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.

I object to the Dalton Power Project.

Should this project go ahead, there will be a number of persons in the Dalton area adversely affected, but one specific outcome will be the closure the organic farm business of Vince and Janet Heffernan, which will have a long term effect on the lifestyle and health of my wife and myself, as well as my daughter and her family, and several of my friends.

My wife suffers from a severely damaged immune system and is intolerant to chemicals routinely used in operation of farms and the production of lamb and mutton - it is crucial that she avoids exposure to or consumption of meat affected in this way.

My family relies on obtaining ORGANIC and CHEMICAL FREE lamb and mutton from Mr Heffernan.

I don't believe AGL have acted in good faith with the Dalton community in how they approached this request for an extension of their existing development application.

I was at the public meeting in Dalton and where most of the town met with AGL. There was literally nobody in the room that was happy with the project.

This project currently lacks social license, and AGL has not demonstrated that they will be a good corporate citizen.

In my opinion, if AGL wishes to pursue this project, they should first engage with the local community in good faith and work through the issues that have been raised, of which there are many. Once this is done, then AGL should submit a new development application that can be assessed on current legislation, and not the previous legislation that was open to corruption, and that this development application was approved under.

My husband and I brought our land in 2003 with a plan to move here for a much quiter, peacefull slow paced life. We even changed careers bribgibg much much lower income.

We are so happy we did, the people, the neighbours are all very supporting people, they made us feel so welcomed. We joined community groups, local fire brigade and love catching up in town at our local pub.

For AGL to come here and try to build somethibg so horrible with lies attached and think that we are going to sit back and let this happen, think again AGL.

Im so proud of my fellow neighbours who have given their all to fight this company.

I know i dont have a lot of words or even big words in my submission, but i have a voice and so i am letting you know that iam so against AGL and this gas power station being built in my little piece of paradise.

I object to AGL's application to extend the lapsing date of the approval for the Dalton Power Project by 2 years.

I am raising three young children in Gunning where we enjoy an idyllic country lifestyle; clean fresh air away from the smog found in cities, serenity, a picturesque landscape, and quaint small businesses, along with a caring community. We also enjoy the animals in this area, from Australia's unique wildlife to the traditional farm animals. Due to the proximity to Canberra and the charming country lifestyle opportunity, we have seen an increase in people (especially families) moving into the towns of Gunning and Dalton.

I believe all the wonderful things that make this country town beautiful will be severely compromised if AGL are given the opportunity to extend the lapsing date of the approval for the Dalton Power Project by any amount of time.

I believe this area sits on a natural fault line and as such poses a real and imminent risk for a huge power plant being built on this land; a natural disaster.

The many and varied pollutants from AGL's power plant will encroach on the everyday living standards of residents and place their land, livestock and own lives in danger. Land values will drop dramatically and people will be deterred from moving into these charming small towns. Air pollution from the power plant will place the lives of residents, livestock and wildlife in danger of ill health.

We as a nation are capable of harnessing energy through much more environmentally friendly means, such as solar and wind. Thus it is thoroughly disappointing that we are still relying on and entertaining the outdated methods being put forward by AGL.

People matter; our lives, our children, our homes, our lands, our livestock, our wildlife, our businesses, our communities, our standard of living.

I object to AGL being allowed any more time.

Uncertainty
Their initial application was flawed by inadequate legislation and has been tainted by their own guilt of undeclared donations. By their own admission the company is unsure of what form the final project will be. There are too many ways AGL can change the project without further consultation. I do not trust that AGL has the interests of the Dalton community in mind when making the application for extension.

Environment
The original environmental studies are 7 years old and did not take fully into account the impact to the waterways. There are no mention of frogs in the initial report. I do not believe there were no frogs on that site, I live less than 4km from the site, but further from a creek, and yet we have frogs on our property, even in a dry year. There have been 2 endangered species found within 4km of the site in the last 5 years, one of these being the yellow spotted bell frog, once thought extinct.
A new environmental impact study is required.

Health
I bought property in Dalton 10 years ago as a long term investment. My 4 children are growing up here, and my wife and I intend to retire here once the children have finished school. I have severe chronic asthma and find the climate is good for my health, much more so than a more populated area. My brother, one of his children and my mother also suffer from asthma, and my aunt died from the condition.
None of my children have asthma, and I credit this to the air quality at Dalton.

I am unconvinced by AGL's data on air quality. The weather information their findings are based on was from Goulburn Airport, over 40km away.
The proposed site is in a valley, and a very different landscape to the Goulburn Airport, therefore it is unlikely any weather based findings are accurate.
I am unwilling to expose my children to the kind of pollution they would expect to find in a city of 20 million people, however that is what this proposed power plant will do.