Victoria to NSW Interconnector West

Please see attached submission

I object to this project. Power should be produced in highly populated areas on roofs and carparks etc, where the power is required, then there would be no need for these monstrosities in food growing regions!

VNI West Interconnector violates every Principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development:-intergenerational equity, biodiversity preservation, precautionary principle, and community inclusion.

VNI West is NOT “sustainable”—it’s the systematic destruction of ecology, energy, economy, and social trust.

I object to the construction of VNI West SSI 1-72887208 for the following reasons;
These are only some of the issues I see with needless construction of high voltage transmission lines?
Firstly, like other high voltage transmission line projects mooted, approved or underway in Eastern Australia it is to be constructed to support an ideology, the need for Net Zero (refer to multiple deliveries from qualified people such as Professor Ian Philmer on both alleged anthropological induced Climate Change and Net Zero to the contrary) rather than a nationally secure rational? (Allowing foreign interests to operate generation and high voltage transmission lines?)
There has been much discussion on Net Zero of late and the relevation that this ideology isn't and cannot work in changing the world's climate? Australia is being penalised by its current governments and its taxpayers made to "foot the bill" for erection of so-called renewable energy projects then, the added cost of unnecessary high voltage transmission lines to "pseudo" connect the coastal load centres with so-called energy hubs or REZs 100s of kilometres inland? According to AI Overview the cost of the 500KV VNI West has blown out almost double, from original estimate of $3.9 billion to $7.6 billion as of August 2025. Estimated completion date for the 500KV VNI West has likewise blown by years now with stage 1 "expected" early 2029 and stage 2 now "expected" 2030? Realistically where does TransGrid (essentially not an Australian owned company) the construction company for 500KV VNI West expect to find the qualified linesmen to construct concurrently 500KV VNI West, 500KV HumeLink East and West as well as EnergyConnet? 100s of qualified linesmen? Intending to rely on intermittent grid destabilising generation sources such as wind and the sun, combined with the massive "land grab" required to site mega numbers of wind driven turbines and likewise mega square kilometres of industrial solar power generation sources is counterproductive to maintaining and utilising the existing coal-fired power stations and Victorian wide transmission line system set up by revered WW1 General and respected Civil Engineer Sir John Monash as chair of the State Electricity Commission from 1920 until his death in 1931. To transfer from a once reliable Australian owned energy source to foreign owned so-called renewables is not in Australia's best security interests?
For that intent on constructing the 500KV VNI West high voltage transmission line needs to assess will 500KV VNI West high voltage transmission line (1.93GW transfer capabilities AI Overview) in conjunction with EnergyConnet as 330kv (800MW transfer capabilities AI Overview) project be capable of transferring the alleged generation output of the South West REZ of 3.56GW reference AI Overview.
The construction of VNI West will ultimately add to the environmental vandalism that will be a result of the South West Renewable Energy Zone, with 2 bird species being only a small proportion of species that that project will heavily impact? The endangered Pink or Major Mitchell Cockatoo Lophochroa leadbeateri and the endangered and unique Plains Wanderer Pedionomus torquatus are but 2 of the bird species impacted by the South West Renewable Energy Zone? Combine the impact of the South West Renewable Energy Zone, with but 1 of its "spin-off" high voltage transmission lines VNI West as an overhead option with an estimated easement of 70M to 100M over a distance 475kilomteres according to AI Overview an easement permanently denuded of trees is not conducive to environmental stability? Now that Victoria has introduced legislation that property owners have no rights to restrict transmission line companies accessing their private property is an injustice of the rights of private property ownership?
Over a distance of 475 kilometres VNI West as a High Voltage Alternating Current option the transmission power losses will be significant?
Due to the insistence that this project be installed as an overhead option both fire ignition and aerial firefighting suppression will be impeded? At the last ever TransGrid HumeLink Community Consultation Group meeting held in Gundagai NSW on the 29th March 2023 a TransGrid representative attempted to inform those gathered that overhead high voltage transmission lines did not ignite fires. Unfortunately, he wasn’t aware that he had a “roomful” of NSW Rural Fire Service volunteers. Quite a few of whom had witnessed fires ignited by the 03 330KV Tumut 3 Hydro Power Station to Yass 330KV transmission line on the 8th January 2003. Then TransGrid informed us that they would not de-energise HumeLink meaning as carbon filled atmosphere is a known conductor any firefighting volunteers working near HumeLink are at risk of high voltage electrocution? If the same no de-energisation of VNI West applies volunteer firefighters’ lives will be at risk?
Regarding the inhibiting of aerial firefighting due to lack of visibility and the smoke obscuring the transmission line as both are of a similar colour aerial firefighting will be non-negotiable? I witnessed this exact scenario for myself in January 2018 when attending the fire ignited within the footprint of the Taralga Wind Turbine Project due to the common grey colour of the smoke and the wind turbines themselves the aerial firefighters refused to operate and the aerial suppressing helicopters were grounded locally and the fixed winged water bombing aircraft had returned to their allocated airstrips?
I would point out here should VNI West like TransGrid inform us that HumeLink will not be de-energised in the instance of a major fire there is also a flashover possibility from the 500KV transmission line to any aircraft working near it in a smoke-filled atmosphere? Either way if VNI West was to be impacted by fire and it was not de-energised then volunteer firefighters lives are at risk?
Compare Victoria's option of installing close coupled generation sources close to the coast as already exists via the existing coal-fired generation system, or alternately replicating what I witnessed for myself in Belgium in June 2013 pertinent to the Antwerp Container Harbour with wind turbines driven off the North Sea interspersed adjacent to the load of the Antwerp Container Harbour, therefore place the wind turbines and commercial solar panels intended for the South West REZ the in suburban Melbourne essentially cutting out the need for hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines?
Australia's rural community should not be made to carry the burden of their city cousins when it comes to power generation and high voltage transmission lines?
I hope that you will take on board these items and reconsider constructing an overhead VNI West 500KV transmission line?
Best regards John McGrath

EMF and Health Hazards have been completely ignored by terrible TransGrid who are already torturing the people of NSW with Energy Poverty, Environmental Vandalism and Agricultural Destruction - due to their sabotaging CON - Project Energy Connect!

High-voltage transmission infrastructure brings electromagnetic field (EMF) health risks, especially when built near homes, schools, and farming communities.
Personal Discomfort caused by Electrical Force equals CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

These risks are downplayed or ignored in the EIS—which can only be described as “ lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety.”

Very sad to see the NSW Government sacrifice farmers, agricultural land and most importantly the Environment for an ill planned project in the proposed route for the VNI west transmission line.
This transmission line and other renewable projects are in direct contravention of article 2.b of the Paris Agreement.
The NSW government continues to threaten food production by clearing and damaging prime, actively farmed agricultural land.
When will leaders be strong and say Money does not dictate how we look out for the environment and food production.
Blowout costs are already occurring in the billions, and it hasn't even started been built yet..... Australian taxpayers are REALLY going to suffer with this project.

A Missed opportunity!

Wow. What a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity by the NSW Parliament to demonstrate to the NSW electricity consumers and public that the VNI West (NSW) transmission project takes seriously the protocols of the “Precautionary Principals” of environmental planning and groundtruthed either by conferring with the district and community and those affected that the plain over which the project transects is in fact a plain dominated by the Chenopodiacae family of plants and taken appropriate actions. Offices of the NSW Government have been alerted to bad outcomes foreshadowed in this project and all efforts to find a suitable alternative route shunned.
The EIS for the NSW section of VNI west is just an iteration of all the provisions and protocols of the EPBC Act 1999 that the Parliament has passed to the proponent (Transgrid). Transgrid have used this document to mercilessly remind the government and attempted to cut out any last-minute interaction by Government to get a better outcome for the Environment.
The outcomes for the cultural and heritage inspired First Nations people has been cropped by the initial agreement to compensate these peoples with a payment of at least 7% of the total cost of the project. Contemporary Australians have had a lip service of $27m set aside for community benefits!

This project can be described as effectively racist and regressive. It serves the Paris agreement well but is merely a project to mobilise overseas capital and provide a neat return for foreign investors.
Rather than “tick and Flick” the document the NSW Government could order that further opportunities be explored to enhance the environmental outcomes and cultural involvement.
The proposed route destroys the environment by transecting within 500m of significant clumps of old trees and significant cane grass ephemeral lakes for many properties. These clumps and lakes provide refuges and nesting sites for a number of endangered species.
The proposed route intersects with and interferes with a large area of suitable habitat of the Plains Wanderer. This area is comparable to the Victorian Governments set aside in the Pathos Plains to protect the Plains Wanderer. An opportunity exists for the NSW Parliament to explore alternative routes that saves areas from the impacts of construction and enduring raptor presence.
The proposed route intersects with and interferes with so many peoples’ properties stock and domestic water supply systems.
The proposed route intersects with and interferes with many property’s operations and therefore significant changes to management yards and fence alignments will be required. Exclusion fencing of some parts of the easement may be needed to enhance endangered species survival. Which would increase the overall cost to the taxpayer.
The proposed route intersects with and interferes with the floodplains. This adds to the cost of access roads and will by necessity require deconstruction after completion. Large non-permanent construction bridges will be required to provide access from nearby main road access asset.

All these infractions could cause the consumers of NSW an added cost of at least $173m for one property alone and forever leave the perception that the NSW Parliament (2025) is not interested in sustainable, endurable and reportedly good outcomes for the environment.

Please refer to the submission attached

These transmission lines travelling across New South Wales and Victoria Prime agricultural land must stop
the property owners on the route of these transmission lines have been given no consultation and no respect to the personal land and properties.
The mental health issue and devaluation of their properties is not taken into any aspects of this project
This net zero 20, 50, will never be met and never be successful because we can’t live on renewable energy alone
The costs of transmission lines Is beyond belief, and it seems to be a bottomless pit of taxpayers money
We need a base load power source, which is nuclear or coal fired power stations
All these transmission lines are going to Offshore companies,
constructing solar wind and battery plants along these transmission lines and destroying the landscape and the quality of farming life again on Prime agricultural land
Cost have gone up and was noted recently at the bush summit that will take at least 10 years before we see a decrease in Electricity cost
It’s about time government woke up and pulled the head out of the sand and did what’s best for the country cheaper power more productivity and stop ruining life in local communities
There is no wind situation for local communities. In this it all is a greed for money by vulnerable people that got no farming skills.
You can’t even get snowy 2.2 Operational so you’re just gonna continue wrecking peoples logs to try to meet this impossible target
I’m totally opposed to this transmission line as opposed to the others
Build modular Nuclear plants at the places that require the power it’s not rocket science

See attached submission

The EIS submitted by Transgrid must be rejected. It is costing the taxpayers of NSW billions more than was first approved. Transgrid has moved the route more than 100 kilometres from its original plan. This project has been hastily put together and inadequately researched due to a planning schedule made years ago.
Residents along this route have been bullied and coerced into agreeing to this Draft route. A "token" consultation to some and complete ignoring the concerns of others. A complete lack of due diligence in some cases as a hastily put together, desk top analysis of a fragile environment is proposed. This company seems to have an endless amount of money to splash around to bribe farmers into forcibly accepting the towers on their properties.
Environmental issues and concerns have been ignored or have been offered off-sets which is a terrible situation. Endangered species and fragile eco-systems cannot be replaced or moved, and definitely not given money for their demise.
The NSW Govt. and the Departments with their advisors involved should be horrified with the lack of specialised monitoring of the environment in some areas where the planners have not even been on the land. There are two Aboriginals who are against this powerline going through land they consider valuable to the preservation of country. Are NSW citizens to be ignored over a foreign owned company?
The disturbance and stress to property owners and their management of their properties is immense. The visual pollution of the landscape is sickening and the poisonous aftermath of the expiry of these towers and the metal graveyard that will be left is catastrophic.
This project needs more research and time to be accepted so should be returned for further analysis and in depth research.

See attached submission and appendix.

please refer to attachment submission

Please accept this submission as my formal objection to the Victoria to NSW Interconnector West 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 submission is primarily focussed on the impact of the area around the Wanganella part of the proposed transmission line VNI West. Parts of the submission will apply to other sections of the project as well, however individuals do not possess the resources to make submissions relating to all areas of such a vast project. Transgrid have been working on this EIS for at least 2 years, and the local community is only given 1 month to respond. The gap in resources is evident. No individual who has to work for a living has the time or expertise to fully absorb or respond to such a large document in this timeframe. One technical paper alone is 3455 pages and is so large that navigating even the downloaded document is difficult due to its size.
Overall the feeling in the local community and from my family (who are directly impacted), is that the project will be forced through no matter what the impact and no matter what the cost. The production of an 8,000+ page EIS suggests that the whole process is merely an incredibly expensive box-ticking exercise, designed to cover corporate and bureaucratic arses.
This submission has been prepared in order to demonstrate that this project does not have support from the people most heavily impacted by it.
The following areas are covered in the submission:
• Strategic context
• Community engagement
• Biodiversity
• Landscape heritage and character
• Impact on agriculture
• Social impact
• Economic
• Traffic access
• Flooding
• Hazards and risk
• Climate change

I write to formally object to the proposed Victoria to NSW Interconnector West Project on the following grounds:
1. Environmental Impact on Flora and Fauna
For more than 65 years, the local community has worked to conserve and protect the unique environment of the Hay and Chenopod Plains. This landscape is home to significant and fragile vegetation that cannot be replaced once disturbed. The proposed development will cause irreversible damage to this unique ecosystem.
2. Threat to Endangered and Vulnerable Species
The Chenopod Plains are critical habitat for the Plains-Wanderer and the Australasian Bittern, both of which are endangered species. Habitat destruction and fragmentation will place further pressure on their survival. Proposed “offsets” cannot replicate or compensate for the destruction of these specialised environments.
3. Failure of Meaningful Community Consultation
Despite raising concerns over the past two years, Transgrid has failed to engage in genuine consultation with the local community. Communication has been superficial and reduced to a “box-ticking” exercise rather than addressing community input in good faith.
4. Visual and Cultural Impact
The Hay Plains are renowned for their wide-open vistas and striking sunsets, which are enjoyed by guests and visitors. The construction of 90-metre towers—higher than the surrounding sand hills—will permanently scar this landscape and destroy its visual and cultural value.
5. Impact on Property and Agricultural Operations
The development will cause many property owners to relocate existing infrastructure (such as stock fencing, stock watering, shearing facilities, sheds and grain storage) at their own cost, and will create additional disturbance to sensitive environmental areas.
Fire risk will increase due to towers attracting lightning strikes.
Long-term land management will become more difficult and stressful for farmers and could significantly undermine the viability of working agricultural ventures and properties.
6. Economic and Financial Concerns
The approved economic route originally followed the Echuca corridor. Shifting the line more than 100 km adds unnecessary expense and amplifies community trauma.
Transgrid and its foreign stakeholders have failed to meet financial obligations, with bills unpaid for months. This raises serious concerns about accountability and the true cost to the Australian public.
7. Pollution and Long-Term Land Degradation
The development will cause significant ground disturbance through access roads, foundations, and concrete used for towers. This introduces lasting soil damage and future remediation challenges when towers reach the end of their operational life.
8. Cultural Heritage and Indigenous Values
The Hay Plains and surrounding areas hold cultural and heritage significance, both for Indigenous custodians and for the broader community. Large-scale infrastructure risks disturbing sites of cultural importance and eroding the sense of place that has existed for generations.
9. Inadequate Environmental Assessment
The environmental assessments undertaken appear incomplete and fail to account for the cumulative impacts of habitat loss, altered hydrology, soil disturbance, and noise. Seasonal variations in flora and fauna surveys are often overlooked, meaning many species may have been under-recorded.
10. Climate Change Resilience and Sustainability
Ironically, while the development is promoted as a renewable energy solution, the route chosen undermines climate resilience by destroying biodiversity and increasing land degradation. Genuine climate action requires solutions that preserve natural ecosystems rather than replacing them with industrial footprints.
11. Public Health and Amenity
The introduction of high-voltage transmission towers raises concerns about:
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their potential health effects on rural communities and workers.
Noise pollution from transmission lines, particularly during wet or windy conditions, which can travel over long distances in open landscapes.
Dust and air pollution during construction works.
12. Road Safety and Transport Concerns
Heavy machinery, construction traffic, and maintenance vehicles will place strain on local roads not designed for such use, increasing accident risk and reducing safety for local residents, visitors, and agricultural vehicles.
13. Tourism and Regional Economic Impact
The Hay Plains are a unique destination for visitors drawn to its vast skies, sunsets, birdwatching, and unspoiled natural beauty. The visual industrialisation of the landscape will diminish its tourism appeal, leading to a decline in visitation and economic opportunities for the wider region.
14. Precedent for Future Development
Approving this project in its current form sets a dangerous precedent. Once intact ecosystems and cultural landscapes are industrialised, it becomes easier for subsequent developments to further erode their value.
15. Alternatives Not Properly Considered
The original, more economical Echuca corridor should remain the preferred option. The decision to shift the alignment over 100 km appears poorly justified, ignores community impacts, and imposes additional financial and environmental costs.
16. Legal and Procedural Concerns
The proponent has not demonstrated compliance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, particularly regarding matters of national environmental significance (endangered species and ecological communities).
Proper consideration under State planning legislation and environmental offset frameworks has not been transparently demonstrated.
Consultation obligations under both Federal and State frameworks appear to have been treated as procedural rather than substantive.
17. Conclusion
.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the approval of this project. It poses unacceptable risks to the environment, endangered species, agricultural operations, community well-being, and the cultural and visual landscape of the Hay Plains. I urge you to reject this proposal in its current form.

VNI West has no genuine net benefits to the National Electricity Market.
It’s an astronomically costly, highly disruptive, ineffective and extremely insecure boondoggle that must be replaced by localised, reliable power generation—especially 24/7 Australian coal, gas, and future nuclear power.

My submission is contained in the attachments. I am strongly opposed to this project.

I write to formally object to the proposed [development/project name] on the following grounds:
1. Environmental Impact on Flora and Fauna
For more than 65 years, the local community has worked to conserve and protect the unique environment of the Hay and Chenopod Plains. This landscape is home to significant and fragile vegetation that cannot be replaced once disturbed. The proposed development will cause irreversible damage to this unique ecosystem.
2. Threat to Endangered and Vulnerable Species
The Chenopod Plains are critical habitat for the Plains-Wanderer and the Australasian Bittern, both of which are endangered species. Habitat destruction and fragmentation will place further pressure on their survival. Proposed “offsets” cannot replicate or compensate for the destruction of these specialised environments.
3. Failure of Meaningful Community Consultation
Despite raising concerns over the past two years, Transgrid has failed to engage in genuine consultation with the local community. Communication has been superficial and reduced to a “box-ticking” exercise rather than addressing community input in good faith.
4. Visual and Cultural Impact
The Hay Plains are renowned for their wide-open vistas and striking sunsets, which are enjoyed by guests and visitors. The construction of 90-metre towers—higher than the surrounding sand hills—will permanently scar this landscape and destroy its visual and cultural value.
5. Impact on Property and Agricultural Operations
• The development will cause many property owners to relocate existing infrastructure (such as stock fencing, stock watering, shearing facilities, sheds and grain storage) at their own cost, and will create additional disturbance to sensitive environmental areas.
• Fire risk will increase due to towers attracting lightning strikes.
• Long-term land management will become more difficult and stressful for farmers and could significantly undermine the viability of working agricultural ventures and properties.
6. Economic and Financial Concerns
• The approved economic route originally followed the Echuca corridor. Shifting the line more than 100 km adds unnecessary expense and amplifies community trauma.
• Transgrid and its foreign stakeholders have failed to meet financial obligations, with bills unpaid for months. This raises serious concerns about accountability and the true cost to the Australian public.
7. Pollution and Long-Term Land Degradation
The development will cause significant ground disturbance through access roads, foundations, and concrete used for towers. This introduces lasting soil damage and future remediation challenges when towers reach the end of their operational life.
8. Cultural Heritage and Indigenous Values
The Hay Plains and surrounding areas hold cultural and heritage significance, both for Indigenous custodians and for the broader community. Large-scale infrastructure risks disturbing sites of cultural importance and eroding the sense of place that has existed for generations.
9. Inadequate Environmental Assessment
The environmental assessments undertaken appear incomplete and fail to account for the cumulative impacts of habitat loss, altered hydrology, soil disturbance, and noise. Seasonal variations in flora and fauna surveys are often overlooked, meaning many species may have been under-recorded.
10. Climate Change Resilience and Sustainability
Ironically, while the development is promoted as a renewable energy solution, the route chosen undermines climate resilience by destroying biodiversity and increasing land degradation. Genuine climate action requires solutions that preserve natural ecosystems rather than replacing them with industrial footprints.
11. Public Health and Amenity
The introduction of high-voltage transmission towers raises concerns about:
• Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their potential health effects on rural communities and workers.
• Noise pollution from transmission lines, particularly during wet or windy conditions, which can travel over long distances in open landscapes.
• Dust and air pollution during construction works.
12. Road Safety and Transport Concerns
Heavy machinery, construction traffic, and maintenance vehicles will place strain on local roads not designed for such use, increasing accident risk and reducing safety for local residents, visitors, and agricultural vehicles.
13. Tourism and Regional Economic Impact
The Hay Plains are a unique destination for visitors drawn to its vast skies, sunsets, birdwatching, and unspoiled natural beauty. The visual industrialisation of the landscape will diminish its tourism appeal, leading to a decline in visitation and economic opportunities for the wider region.
14. Precedent for Future Development
Approving this project in its current form sets a dangerous precedent. Once intact ecosystems and cultural landscapes are industrialised, it becomes easier for subsequent developments to further erode their value.
15. Alternatives Not Properly Considered
The original, more economical Echuca corridor should remain the preferred option. The decision to shift the alignment over 100 km appears poorly justified, ignores community impacts, and imposes additional financial and environmental costs.
16. Legal and Procedural Concerns
• The proponent has not demonstrated compliance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, particularly regarding matters of national environmental significance (endangered species and ecological communities).
• Proper consideration under State planning legislation and environmental offset frameworks has not been transparently demonstrated.
• Consultation obligations under both Federal and State frameworks appear to have been treated as procedural rather than substantive.

Conclusion
For these reasons, I strongly object to the approval of this project. It poses unacceptable risks to the environment, endangered species, agricultural operations, community well-being, and the cultural and visual landscape of the Hay Plains. I urge you to reject this proposal in its current form.

Greedy bully TransGrid are a most untrustworthy, irresponsible and selfish network operator.
They have zero accountability, accuse farmers of trespassing on their own properties, are notorious for not paying contractors, are using deceitful business practices, and manipulating public narratives.

TransGrid have long proven themselves as rip-off merchants exploiting energy consumers, as untrustworthy predators driven by corporate greed, not public interest.