This is the wrong direction to head with energy and how we as a society address global warming and climate issues. We need better government policy and for the politicians to offer leadership instead of policy differences for the sake of it.
We need to push much harder in a unified manner toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.
To build plant does not meet these needs.

I, Matthew Bush object to the application from AGL regarding the extension of time for the proposed (Mod 1 project) Dalton Gas Fired Power Project.
My reasons for objecting to the extension period are simple.

AGL constantly put into their press releases and interviews about projects and planning to 2030 and beyond. They are well aware of what they are planning in the future. They have had ample time to assess this project but are now trying to get it through on the repealed part 3A.

This plant is an industrial complex. Dalton is a rural area with a background noise level of less than 25dB. This plant is not about base load power to compliment renewables it's a peaking plant that AGL will be able to use to manipulate the electricity price. How do you think they will justify a $1.5 billion expenditure on something that will only run a claimed 15% of the year? Sounds financially unviable to me.

I also object by the fact that my family are 7th generation landholders on Walsh's Road. The EA states that Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions will exceed World Health Organisation maximum levels by 20%. Dispersion modelling indicates a reach of over 10km from the site, the winds here would suggest far more distance. There would be very high concentrations in and around the Dalton village, especially on a frosty and foggy morning, and when it settles it will land on our livestock, land and waterways.

We don't know what the noise level will do to the residential houses in the near vicinity and double glazing windows as they suggested is a ludicrous idea. Some of these residences are over a 100-years-old, the noise will get through the `cracks' so to speak.

Construction will require approximately 4600 truck deliveries (9200 truck movements) over an estimated 18 month period. There will be "intermittent peaks associated with concrete pours", which will involve 2845 concrete trucks (5690 truck movements). It is assumed that number of vehicle movements will be exceeded if they truck in gas as the `Moomba' pipeline is expected to be finished in 2018.

There will be also be a "total of 24 over-dimensional and / or over- mass escorted truck convoys..." These "deliveries assume six convoys of up to four over-mass/over-size vehicles towing one multi-wheeled transport unit..." Each of these will be over 120 metres long, nearly 7 metres wide and over 5 metres tall, with a weight of almost 550 metric tonnes. I used to work on these roads, they won't be able to cope with that much traffic and weight, they will crumble under the stress and strain, needing constant repairs and maintenance, inconveniencing those who need to go about their daily lives, and so also, the up to two hundred year old trees that line the Gunning - Dalton road will need to be removed to accommodate them, desecrating the environment.

There is now more than ever a push to renewable energy using wind and solar. We need to combat global warming and building another fossil fuel station is not the way to do it.
If AGL are wanting to be known as the number one Energy company, trying to get this `fossil' up and running is a step back to the past and not a leap to the future.


Sincerely


Mr Matthew Bush
31 Felled Timber Road
DALTON NSW 2581

As a resident in Dalton I object to AGLs application for a two year extension to their approval to construct a gas fired power station near Dalton. My objection is based on their seeking an extension of approval under Part 3a which I understand to have been repealed. Further, by their own admission they say they are not sure what they will proceed with : they do not have a crystal ball. The uncertainty of their project is causing anxiety in the Dalton population. We do not know whether they will proceed with stage 1 or stage2, what the impacts will be on our natural environment, our health, our property values. The previous EA and Traffic management plans are now 5 years plus old. The representatives of AGL have not gained the confidence of the local population.

I am concerned on this proposed gas fire power station because of the following:

* The drain on the water supply in Dalton it would need to operate.
* The impact on the underground water from any bores drilled by AGL
* The impact on the roads of all the traffic and trucks during the construction phase.
* The impact of the health and wellbeing of residents in Dalton and surrounding farms.
* The values of residential and rural real estate going downwards
* The futures of both Gunning and Dalton itself as a place to live or visit.


Please do not alow this to be built. Reject it outright now and in the future!!

We, Andrew & Leslie Bush of "Kia-ora", 31 Felled Timber Road, Dalton, NSW 2581 oppose the application from AGL regarding the extension of time for the proposed (Mod 1 project) Dalton Gas Fired Power Project.

We are opposed to an extension of time for the following reasons:

They have not been in community consultation since they shelved plans in 2012, we have not seen or heard from them in all this time, until they put the application for the extension in. That is when we knew, after they had done it. No heads up, no warning, no just dropped in, saw your lights' on and came to let you know. A bombshell email sent 36 hours after, just to inform us that once again they were trying to destroy our community and our lives.

The fact that subsidiaries of energy company AGL in 2013 were hit with penalties of $1.55 million for dodgy door-to-door sales practices in which salesmen denied they were selling anything and claimed customers' current suppliers were overcharging. The action was brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in the Federal Court, which ordered AGL Sales and AGL South Australia to pay combined penalties of $1.555 million for illegal door-to-door selling practices proves that they are flagrant with flouting the rules.
This is reiterated by their recent fines in January 2017 for undeclared political donations, and the fact that the Dalton Power Project (charge 10) was directly linked to the charges should make any extension application and the original application null and void.
21. On or about 25 March 2010, AGL Energy made an application to the Minister for a Major Project, MP 10_0035 - Dalton Power Project, under the former Part 3A of the Act.
22. The Dalton Power Project Application relates to a proposal to construct and operate a gas turbine power station approximately 3 km north of the town of Dalton, NSW.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5875bc13e4b0e71e17f565dd#_Toc471972941

Even recently at the Community Meeting they organised in Dalton on the 5th April, not one Flyer, Community Announcement Poster, Meeting invitation was posted anywhere around Gunning and Dalton by them, so much for their engagement with the community.
We draw your attention to page 3 of their Extension Application; `Be a trusted and respected member of the communities in which we operate'. Please, they never had any intention of doing any such thing. All they are doing is seeming to appear to be doing the right thing to get the proposed extension passed by flying it under the radar on the basis of the former part 3A.
We cannot and do not understand how anyone can think that building a massive Gas Fired GE9FA Turbine powered Plant is in anyone's best interest in this age of renewable energy is beyond me. It smacks of corporation greed, not what is best for the people and the environment and isn't that what we all want...a better future, a more sustainable planet to leave as our legacy, haven't we done enough damage to this stunning world we are privileged to belong to...when do we say `enough'.
The noise coming from the project is purported to be equal to a jet engine per turbine firing up and the constant hum all day, the carcinogens that would be coming out of the stacks would be like living in a city of half a million people every day it is on, not to mention the blight on the environment, our ecosystem, the loss of tourism to our beautiful hamlet, the devaluation of everything we have built, achieved and hoped for our children, if there is no land to farm, no house to live in, there is no future if this project is allowed to go ahead.
We do not want our children to be the last generation of their line to live here.
We do not believe there has been sufficient recent economic or environmental investigation into justifying the extension of this power project, the data supplied in the EA is already outdated. Gas pricing has increased significantly since this power project was first proposed, there is more environmental, socio-economic and cleaner options in using wind and solar. We are given to understand that the contracts for the current pipeline AGL used in their submission will no longer be viable in 2018, which AGL would have been certainly well aware of, so they have had a plan in place for this eventuality, so once again it negates their inference that they need time to evaluate and community consultation. There is mention that they would have it trucked in, really! so how many more movements on our roads would that be. And wasn't access to the pipeline and transmission grid one of the reasons they proposed Dalton as a site. Another reason to refuse the application.
They want the extension not to assess the need but to get their other plans in place. Once again it reeks of manipulation. Where will the gas then come from? AGL Energy plan to build a $300 million LNG import terminal off the south-east coast. Their quote `"If all goes to plan, we would commence construction in approximately 2019, with the terminal in operation by about 2020-21'.
This would be absolute soul stealing devastation to our community. The farmers that would be forced off their land, some like ours are 7th and 8th generation, how do you equate that with someone being able to turn on an air conditioner. The new families that have come here in the last 5 years to get away from the city and raise their children in a peaceful rural environment with clean fresh air, some weren't even informed of it and have made serious financial investments in moving and building here.
I married a member of one of Daltons founding families and we moved home to raise our children in this beautiful rural community. We love it here, my husband grew up here, played in the creek, climbed the hills and the trees on the land that surround us, went to the local school, played cricket and tennis, is a Warden of our local church, became a solid community member, all the things our children have enjoyed and still do. And they consider themselves lucky enough to do it in this district, in this town.
We love and recognise the core values of this extraordinary community that we live in. We love that we have this wonderful view of the landscape, the dare I say it `Serenity' as we sit on our front verandah after the work day is done, the magnificent stars we see at night that glitter above us in the clear skies. The same things my husbands' grandparents must have seen and felt as we sit where they once did. This is home.
We do not want to be seeing smoke stacks when we sit on our verandah at R16, (as we are called by AGL) and be assured, we will do so. We will hear it at less than 3.2km from the proposed site. When they did the visuals for the EA Appendix K- Visual Impact Assessment June 2011 - Photosheet 4 - Figure 6 - Photo location 12 - Our family property `Springwood' on Walsh's Road (Cowper St), they showed where the stacks would be in the photos. Looking at the montage you would be forgiven for thinking that the station would be 15km away and not the less than 2.3km in reality. It was very misleading to any of us who know the area. When we asked AGL to have a `visual assessment' done on our property `Kia-ora' on Felled Timber Road (R16), we were deemed of `no consequence'. Even though our neighbours at R15 were given one and they are 3.8km from the proposed power station. Another example of indifference towards us by AGL.
We take pride that when we look around us we see what our children's' forefathers strived so hard for and our hearts aches with the certain knowledge that they would be 'rolling in their graves' with the unwarranted destruction that could come to pass.
This family has gone through so much over the years. My mother-in-law and I share a bond that no mother should ever have to face, the eternal grief of the deaths of her two sons and my little boy, she has also lost two grandsons and son in law, my husband's parents have endured floods, droughts, fluctuation of the wool market, the war, the depression, ongoing health problems, but they have endured and stayed in the community and on the land, this is where they belong, it is where they want to die. The land is in their hearts, mind and soul, it is what they live and breathe, after all, this land has been home for over 180 years.
Over a year and a half ago, my elderly in-laws (now 82 and 95 years old) lost their home and all their belongings when their uninsured rural home went up in flames. My Father-in-law spent 5 days in hospital fighting for his life. It was touch and go there for a while, their emotional, physical and mental health were terribly affected by this event. Even now, my husband's father finds it difficult to breathe and will need full-time oxygen in the very near future. It has been a rollercoaster of emotions this past year or so for them, for us, for the entire family as we have all struggled to help them re-group in whatever way we could. We were lucky...lucky I laugh with a sob, granted an extension by Centrelink and the local council to put a home back there for them and just when we were finally in a position to obtain financial help to make it happen, it may now not be possible, we could now be considered a bank risk because of the power project. If we don't get a home back there by September, they will lose what little pension they receive and be forced to sell the land because it will be considered an asset by Centrelink. Land which their son, my husband has been working for over 30 years with no wages (as well as working a paying job) as it is his to inherit. Added to this we also many years ago, in a family agreement bought his grandfather's house from his parents that also sits on their property, it is our home but the deeds are still in their name, it wasn't ever an issue, we are family, but because of this terrible possibility of the proposed power project we also stand to lose our home and everything we have worked for, and what we are forging a future for our children.
I ask this. Where was AGL when our family went through this? We have been offered support by the community, electricians, plumbers, builders, Divalls Construction company offering to help clean up the site for rebuild...but no sign of AGL, not even a letter offering sympathies, and after all that schmoozing and trying to convince elderly people to just sign here, it will all be good!
So much for caring for the community.
The last go around with AGL, we were told because of how close they were to the proposed project they could be bought out if the plant was too noisy...Wow, what a solution, yes let's wipe out all those memories, that family history...that connection with the land, never mind this is where they want to live out the rest of their days. They want to die on their own land, in their own tranquil spot they have raised their family on, surrounded by the memories of the hills, streams, and paddocks they have walked over many years. Does this seem `just' to you?
My Mothers ashes are scattered on our property because she also loved being here. I love knowing my Mum is so close to me, she raised us after the death of our Father when I was only six, who died riddled with cancer at the age of 52 after working for many years at the Corrimal Coke Works and Port Kembla steelworks in Wollongong, where for decades, not only was there no monitoring, but no restrictions or controls on BHP's emissions of benzene, despite years of international scientific and medical studies showing that benzene is linked to leukaemia and other cancers. There is no doubt that recent studies prove that the emissions that come from the type of project that AGL want to build can be toxic.
Our beautiful little boy whom we lost when he was only 7 years old is buried here at Dalton with his uncles, cousins, great grandparents, in his hometown, the place where he and our other children played, laughed and ran. I want to be buried next to him, I can't stand the anguish of thinking of him being left here alone, without us.
The disgust I feel over a greedy corrupt company like AGL wanting to build such a soul-destroying monstrosity in our backyard for a few dollars more, has not abated since the last time. We equate it to a David and Goliath War against big business thinking they can hand over a few dollars and `she will be right mate' stomping the little people into the ground, after all they consider our lives of no consequence. What is it they called us five years ago, `Collateral Damage'.
But what happens if it is built, a 30-year life span, then what? maybe build something else there, an organic farm, animal farming for meat export, maybe a School on part of it...mmm, does Camden High School ring a bell and the ongoing cancer clusters that former staff and students have developed the cause by those affected being apportioned to the Camden Gas Works and the contaminants that ended up leaching into the ground and waterways that were carcinogenic to humans and toxic to aquatic ecosystems.
There is no justifiable reason to extend the time for this proposal, there has been to many factors that have changed since the original approval. They have had 5 years to make a decision and during this time have shown a clear disregard for the community and environment and are seeking an extension so they can hedge their bets for high profits using section 3A rule which has since been repealed.
We have explained our situation, shared deep and painful emotions, laid our souls bare so you can understand the constant stress we are under once again due to this extension application and the uncertainty that the future may hold. Your own mantra is to protect the environment and build great communities.
We do not want their blood money, we do not want to be another Uranquinty, we do not want their Power project, we do not want AGL here at all, we are not collateral damage, please don't make us so.

Yours Sincerely
Andrew & Leslie Bush
'Kia-ora'
DALTON NSW 2581

The Upper Lachlan Council unanimously objected to this development. This is a group of the 'elders' in our broader community - men and women who selflessly seek to guide and shape our future prosperity. The fact that they, after consideration and taking into account the stunning inducements [$2million] rejected the proposal as bad for our district is proof positive of the calibre of AGL's plans and possible negative impact on this region.
I am 17 Years old and fully employed locally. If the gas plant were to proceed I would be made unemployed. I would move away. My links are strong in this community and yet AGL sees no future for people like me. They have not engaged with the community even during the period where they planned to seek an extension. These are untrustworthy people and not appropriate for a town once called Wesleyvale after John Wesley [1703 - 1791] and settled by Primitive Methodists. These devout and hard working people are the antithesis of the slick, dishonest [I refer to AGL breaching section 147 through undisclosed political donations], profiteers seeking to destroy rather than build.

I object to the extension and ask AGL to leave Dalton

When the land was purchased in 2003 by AGL the project then was to be two to three stacks and they would not be visible to the village of Dalton.
It is of great concern that these guide lines where changed by 2012 and seem once again to be changing to build a greater power station and all the time the location of Dalton is changing with greater population.

DALTON POWER PROJECT MOD 1 - OBJECTION

I write to object to the proposal to grant AGL Energy Limited ("AGL") a two-year extension to the existing permission for the construction and operation of a gas-fired power plant at the Dalton site.

I object on the basis that this is the wrong technology in the wrong place. The construction and operation of the plant is likely to result in adverse impacts on food production in the Dalton district and on the price of electricity paid by all consumers (not limited to those in New South Wales).

"The wrong technology ...."

In its letter seeking this extension, AGL justifies the need for the Dalton plant on the basis of "ensuring adequate, reliable and consistent supply of electricity". The letter goes on to cite the South Australian `black system' in September 2016.

This justification does not hold weight. Numerous sources of expert evidence are now available indicating that technological advances in the operation of renewable energy sources, along with battery technology, will render obsolete a plant of the type proposed for Dalton within a matter of three to five years. For instance, the Grattan Institute reported in May 2015 that "Yet change is on the way and if it is managed properly, solar PV will finally become a major player in Australia's power system. In concert with home batteries, solar panels will change people's relationship with the grid, giving them the ability to store and manage the electricity their solar panels produce, and reducing their electricity costs.

These changes will benefit not only solar PV owners but everyone. Battery owners will use the grid less at peak times, placing less strain on the network and reducing the need for costly investment in new infrastructure. Reducing network costs will push down electricity prices." (https://grattan.edu.au/news/here-comes-the-solar-power-revolution/). While not explicitly stated, implicit in the Grattan Institute's analysis is the likelihood that decreasing costs of such solar generation and associated storage capacity will continue to drive uptake of such technologies. It is entirely reasonable to act on the premise that this will also translate to increasing adoption of large scale solar generation and associated storage.

The viability of emerging technologies to `ensure adequate, reliable and consistent supply' is now being recognised even by the Australian Energy Markets Commission in its recent decision to move to `five minute settlement' in the national energy market. This decision is premised on the emerging capacity of battery technology to meet the requirements of short notice `peak load' and intermittency of supply.

Given this scenario, and given the time lag that must inevitably occur before the Dalton plant could, if constructed, become operational, it is highly likely that the plant will be obsolete either at the time of completion or very shortly thereafter. It runs a high risk of becoming a `stranded asset', for which either AGL customers or NSW taxpayers (or likely, both) will end up bearing the cost. It would be irresponsible of government to actively or passively encourage such a development.

Resolving September 2016's `black system' in South Australia did not require the intervention of a plant such as that proposed for Dalton. The final report on that event by the Australian Energy Market Operator ("AEMO") instead notes that the event was attributable to regulatory failure in combination with certain technical settings on available wind generation capacity. Significantly, the event occurred despite South Australia having gas-fired generation capacity that was not used on that occasion !

It is acknowledged that AEMO has separately called for additional gas generation capacity, but even here it is obliged to note that future supplies of gas are uncertain, demand is dependent on uptake of alternative energy generation methods and battery storage technology, and gas generation is likely to become increasingly expensive. AEMO notes purely financial cost concerns at this stage - I would contend that expanding gas production is also likely to become increasingly `expensive' in social terms, with the ever-diminishing `social licence' available to fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

Gas fired generation is currently being promoted to consumers as a `clean energy' alternative to other fossil fuels, especially coal. Certainly, all indications are that at the point of combustion, gas is `cleaner' than coal. However, that advantage appears to at best diminish, and possibly disappear, when the full production, transmission and combustion cycle is considered - and the full cycle must be considered as the only possible comparator given our current climate change challenge.

While I am not aware of similar work having been done in Australia, the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") notes that, for gas fired power to emit lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal over the full cycle, extremely low levels of `fugitive emissions' (especially of methane) are required http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas#.WO6xOW997IUd. UCS also sets out other significant `downsides' to gas fired power generation, including price volatility and adverse environmental and public health risks http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/natural-gas-gamble-risky-bet-on-clean-energy-future#.WO6w_W-GPIV. Certainly, current Australian experience tells us that community resistance to `unconventional' gas extraction is strong, and growing, on the basis of its demonstrated destruction of water resources (surface and aquifer) and prime agricultural land, and its disproportionate impacts on `host' communities.

As a result, the limited `social licence' for gas fired power generally, and for the proposed Dalton plant especially, is currently granted on the basis of a misapprehension. That is a flimsy pretext on which to embark on such a large investment.

"... in the wrong place"

The construction of a large gas fired coal plant in the Dalton district is likely to adversely impact prime agricultural land, will `industrialise' an agricultural area and is broadly opposed by the local community.

I understand that other objections to this proposal will address the direct environmental and commercial impacts - and will no doubt do so in more detail than I am able. Nevertheless, from conversations with landholders who would be direct neighbours of the proposed plant, I am aware of their significant concerns around water resources, particulate emissions and general incompatibility of `industrial' impacts such as light, traffic and noise with current land use in the district.

To suggest that these impacts would be ameliorated by the imposition of "strict environmental conditions" on the plant is, rightly, viewed with derision in the local community. Community members - and indeed, the broader NSW community - are well aware of the abject failure of such conditions `regimes' to address key environmental concerns such as air and water pollution across New South Wales. They know perfectly well that they are being required to accept all the financial and environmental risk of this proposal `up front', with no reasonable expectation that any enforceable `quid pro quo' will be available as the adverse impacts emerge.

The point here is that this is, from a planning perspective, a totally inappropriate development in the proposed location. Suggesting that such a development, with its inherent `industrialising' impact, can somehow be retro-fitted to an agricultural setting is not credible.

In this context, it is further noted that the local community is acutely aware that the original grant of permission given in 2012 was tainted by perceptions of undue political influence. Nothing that has occurred since has given cause for that perception to diminish.

In its letter of application, AGL makes a number of claims regarding community `consultation' around any future construction and operation of the plant. In reality, these amount to little more than `top down' promotional activities underwritten by another `bribe', reinforcing community concern that they are being asked to assume all the risk. The reality is that community opposition to the proposed plant has, over the five years since the initial approval, only solidified. In that context, proceeding with the project is more likely to be viewed as arrogant, authoritarian imposition than any genuine expression of partnership.

Conclusion

This objection to the application by AGL to extend the permission to construct and operate a gas fired power plant at Dalton is based on it being the wrong technology in the wrong place.

In doing so, it recognises that we face significant issues in our capacity to meet legitimate expectations for reliable, secure power sources, and also that (for better or worse) AGL is a significant player in our market-based system of electricity supply and distribution. This, in turn, requires a recognition that an important relationship exists between government and corporations like AGL which needs to take account of sometimes competing and sometimes complementary interests - put simply, we all require secure, reliable electricity without unreasonable environmental and social disruption.

At heart, the role of government must include the fundamental recognition that it derives its legitimacy from expressing the overarching good of the community. This overarching good may not always align with the short to medium term commercial interests of any one entity. Where these do not align, there is a clear role for government to properly lead on behalf of the community.

That government, on behalf of the community, currently subsidises power generation across the spectrum is more than adequately documented. This applies whether we consider direct subsidisation through taxation policy, rebates, etc or less direct means such as generous, `below cost' resource availability terms. As such, the community, via its governments, has a legitimate stake in ensuring that its contribution is brought to bear to influence the full range of interests, including social harmony and environmental protection.

Emerging technologies in power generation (renewables) and storage (battery) are clearly a better `fit' for this full range of community interests. A just transition to renewable energy may be disruptive to some narrowly defined commercial interests in the short to medium term. However, the existing power generation regime (in which this Dalton plant is firmly embedded) is highly disruptive of the whole community through localised impacts such as air and water pollution at extraction, transport and production and at the global level through dangerous climate change.

AGL is faced with a commercial decision regarding its power generation mix; it has the capacity, as demonstrated by its own promotional materials, to move more quickly to a cleaner energy mix. Its decision making does not occur in a social and regulatory vacuum, as noted above. Governments have an existential requirement to genuinely lead towards a power generation and distribution future that properly balances our demands for electricity with the social and environmental impacts of that activity; it must eschew the 'quick fix'.

Proposals such as the Dalton power plant have a diminishing role in that future. Embarking on this project is not in our best interests at this time. The proper role of government is to lead, albeit collaboratively, towards a genuinely sustainable future.

This application for extension of permission to build and operate a gas fired electricity plant at Dalton should not be approved.

I oppose the application to extend the date of the approval for the Dalton Power Project by 2 years (Mod 1 project Dalton Gas fired power project) proposed to be built at Dalton.

Five years ago, I was too young to understand why my Mother and the community fought so tirelessly against AGL and its threat to build a Gas Fired Power Station. I did not realise the devastation it would cause to our family and our surroundings. I am older and I now know what this would do to my home.
I have lived in Dalton my whole life, 19 years. I have grown up learning about and living the country life and what it has to offer, and honestly it is the best thing I will ever experience!
I love my community so much and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I mean why would I want to trade the wonderful community, the peace and quiet, the beautiful landscapes, the wildlife, our farm, my family, my future plans for my home and business; my whole life just for some gas power station that will destroy our peaceful haven.
I am objecting to this Gas Power Project for this main reason, my future.
I am currently 2 years into studying a Diploma of Horse Industry Management as part of my future goals. I aim to train horses, build an equestrian centre and open up a riding school that caters to the disabled community. The location for this will be on our family property on Walshe's Road. Locator D, of the Environmental Assessment, Noise Assessment Chapter 12.3.4, right under the proposed site, which AGL have admitted would exceed the noise allowance levels. What would that do to my horses? I have already invested a lot of money, time, both in study and in establishing contacts within the equine industry to meet these goals.
That what AGL propose would irreversibly change our community into an industrial waste-land, with high levels of noise, pollution, traffic and the doubtless removal of wildlife, horses, walkers etc. without a single thought to the needs, concerns, wishes and best interests of the people most vulnerable is utterly shameful. Not once have they thought about my grandparents and what it would mean to them if they had to leave their property at their age of 82 and 95 years. Not once have they given a thought about me and my future, but why would they, after all aren't I and the rest of us `just collateral damage'.
This is my future they are aiming to destroy. "Not only is AGL Australia's single largest polluter, but its carbon emissions increased more than 92% in 2014-2015 and the company continues to invest in the fossil fuels that are destroying our climate, communities and ecosystems." They have had 5 years to assess the market and the future, as one of the 3 major Energy companies if they don't have it by now, they never will.
We all know the impacts it will have on land degradation, land property values, the nature reserves, noise corruption, impact of stock, impact of feed, impact of oxygen levels, tremors, earthquakes, not to mention the vulnerability of the Southern Pygmy Perch recently discovered in our local waterways. What about the impact of health for our most vulnerable, our elderly, others with limited ability and health, what about those with respiratory problems? That is my concern. The emissions that would exude from the stacks are most alarming. I am given to understand that once operating the stacks would emit a level of toxins that would equate to living in a town with half a million people. If I wanted that, I would move to Sydney. I don't want that, I love the fresh air.

I am completely worried what my future may hold if this allowed to go ahead. Dalton will always be home, and our community will always be my family. It just feels that AGL and other government companies don't care about small country communities and aim to decimate them just so that big business can benefit.
I urge you to please reject the extension of time for this proposal by AGL.

If we are the future custodians of this planet, what will you leave us to look after, what will we the youth of the world remember you by.



Most Sincerely

Kahlie Mai Bush
12th April 2017

Submission of OBJECTION to AGL Modification Application for an Extension of Time to The Lapse Date of the Conditional Approval of The Dalton Power Project Attached.