Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

The reasons for my objections are as follows:
- My family have been farming this land within the CWO REZ for five generations. I do not believe that Energy Co or State government should be allowed to deprive me of the enjoyment this lifestyle brings to me.
- I fear there will be an increased bushfire risk due to the project’s infrastructure.
- I fear that with transmission towers located in paddocks and overhead power lines, these will become dangerous obstacles to farm around – especially if and when there is too much slack with the power lines.
- The imposed easements around the powerline infrastructure will cut into farming operations.
- I fear for my future as living within a REZ is like living within a modern-day power station. I believe this is an unhealthy residential and working environment, and amongst many issues, will present fertility problems to those within communities. Will Energy Co be supplying communities with protective clothing as a safety measure? Even if they do, it is unrealistic that we would be expected to wear it 24/7 whilst around the structures.
- The transmission tower structures, future turbines and solar factories will be an absolute industrial blight on our rural landscapes. Energy Co’s attitude in dumping these on our landscape is unacceptable. Why can they not seek locations closer to the cities?

I respectfully request that this project is NOT approved as to dive deeper, the negative impacts on the community and landscapes significantly out-number any positive benefits the project may offer.

I strongly object to this transmission line and the area picked as a renewable energy zone. It effects so many people and will ruin profitable farming land. the flow on financial and health implications to the community are enormous and have not been addressed. All the farms will be worthless, their prices have already dropped. The communities are not equipped to deal with the stress and mental health issues this is causing.

I am a proud 5th generation farmer located within the Central West Orana and I object to Energy Co’s project!
I do not want these transmission towers and high-voltage power lines to become a permanent fixture on my landscapes. Through these 5 generations, I have a fulfilled connection to my farming land and I fear that these developments will not only destroy my farming future, but the futures of many within our community. Corporates and our government should not be allowed to come in and take all I love about farming and my lifestyle away from me. The farming experiences I have shared with my father and grandfather, are experiences I wish to share with my own children and their children. I fear that Energy Co's project and ultimately the spread of renewable energy in the central west orana will rob me of this opportunity.

Should these projects go ahead, I fear that my land will be significantly devalued as a result, and I do not believe that Energy Co have been upfront with their findings about property devaluation. Energy Co’s compensation offerings are a slap in the face.

Due to EMF and magnetic fields, I hold serious concerns for anyone having to live near the project’s transmission infrastructure, and this concern extends to livestock and wildlife. As an example for livestock concerns, I do not want to find out that years down the track, we are unable to sell our produce due to tumours etc that have occurred as a result of grazing under and around powerlines.

1. Landowners are unwilling to have transmission infrastructure on their land. Being forced to become “hosts” through compulsory acquisition. Offered inadequate compensation for the damage and impacts to property value and amenity. Being forced to pay for legal help, valuations and in some cases removal of infrastructure with no surety of being reimbursed. Will be subject to land use restrictions within the easement area. During construction Energy Co want livestock removed and do not want to fence construction areas off. As part of the easement Energy Co has a caveat over the land and may impact the ability to mortgage the land.
2. Land use – 72% of easement area is grazing land, 20% is cropping land. Impacts will be further than just the hectares of land impacted. People are likely to move when their homes become unliveable/unpleasant resulting in less production and increasing weeds and feral animals. During construction, land impacted will be significantly higher, potentially 3x higher.
3. Workforce – rostered fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workforce. Working hours are likely to be 7am-7pm 7 days a week. Construction compounds would be open the same time. Accommodation camps would be 24/hrs day. 1800 workers over approx.. 3.5 years. Construction noise, camp noise, traffic noise exceeding noise limits at some residences.
4. Workers Accommodation Camps – Satellite “towns”. 1 x 600 workers camp at Neeley’s Lane, Cassilis and 1 x 1200 workers camp at Merotherie. Merotherie (at least) is likely to contain a supermarket, liquor store, police presence etc. Merotherie will be bigger than Dunedoo in population. Other developments are suggesting workers camps as well (eg. Liverpool Range Wind, Birriwa Solar).
5. Biosecurity – need a stringent biosecurity plan. Vehicles travelling through multiple properties causing risk.
6. Water – needs 700,000,000 million litres of water a year during construction (3.5 years). Will be taking from groundwater, bores, Talbragar River and potable water from town supplies. Result on water table?
7. Visual Amentiy – homes up to 2km from proposed towers/infrastructure are the only ones considered for visual amenity. The unwilling hosts are not considered for mitigation.
8. Cumulative Impact of being in a REZ – A REZ is a “modern day power station” (as per Dept. Planning) Energy Co admits that multiple projects (wind/solar and transmission) in our district will have a negative impact on our visual amenity. “This infrastructure would change the landscape character to one where the presence of energy and electricity infrastructure is more frequently encountered and prominent, resulting in a cumulative landscape character impact”. In other words our rural vistas will become industrial. Additional traffic on roads during construction of just six projects are 2307 PER DAY, for 3-5 years.
9. Economic – with a FIFO workforce living in accommodation camps there will be minimal flow on effects. They have stated local purchases may be limited. Estimated lost agricultural income $1.35 million per year during construction. After that, still a loss of $317K per year (equivalent) for the duration of the transmission lines (50 years?). Prices are likely to increase in the region for construction materials. Any flow on benefits will be temporary.
10. Noise - Switching Camps noise levels up to 25dB higher than noise limits will be experienced by some residences nearby. Corona Noise (from transmission lines) will be experienced by one residence up to 24% of the time. Noise mitigation is inadequate with one mitigation suggestion “advising” of noise in advance.
11. Property Values – estimated up to 30% loss in property value if “hosting” transmission infrastructure.
12. Biodiversity – Energy Co. admits current wildlife corridors will be removed/affected. Will directly impact 1032 ha of native vegetation (and habitat).
13. Negative Social Impacts - as identified by Energy Co – detrimental effects to community cohesion, impacts to sense of safety, diminished sense of place, road delays and sense of safety, capacity of health, food and social services, the way people enjoy the environment, stress from bushfire risk, diminished sense of belonging, loss of aesthetic values, loss of biodiversity, impact to agricultural land and food production, worry about future generations ability to farm.
14. Bushfire Risk – increased risk of bushfire ignition. Bushfire prone land in Merotherie and Tallawang areas has not been mapped and should be vegetation category 1 and 2. History of bushfires in EIS only covers 2006-2017 which ignores 1979 fire that burned through from Birriwa to Ulan. Static water supplies in construction compounds and workers camps are only 20,000litres which is too low should be 100,000l in compounds and 500,000 in workers camp. Workers Camp should have 2 x Cat1 units with 6 RFS trained personnel on call (not local volunteer RFS members), In high fire danger a slip on firefighting unit should be at every construction site, plus a Cat1 truck on standby.
15. Uncertainties – many project details are still not confirmed, fully planned etc., so all risks are unknown at this stage.
16. Waste – 265,000 cubic metres of green waste, 1,000t on excavation spoil, 12,500t of concrete waste, 2,100t of steel/metal, 200t of cabling waste, 85t of hazardous waste, 105t of road base/concrete/gravel waste, 33t of empty oil and other containers, 130t of oils, 1,200t of packaging waste, 2,500t camp/compound waste, 300,000,000litres of liquid waste (including sewage). Mid Western Council has said no, Gulgong has said no. Other facilities are not detailed as to their agreement, within 150km of the site. There are no details on the transportation of the waste (additional trucks on the road). Cumulative impact of waste from multiple projects?
17. Heritage impacts – many places were not surveyed. Ignored community history studies that list places of historical interest, some sites are delicate and will be impacted by construction activities (eg. vibration which may collapse/destroy the sites), do not recommend sufficient protection for historical sites.
18. Cumulative Aboriginal heritage impacts – will result in a cumulative loss of 5-16% of Aboriginal sites identified within the construction area including rockshelters, griding grooves, culturally modified trees and moderate or high significant stone artefact deposits.
19. Social Licence – only 7 landowners were interviewed. Only 44 interviews were undertaken in their social impact study including councils, landowner “hosts”, neighbours and community, out of a regional population of 152,418 (only 0.03% of the population),. An online survey had 104 responses (0.06% of the population). Only 54 people answered the question in the online survey on perceived benefits and only ONE PERSON said that the delivery of renewables was a benefit. They do NOT have social licence to proceed. Energy Co say they will “consider” feedback from the public but do not state they will act on that feedback. A number of concerns were raised in the limited interviews/surveys but these have not been adequately resolved.
20. Decommissioning/Rehabilitation – only mentioned for construction, not for infrastructure (transmission towers, switching stations, energy hubs etc).
21. EMR/Magnetic Fields – Anchored their ‘health & safety’ evaluation on the Gibbs Report 1991 (30 years old and had limitations in 1991). AECOM study predicts 63mG at edge of easement and 414mG underneath the line. EU recommends children under 15 are not exposed to more than 40mG due to an associated increase in childhood leukemia. Superior Health Council of Belgium on Advice No. 8081 mandated 100m setback from 380kv lines. Energy Co EMF advisor at Dunedoo Info Session advised it is “BAD to stand under the powerlines, if you stand there for too long it will boil your skin”. Same advisor would not comment on the safe distance for humans and animals and maximum exposure time. Continued use for grazing could endanger livestock and humans who traverse regularly under/near the powerlines. Energy Co do not want to underground the lines but undergrounding would minimize radiation and magnetic fields and have many other agricultural benefits over overhead lines. An independent report by Amplitude Consultants (2023) show a 1.5x cost underground vs. overhead.
22. Traffic – Additional 100 vehicles per hour during peak construction on local roads. Some roads will go from 1 vehicle per day to 32 per HOUR. Cumulative traffic from this and other projects at the same time. Livestock movements on local roads impacted. Biosecurity threats from large number of vehicles on roads and properties.
23. Flooding – Merotherie Rd major access route for Merotherie Hub but 1.7km is flood plain. Culverts, other man made materials will cause flooding upstream and concentrate flows downstream which will cause significant erosion, new drainage lines and artificial water courses. During EIS surveys new Wollar Switching Station, Merotherie Energy Hub, Elong Energy Hub were inundated by floodwaters. 12 of the 13 are estimated to be inundated on occasion. Construction will cause disruptions to contour banks and waterways on easements, a large rain event would cause damage. Whole project has potential to cause extensive and irreparable damage.

I would like to submit an objection to the CWO REZ project put to us by Energy Co.

I do not believe that rural NSW and in this instance, the Central West Orana localities, are of fit purpose to house renewable energy infrastructure. I do not believe that Energy Co have completed sufficient research into their project and they are simply guided by dollar signs.

The rural communities within the Central West Orana are surrounded by pristine agricultural land. This land is a significant factor in driving our nation’s economy and a significant supplier of our food resources. I cannot in any way support renewable developments on such land. I cannot support the environmental destruction of such land. I cannot support the destruction these developments will have on rural communities; and let’s face it: Energy Co and subsequent developers do not live in those areas. They do not have to live within the environmental destruction and take on all associated risks that these structures bring with them.

The negative impacts these projects will have on the future of rural communities will be devastating, and one they simply will not be able to recover from; all because government and corporations saw a quick and easy opportunity to make money of their landscape. The Central West Orana is not equipped with enough mental health facilities that will be needed to support communities as a result of their landscapes, homes, livelihoods being changed. All these people know will be shattered. There is a common theme that those in rural communities generally suffer more with depression due to a lack of services available. Rural communities are more old-fashioned and traditional in their views/beliefs than those in progressive cities/suburbs and as such, there is still a stigma around mental health, and seeking professional help. I honestly fear that landscapes, homes, businesses, and farm land being cut up and destroyed will see a significant increase in rural suicides.

As a solution, I would love to see renewable energy constructed and operating at locations such as North Head, Manly; and South Head, Eastern Suburbs. Renewable energy and the preservation of our environment is of paramount concern for the people of the Northern and Eastern Beaches and this fact was evident in our last election through Teal victories. Through her leadership, Zali Steggal has vowed to transform energy by committing to an orderly transition to 80% renewable energy by 2030. With that said, the people of the Northern Beaches can boast of our environmental credentials, as living amongst clean wind or clean solar farms would be an absolute true testament and demonstration of our commitment to that of a greener future for our communities and NSW. I would love to see a hydro facility located at Manly Dam; another source of renewable energy to power the peninsular. If our government is primed for compulsory acquisition in the Central West Orana REZ, then there is sufficient funding to acquire relevant blocks of land surrounding Manly Dam for this hydro purpose.

The majority of power generated in NSW is used in Sydney and its higher-density suburbs spanning the north and south coast, therefore if we had renewable energy hubs in these central locations, EnergyCo would be saving significant transmission costs for the State government and developer bodies.

Why can’t Energy Co and future renewable developers look at the available land within the National Parks that run parallel to our coast? There is sufficient public land along this extensive stretch both up and down Australia’s east-coast that will be able to house such developments. Energy Co have acknowledged that their developments in rural NSW will cause environmental damage, however they will offset via Biodiversity Offset Schemes. Energy Co can develop in public land (with no need for compulsory acquisition), and then offset in rural NSW to enhance the current thriving wildlife habitats, or use those offsets to partner with willing farmers to explore ‘greener’ farming practices. I see this as a win! Another benefit of hosting in the National Parks is that being closer to cities and higher-density populated suburbs, is that yet again, State government and developer bodies will save in transmission costs.

Whilst my objection to the renewable infrastructure in the CWO REZ is strong, I do hope that the alternatives I have suggested can be explored. It is only through extensive and active community engagement with open ears and willing minds, we can challenge and exceed the current proposals for a better and cheaper future of energy.

Please note that I reserve the right to add to my submission if required in the future.

I moved to coolah from Sydney for the piece, quiet & views
The wind turbines & power lines will ruin the scenery
And

please follow the European example and ensure all these wind turbines are off shore where they do not denigrate beautiful farm land
I get it - to a degree -we need reduce emissions and create energy for our cities .don't do it so I can see 157 wind towers ,140 m plus from farm -horrific .
I didn't buy this farm to live in an industrial like zone -

This project has huge detriments to the local community. Where will water be sourced? Where will waste go? What about the huge change to the environmental landscape and the impact on private property? Where will the workers come from and where will they live? What about health, food supply, wastewater treatment, policing? These are already strained in the regions, how is the influx of temporary services going to impact access for locals? There are no ongoing benefits to the local community through employment and while renewable projects are supposed to benefit the environment, all I can currently see is destruction! It’s not about the environment, it’s all about making the rich even richer at the detriment to local regional communities.

I object to this project as I don't want the district covered in high voltage transmission lines and towers, and don't want the area to be turned into an industrial landscape of wind turbines on the hills and fields of solar panels. This project would have major impacts on the natural environmental, flora, fauna, as well as on the lives of residents of the area. The region brings in many visitors looking to escape to a rural and relaxing area, and creates tourism opportunities for many small towns - the proposed development will negatively impact on this industry.

Fears for the value of our property to decrease dramatically because of the disruption to our environment. The ultrasonic waves that are felt when close to wind turbines causes disharmony and discomfort, a massive turn off for such a popular tourist town that relies on reputation and return visitors. The vistas of beautiful vineyards and crops abolished by solar panels and wind turbines. Perhaps a less popular tourist destination would love the employment opportunities but not HERE!

I understand the need for renewable energy projects but with the influx of these projects within the Central West, it is decreasing the value of our property. It is also an eye sore in the NSW number 1 top tourist. Please consider the impact on this area before making a decision.

I support the project

Objection, how are smaller towns going to cope with the amount of infrastructure that is required, water, sewerage that the construction phase & the operation phase is going to create. There is absolutely no way Dunedoo, Birriwa or Gulgong can cope

I don't want the district covered in high voltage transmission lines and towers and don't want the area turned into an industrial landscape of wind turbines on the hills. The damage to flora, fauna and water supplies and many other areas is very concerning.

As a resident and landowner of the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone, I formally write to lodge my OBJECTION to EnergyCo’s project within the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone. In particular, I have based my objection on my concerns after reading 'Technical paper 7 – Social', provided by EnergyCo in their EIS.

Put simply, given the fact that EnergyCo could only be bothered to interview 44 people out of a total regional social locality population of 152, 418 people - that is 0.03% of our population - I do not believe that EnergyCo have engaged in that of procedural fairness to obtain their findings. I believe EnergyCo’s outcomes to be that of a biased nature in favour of EnergyCo’s project, and all future renewable projects within the Central-West Orana REZ.

EnergyCo admit that our landscape will be permanently changed from rural to that of industrial. It is nauseating that EnergyCo feel they can offset all this destruction via their Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. This is simply hypercritical and virtue signalling of the highest order.

In particular, I found the language used in 'Technical paper 7 – social' to be both patronising and gaslighting in nature. The genuine concerns of the few community members that were actually interviewed are all validated within the “Cumulative impacts” (chapter 20 of the EIS Main Report). Given this, it is evident that EnergyCo (and future developers) hold rural NSW in contempt and see us as a money-making opportunity with no care for our way of life, health, or environment.

As a landowner within this region - and one who has been approached by developers to host future infrastructure - in addition to the general apprehensions that almost all of the community have, I also hold the following concerns pertaining to the safety of my family:

- What measures will EnergyCo and Network Operators have in place to ensure the safety of landowners and the community? Will all parties employed by EnergyCo and Network Operators (and all contractors) be subject to criminal history checks? There is significant money tied up in assets on each property. Landowners will need reassurance that those employees coming on their property do not have a prior criminal history.
- Will EnergyCo and Network Operators ensure that their workforce (third party contractors included) have a working with children clearance? Many of the landowners impacted have children on their properties. We need 100% guarantees that child offenders will not be part of this workforce and will not be setting foot on properties where children are located. These safety measures must also be continued and guaranteed during the life-long maintenance of the project.

Please find attached my concerns pertaining to 'Technical paper 7 – social'. Given the high number of questions that basically circle back to the simple fact that EnergyCo have not completed their due diligence when it came to their community engagement, I am of the high impression that this project should be rejected due to a lack of procedural fairness.

Furthermore, I reserve the right to add to my objecting submission at a later stage.

What has become clear to me while reading this EIS is that the number of possible contingency events that farmers, system planners, developers and operators and the surrounding community need to consider is enormous. Even with close to 8000 pages this EIS fails to address a huge amount of complexities and risks involved with dumping an industrial enterprise at the feet of the agricultural sector.

The sad realisation that farmers are coming to is that the NSW government is creating a revenue stream by cutting the throats of the CW district. How else is it possible for foreign companies to ‘compulsorily acquire’ Australian soil only to lease it back to the farmers they take it from? This is not about saving the planet or even about renewable energy, this is about making a dollar. A capitalist solution being sold to the masses under the guise of a ‘critical infrastructure’ mandate.

The Biosecurity Act 2015 is one of the most significant bits of legislation that agricultural businesses adhere to. The biosecurity risks that an endless stream of workers will pose to the landowners is considerable. The EIS has no guidelines for what their contractors are to do, only lists what risks there are.

Mitigating measures minimise the real impact and gloss over the problem that has been identified. Issues that have been classified as HIGH impact are reduced to MEDIUM impact by implementing a 'complaints management system'. HIGH impact issues like biosecurity, minimised to MEDIUM and simply managed by a requirement for workers to open and close gates. What an understatement!

Landowners that are compulsory acquired will be upset by loss of aesthetic values and a perceived loss of biodiversity.’ Loss of aesthetic values’ is a nice way of describing living next to noisy, bright, industrial, electromagnetic, fans and transmission lines that increases bushfire risk in an already vulnerable area.

“Perceived loss of biodiversity” is a strange impact description. If industrial infrastructure is bashed through rural landscapes & farms then there will be loss of biodiversity attributes. That is why EnergyCo & network operators pay offsets. It's not ‘perceived’, it's undeniable.

The Biodiversity SAII list of 'Serious & Irreversible Impacts' is testament to the impact this project will have. There are more questions than answers: Will there be a third party that will be monitoring whether the contractors and developers are avoiding eagle nests ? What happens when the turbines are operational ? Will they be turned off in the breeding season? Or does none of this matter because it's critical infrastructure?

Most insulting though is why the EIS has listed landowners that receive the benefits payment scheme as having a POSITIVE HIGH impact to their livelihoods. Since they only spoke to 15 landowners when collecting this information it's not surprising why this assumption is so widely off the mark.

Loss of property rights, inadequate compensation, disruption to businesses; some that have been in the same families for generations, environmental impact, legal costs as well as the uncertainty & delay that will hang over heads for years is what is concerning people. Why the government thinks these miserly strategic benefit schemes will overcome these greater concerns is beyond comprehension and represents perfectly how disconnected the government is to the agricultural sector.

If you were to suggest to anyone with a mortgage that infrastructure that can cause illness and ugliness is to cut through their home, destroy their business & simultaneously wipe millions of dollars in equity from their property value they would be up in arms.

Now imagine describing to anyone that had an interest in conservation that endangered animals and fauna are only relevant when the government hasn’t listed the infrastructure as critical. Not to worry as the koalas habitat destruction & deaths will be offset by cash!

Now visualise telling a First Nations person that the spiritual significance of the Warrumbungles is not as significant or important as increased employment opportunities that this industrial wasteland will bring to their town. This is how ridiculous this project sounds to the families & communities it will leave in its wake.

There is no ‘procedural fairness’ when land is compulsory acquired.

There is no ‘fair and equitable compensation’ process when property values will plummet.

There is no transparency when other options have not been presented.

Submission objecting to the Central-West Orana Transmission Project being granted permission to proceed to construction.
First note that the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone is in the middle of Eastern Australia. Which is known worldwide for being one of the most wildfire prone areas in the World. This situation is heightened on Total Fire Ban Days with high temperatures and strong winds. In this situation farmers are told to stop harvesting and all outdoor activities that may cause sparks are banned.
My main objection to the Central-West Orana Transmission Project is that by having all the Solar Factories, Wind Factories and Battery Energy Storage Systems and then connecting them together, with HV Transmission Lines. it is converting the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) into the Central-West Orana Fire Incendiary Zone (FIZ) with these dire consequences:
1. A Central-West Orana Fire Incendiary Zone will be created by having an immense amount of electrically charged components, scattered throughout the FIZ. And it will be exacerbated by the particular firefighting problems associated with them,

A. Solar farms with hundreds of thousands of extremely hot, electrified solar panels being packed tightly together, standing in dry grass, surrounded by a 2m high security fence, creates enormous potential for a fire to occur. As the solar panels are packed together the area is considered as being a no-go area to fire fighters. This leads to the early control of a wildfire in a solar farm, becoming extremely difficult if not impossible.

B. Wind turbines being on 250m high towers, when they catch fire are inaccessible to being controlled by on ground firefighters. And because of the high towers, huge diameter spans of the blades and the downwind turbulence created by the turbines, water bombers have to keep a 5 to 8km distance from wind farms. Rendering them ineffective. This leads to the early control of a wildfire in a wind farm becoming extremely difficult if not impossible.

C. BESS Lithium battery fires pose particular problems for emergency responders and other stakeholders which include: A greater fire intensity often accompanied with the violent ejection of vapors and other materials; exposure to toxic and corrosive vapors, gases and fire effluents; increased risk of vapor explosion in confined environments; stranded electrical energy from energized high-voltage battery cells; protracted processes for extinguishing and cooling the reaction; the risk of secondary ignitions following the initial event; difficulties rendering the site safe; the containment of contaminated fire water.

D. HV transmission lines, because of the high voltages in HV Transmission Lines. Fire fighting vehicles have to stay a long distance away and water bombers are not able to be used near HV transmission lines. This leads to wildfires near HV transmission lines being difficult to control
I believe that all project managers and investors should be aware that if wildfires should breakout of their Renewable Energy Projects, they are likely to find themselves responsible for damage bills running into the $billions of compensation.
In order to protect the lives and property of the residents of the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone. I strongly believe the Central-West Orana Transmission Project should definitely not be granted a planning permit or in any way allowed to proceed to construction.

My additional comments are attached

I fully support renewable energy, but strongly believe this projectwill be a huge detriment to the rich agricultural land in our area. You will be destroying generational farm land and the families who make their living from this land.
There has to be a better way to produce renewable energy instead of destroying prime land and creating an apocalyptic type landscape - which goes against everything you are trying to achieve.

I object to the project