There are detailed submissions on the environmental degradation of the National Park that I will not repeat. But which I support. It is no way to inflict damage of a permanent kind in some parameters upon a high percentage of the Park. This is not what Parks are about.

From an economic standpoint, there is no business plan, there is no independent review of the project's possible minute contribution to energy security, there is no cost/benefit analysis, there is pretence that the connecting power lines are someone else's project (yet there are large dollars in connecting to NSW and Victoria), the return on equity/possible lifetime subsidy by taxpayers' money is not mentioned. The Federal Government has already spent over one Billion dollars of securing ownership of the Snowy Mountain Scheme. How much more, and when would it make any contribution?

No sane Government o]would proceed with such investments until the filters suggested have been rigorously undertaken and exposed to the Australian nation, openly and frankly.

Be aware that the original scheme, splendid as it was, created considerable damage, and was in fact a taxpayer subsidy scheme for the Murray basin agricultural industry rather than an electricity scheme. It is a a sort of standby electricity operation.

Don't let's make the same mistake twice, in the same location!

I object to this project. Please see my submission attached.

Please see the attached file.
Most of the pumping electricity for Snowy 2.0 will come from coal-fired power stations, not renewables. Worse still, Snowy 2.0 will be a net consumer of electricity, not a generator, with ‘round-trip’ losses of 30%, plus another 10% for transmission. Why is Snowy 2.0 marketed as a boon for renewable energy when this is clearly not the case?
The project is not economic. The original $2 billion cost estimate is now approaching $10 billion, including transmission. Why is this project proceeding when it will likely run at a loss?
Many other pumped storage opportunities have been identified in NSW with a combined capacity considerably greater than Snowy 2.0. Why were these alternatives not explored before proposing construction within a National Park?

See attachment.

See attached document