Parasitic Energy Co’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 major 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.

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.

Predatory Energy Co 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.

These transmission lines exist to benefit billionaire investors, not everyday Australians. They destroy the public good to enrich private empires.

Energy Co are pathological liars!
Energy Co’s ‘CONsultation’ process is a farce—predatory, intimidating, and fake.
They don’t listen because they never intended to.

the proposal fails to sufficiently consider harm to waterways along the corridor. Sedimentation and interruption of natural drainage patterns cannot be mitigated fully. Also, the visual impacts and property damage (shade, interference with operations) are long term. Overhead lines are known fire risks; in dry/fuel‐rich terrain, a single conductor fault can spark a disaster. Aerial firefighting is limited by safety clearances and hazard zones, reducing response ability. If this new line is so vital, why are we not requiring the highest fire safety design (e.g. fault detection, automatic shut‑off, undergrounding segments) especially where farmland and waterways are crossed?

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?

Please see attached submission