I Object to this project as it will impact a lot of my friends and family who live on the farms that this project will be invading, it will have huge negative impacts of their lives financially and mentally being a farmer is tough enough as it is but when people are trying to make life harder for the farmers it’s just not fair think about where your food comes from and the clothes you wear then thank the farmers for putting it there, Save the farmers Save their land Save their lives.

To Whom It May Concern,
I support the VNI West project as it's a critical piece of infrastructure to connect renewables projects in the area to the National Network, providing a short & long boost to local economies, whilst helping to secure the future of our planet.
Regards, Malcolm Rumbel

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.

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.