth and State
legislation

Attention:
Minister Planning & Public Spaces
Dept of Planning Housing & Infrastructure
Application Number SSI-70279722 EPBC ID Number 2024/09855
To Whom it may Concern
Development of a new 330kV transmission line between the Mount Piper 330kV/ 500 kV substation and Wallerawang 330kV substation

Thank you for the opportunity to make a personal submission for this project.
We support this proposal with understanding the urgent need to have the upgrade to uptake the renewable energy from the CW REZ.
We are local residents and members of Lithgow Environment Group.

We thank Trans grid staff for engaging with our concerns with loss of habitat which the proposal will remove native vegetation within the newly proposed Gardens of Stone SCA.

The upgrade is critical but equally is the protection and preservation of our natural areas given this location borders 2 significantly impacted areas from Mt Piper Power Station Coal Fired Power Generation and Centennial coal washery.
We do not wish for our address to be published.

Yours sincerely
Julie Favell & Chris Jonkers

I am in support of the transmission line because I see it as a vital piece of infrastructure necessary for the the transition to renewable energy and the development of the Wallerawang site.

I support of the proposed project. I would like the draft EIS to look more closely at the following points:
1. Given transmission lines lose energy, what is the likely loss of energy on this project over its life cycle period. What is proponent's proposal to minimise such losses and what technology is or could be made to bring this about. A loss of up to say 10% on such a project is a significant loss and every effort must be made to reduce this - it makes a mockery of the project being seen as environmentally responsible, when energy is lost and that technology (while expensive) may not be brought to bear. It become a value based decision - do it as we've done over time or innovate and bring in new thinking.
2. What efforts will the proponent make to ensure materials used during the construction phase are environmentally sound and what innovation specfically is being deployed to reduce greenhouse gas effects, especially in concrete and steel production.
3. Given the bushfire experience in the region, would the proponent examine the feasibility of underground water storages along the route to be accessed in the case of bushfire. Accessing a water source close to the project rather than other means would seem appropriate.
4. I would like to see a greater effort made to involve more of the region's industry. While I accept the area does not have all of the necessary skills, it can make a greater impact on sourcing of materials and labour. It is easy to dismish the fact that the LIthgow region is small but there is a skills base here that can be revitalised and grown if the process of getting the skills mix and sourcing is proactive and genuine.

Wellington Valley Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation Elders, Knowledge Holders and Members do not oppose this project

I support this Infrastructure Project vital to our community

To whom ever this may concern,
Our dedicated team of angling volunteers, manage the fish stockings in the area in conjunction with the nsw dpird fisheries, with this project noting its close vicinity of the Cox river water way access, we would like to ensure safe and continuous access to the waterway during and after construction of the project.
We will be happy to meet with you and discuss amicable arrangements moving forward as necessary
Kind regards
Ray Tang
WASinc Secretary

Please refer to the attached documents.

Please find attached objection.

Please accept this submission as my formal objection to the Mount Piper to Wallerawang 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.