Shoalhaven Pumped Hydro Expansion Project - Main Works

I write to raise my objection to the proposed expansion of the hydro power plant in Kangaroo Valley.

Having read the EIS, in particular the socio-economic impact annexure Q, I fail to see any actual plans that I can feel confident in. The entire document basically reads as “we’re not sure how we will do this but we will try and fix it as we go and you just have to hope for the best”. After dealing with fire and floods, seeing destruction, loss of property and animals, and being cut off by landslides and road closures, this community has borne loss and yet is being asked to bear more. This should not be done lightly and should not be done without clear plans and promises to residents, businesses and our native flora and fauna. If this were to go ahead despite objections, Origin should be required to improve the community by investing in it by, for example, investing in wildlife protection through funding animal and environmental groups. Do not just arrive, take and then leave.

The EIS uses vague terms and language when referring to mitigation measures, such as use of terms to describe plans for these measures without any actual measures being set out. The proposals read as needing “additional investigation”, “further development” or a “strategy” that needs to be prepared.

The unknows and lacunae are enormous. The word “potential” is used to describe the effects on our environment and community. Changes are spoken of as anticipated or “may occur”. There is no “potential” or maybe about it. There will be loss of amenity, their will be decreases in property value, there will be dead animals. No amount of negotiation about what time of the day things may occur will resolve that.

I feel little confidence in the claims that people and groups have been consulted and expressed no concerns. For example, Appendix D Community Engagement Table claims that the Kangaroo Valley Environment Group advised they were “Happy to hear the proposal is going ahead” – the Group has clearly stated in its submission to dated 6 December 2022 that this is wholly incorrect. Such a claim should cause alarm and a lack of confidence on the part of the assessors of this application and cause you to question the bona fides of what you are reading.

There are contradictory statements in the documents as well. While page 156 of Appendix F claims that there will be no night works associated with construction, page 65 of Appendix Q states that haulage may be restricted to night time. Apart from the contradiction, night time heavy haulage is possibly the worst option for native animals, who are often more active in the nocturnal hours.

A further issue is the workforce accommodation - there are limited to no long term options anywhere. For many years I have worked in a role that sees me interact with vulnerable people in the community and one thing I can say without question is that the housing crisis is real and if workers arrive and use the only available longer term and affordable rentals that crisis will
worsen and continue.

Power should not come at such high costs to community and the natural environment, particularly the endangered species that live here. If this does go ahead make Origin compensate the valley not just by fixing what it has destroyed but leaving it better off.

There has been much talk around the benefits to the local community outside of energy generation, e.g. it will provide housing, jobs, revenue for local businesses and community members. The relevant documents in the EIS refer to local opportunities, but also to shortages in accommodation, workforce coming from secondary areas and states "While community level benefits would be minimal due to the size of the operational workforce, operational employment would provide opportunities to enhance social and economic outcomes for individuals over the long-term through ongoing income, and skills development in the energy sector". My understanding is that all workers will be bussed in from outlying areas. Hence, there will not be (m)any "local" jobs, no transportation for workers to visit the village and minimal accommodation requirements. Can the benefits be clarified and quantified as this is common political football kicked around between those for and against the project, e.g. where/how will opportunities be advertised for both workforce and materials/services?

This project is utilising energy created to pump water at off peak periods for generation at peak periods. What is the net renewable energy creation compared with other energy creation methods?

The lifetime of the project is upwards of 7 years before additional energy is created. In that time, other methods of energy creation methods will develop significantly, e.g. solar/wind. Battery technology will improve to negate the downside of fluctuating loads, e.g Vanadium Redox. There will be limited scalability and upgrade paths available for hydro (dig another tunnel, more efficient/larger pump) which will all take many years to implement. Solar/wind potentially provide simpler and quicker scale and upgrade options as technology rapidly develops. What have the relevant parties done to compare performance and return over the next 20 years+. Will the KV expansion be necessary to hit govt targets for additional renewable energy (e.g. does every last KW matter) or will alternative energy generation methods satisfy the targets and demand?

I understand the project was shelved by Origin as not commercially viable until they were in receipt of federal funds. Does this represent a windfall to Origin? Are the funds given to Origin to be recouped or some sort of windfall tax be applied (e.g. lower power tariffs, higher taxes for Origin)? Without any recovery method isn't the taxpayer simply paying for Origin's increased revenue and profits?

There seems to be little clarity on how local residents and businesses will be informed if environmental measures are exceeded (e.g. pollutants from air and groundwater, wildlife destruction, noise levels). Will these be made available to the local community ASAP if there is a breach, what actions will those affected need to take (e.g. if air pollutants exceed values will residents be notified ASAP to minimise exposure) and how these will affect/halt operation? When will the community consultation strategy be finalised and released?

With respect to pollutants, Kangaroo Valley is an enclosed valley. It can have its own microclimate, e.g. be covered in a layer of fog for days on end. How have the various pollutant studies taken into account the local climate and potential for airborne pollutants to be "trapped" affecting the whole valley and remain in place for longer periods?

The various documents relate to operational effects on local properties and indicate that for various factors the impact on property is low with no mitigation required. Can you highlight the social impact on the ability of the property and business owners to have freedom to move/relocate by selling at true market prices and not be adversely affected by extended sale periods and price reductions? Other project owners with similar effects on residents/businesses have offered those affected to buy at true market value plus a percentage (e.g. 10%), pay for all buy, sell and move costs and allow them to rent the property for an agreed term or until they have identified a new home/business.

I OBJECT to the project. The grounds in support of my objections are as follows:
1. I object to the inadequate community engagement and consultation regarding the Project.
2. I object to the inadequate, incomplete, outdated and misleading content, data, assessments and reference points
in the Environmental Impact Statement and the corresponding bias it contains.
3. I object to the Project being carried out 24 hours a day 7 days a week for at least 5 years and the corresponding unacceptable levels of noise, air pollution, blasting and vibrations to be generated by the Project.
4. I object to the damage and destruction to natural habitat and wildlife to be caused by the Project from the dumping of an estimated 420,000 cubic metres of (acid-leaching) spoil.
5. I object to the loss of native flora and fauna (including endangered and protected species) caused by the Project.
6. I object to the volume and large-scale movement of heavy vehicles, trucks and oversize over mass vehicles during the life of the Project and the closing of access to Kangaroo Valley.
7. I object to the damage to roads, road infrastructure and Hampden Bridge that is highly likely to be caused by the Project.
8. I object to the loss of amenity to Kangaroo Valley that will be caused by the Project.
9. I object to the irretrievable loss and damage that businesses operating near and around the Project and in Kangaroo Valley will suffer.

I cannot rely on any information that Origin Energy supplies on this project when they are currently negotiating their sale to two separate foreign entities. Surely such an invasive project cannot be considered until the ownership status is known and more realistic information is supplied by the people that will be responsible for the project.
At face value, the proposal appears poorly located, hugely disruptive and poor use of money.

Kangaroo Valley is widely regarded as one of the most beautiful valleys in Australia. Not only has its beauty and tranquility attracted permanent residents such as myself (nearly 50 years ago) but it attracts increasing numbers of visitors - many of whom stay and occupy the over 150 B & Bs dotted around the Valley. The project to increase the capacity of the pumping station would VERY adversely affect the viability of this hospitality sector but also soon deter passing-through visitors. A major industrial project, involving almost-constant heavy traffic, is simply incompatible with the rural lifestyle sought by both permanent residents and visitors. Please reject this distressing and destructive project.

I object to the proposal as I believe there are better solutions to pursue with far less damaging effects. I am also sceptical of a political system that rushes main works projects for political gain. The idea that a political party can suggest that they are contributing to the reduction of global warming when a) they are using fossil fuels to achieve an outcome and b) participating in such environmental destruction in the process. Environmental destruction also refers to the mental health of a community and its visitors.
I place our wildlife high on the agenda in this objection. There numbers have been reduced since the terror of the bushfires and we don't need to add to their deteriorating mental health! Also and this is major - the destruction to our roads. This will have enormous detrimental effects.

My comments are summarised in my attached Objection

See attached.

See attached.

Submission

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.