Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

This is not an industrial area. The land is zoned agricultural.
Income - certain there isn't a business around that would happily sacrifice its income "for the greater good". Taking prime agricultural land along with the change in visual aspect and ability to use your land affects and effects the whole enterprise not just that piece of land that the project reports as being lost to income production
Roads -Our roads will require serious upgrades to handle the amount of construction traffic.
Water - Where will the water come from for both the improvement and construction of these roads as well as the construction of the Towers? Water is a prized and scarce commodity in this area and suddenly these industrial projects will be taking water from either town supplies or artesian bores. Many properties in the area have already experienced what happens when irrigators come and strike in the same underground flow. Water levels drop and in some cases bores run dry. Not great when you rely on the bore to water livestock.
Fire - where is the help coming from in the event of another huge fire like Sir Ivan? Is it only the locals who will be defending against this? Will the project be required to have more than a tank on the premises of the camps in case of a catastrophic event and the requisite experienced/trained firefighters on hand?

The EnergyCo EIS for the CWO REZ transmission project will have enormous negative impacts on the land in the Central West Orana region. The transmission project will enable and encourage rampant development across this beautiful region. These districts are well known for their scenic rural and natural landscapes. The pictures in the EIS of huge transmission towers cutting through people's homes is awful. This is bad enough, but adding hundreds of giant wind turbines and vast solar arrays will transform this scenic region into a disturbing industrial zone. None of us knew we were in a REZ and don't seem to have had any say. Would the people who have pushed this on us be prepared to transform their own homes with such overbearing industrial development?

I am also very worried about the damage that will be done to the biodiversity of the region. I understand there are many endangered flora and fauna in the region and this needs to be preserved, not bulldozed away. Any critically endangered species must be protected, not destroyed and traded away for bio-credits.

The RURAL LANDSCAPE and AMENITY is in the process of being totally destroyed /RAPED by the rollout of renewables . Those people living in suburbia wouldn't want THEIR views and amenity spoiled ,, and rural - living people ALSO don't want theirs ruined .

Please find attached my objection to the CWO REZ transmission project

I live in the proposed REZ vicinity and object to the project for the following reasons. I lease a property on Merotherie Road for a farming business and the proposed REZ will greatly impact this, as well as turning our homes and farms into an industrial area which is not wanted.
The increase in traffic - Roads are currently used to move livestock to and from country that we lease on the other side of the Golden Highway. The bridge over the Talbragar river is often the only point to cross livestock when the river is running and is vital for getting stock safely off the flood plain.
Moving stock along Merotherie Road also allows them to graze the road side which greatly reduces the fuel load , helping with fire risk and creating a fire break.
There has been talk of upgrading Merotherie Road to make it an all weather road. Any raising of the road will greatly change the natural water flow over the flood plain.
Our children (and many others) often help us move stock on horses, their safety will be compromised with the increase in traffic.
60-70 vehicle movements an hour is crazy for a road that would be lucky to get that in a week.

There are a number of reasons for my objection to this project. The project along with other projects in planning are too big for a small community to be accountable for.
My main concerns are:
Workers camps - The 2 camps of 600 people and 1200 people are only for this project. This number alone is larger than our town of Dunedoo. It is not reasonable to expect property owners to suddenly be surrounded by a whole new city. I do not feel safe with this many people next door to me, hidden away from view. Consideration needs to be given to all the other projects and how many workers there will be cumulatively and where these people will live. These camps need to have highway frontage at least, for some incidental surveillance of workers. The number of people in these camps will greatly exceed the serviceability of our supermarkets so it would be assumed that food will be brought in for workers and our town will not benefit in any way from this. It is stated that workers will need to abide by a driver code of conduct, but this is not included in the EIS. We also do not have the infrastructure for water (both potable and waste). Our councils don't have the capability to deal with this.

My other main concern is traffic -
We use these small, dirt, country roads to get our stock in and out for sales, for grain deliveries/sales, and for hay cartage, as well as large farm machinery like headers, balers and tractors. On page 13 of the EIS it states that "the impact of the predicted increase to traffic volumes generated during construction to the roads network capacity and efficiency are minor", and that "the impacts on road condition are likely to be minor given the minor increase of heavy vehicle movements attributed to the project" I don't understand how this can be when it also states that there will be "40 light traffic movements and hour and 30 Heavy Vehicle movements an hour" - how can more than 1 vehicle a minute not impact our businesses and roads?
In section 2.2.6 it states that a NSW Class 1 Load Carrying Combination (Hunter Region), that the National Heavy Vehicle Register has already issued an exemption notice to support the oversize, overmass vehicle movements there, why can't the project stay closer to the cities and utilise these. The roads intended for use in this project are not approved for RAV or OSOM and doing so would turn our productive farming country into an industrial wasteland.
In the EIS it states that Birkalla Road, Merotherie Road and Birriwa Bus Route South are all classed as 2 directional - one lane in each direction, 100km speed limit roads. Has anyone actually looked at these? I drive all three of these roads daily, if a school bus, ute or truck is coming then one of us has to pull over to let the other one pass. I do not drive over 70km an hour on these roads. They are narrow and unsealed, and also are not very straight, which would need consideration if wind turbine blades are to be trucked in any of these roads. The upgrade on roads alone needed would be phenomenal.
There is mention of upgrading 7km of Merotherie Road to facilitate OSOM traffic (what about the rest of the roads?) This 7 km borders a property we lease for our farming business - what effect will construction of this have on our fencelines, stock movements, water drainage over the floodplain that is there? How often will this construction period result in my being held up for my commute to work?
I think the whole REZ is in the wrong place, it needs to be closer to cities who will utilise the power generated. We do not want this industrialisation of our farms and the division of our community

I object to wind farms for many reason. The environmental impact is of serious concern to myself a sI do not believe the infrastructure supports healthy environments and the destruction required to implement the wind farm, let alone maintain and upkeep is not environmentally healthy.
I also do not believe the project is going to positively impact our community. The negative effects will outweigh any short term positives of localised jobs.
Solar and wind farms are not the way to a more sustainable future and I absolutely object to this project going forward.

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing this letter in objection to all the renewable infrastructure that has been build and proposed to be built. I have done quite a bit of research into other countries that are 20 to 30 years in front of where Australia is in regards to Wind turbines and sola farms. It seems obvious to me that this has been an enormous failure in these countries. With the high cost to the consumers and the destruction of the environment in the name of saving the environment. Why has not Australia learnt from these failures. There simple isn't enouth resources to build the amount of infrastructure required, let alone the mining and processing need. The country would look like a spiders web, with all the extra electricity wires need to run and distribute this type of net work. Please the green washing needs to stop and common sense needs to prevail.
Warm Regards
Phillip Cook

please see attached letter

Edify Energy is a proudly 100% Australian owned renewable energy and storage company with a head office located in Manly, New South Wales. Edify is funding and developing a large portfolio of renewable energy and storage projects and is committed to producing clean green electricity solutions for New South Wales and Australian electricity consumers.

Edify has been aware of the CWO REZ Transmission Project for a number of years, recognising CWO REZ as the priority zone for developing renewable energy projects within NSW. In recognition of this zone’s priority, Edify seeks to establish a State Significant Development, the Ulan Solar Farm: SSD-46406974, which has a generation capacity of 50MWac solar PV + 50MW/200MWh Battery ESS.

Edify's submission seeks to reiterate its interest in the related land, in addition to the ongoing development efforts to establish the Ulan Solar Farm. This has been conveyed to various representatives of EnergyCo on numerous occasions since 2022. However, EnergyCo's CWO REZ Transmission easement plans have omitted any consideration towards Edify’s interest in the related land. Unfortunately, it appears that EnergyCo’s planning efforts have not considered any cumulative impacts that may arise towards Edify’s Ulan Solar Farm (Section 20 of this EIS).

To highlight the sequencing of events between Edify’s Ulan Solar Farm and EnergyCo’s CWO REZ Transmission Line developments:

- 29th October 2021: Edify entered an Option to Lease Deed for Lot 35, 103/DP750746 and Lot 100 DP/1268121.
- 11th November 2021: Edify completed the 'Case Management Expression of Interest' for renewable energy generators that were located within the CWO REZ, via the Investment NSW Concierge. Edify was encouraged to complete this registration by NSW Dept. of Planning and Environment and EnergyCo.
- 28th January 2022: Edify lodged caveats on above Lots [these caveats have been overlooked by EnergyCo planning team]
- 15th February 2022: Edify entered an Option to Purchase Deed for Lot 84/DP704060
- 15th March 2022: Edify engaged consultants to prepare the Preliminary Ecological Assessment report, which forms part of the Ulan Solar Farm's Scoping Report.
- 18th July 2022: Edify lodged the Ulan SF's Scoping Report with NSW DPE.
- 25th July 2022: Edify engaged consultants to prepare the Traffic Impact Assessment report, which forms part of the Ulan SF EIS.
- August 2022: Edify engaged consultants to prepare the BDAR surveys and report, which forms part of the Ulan SF EIS.
- 5th September 2022: Edify engaged with EnergyCo, seeking advice to determine "if the transmission easement route is to be located north or south of the existing transmission lines?". No response from EnergyCo was provided to Edify's enquiry.
- September 2022: EnergyCo lodged the Scoping Report for the 500kV transmission proposal with NSW DPE. This Scoping Report made no reference to Edify's SSD-46406974. This omission was highlighted to representatives from EnergyCo, as the Scoping Report did include various other SSD projects in Table 6-4.
- September 2022: EnergyCo commenced engaging with Edify, following Edify's project manager establishing contact to highlight the omission of the Ulan Solar Farm from EnergyCo's Scoping Report.
- 30th November 2022: Edify engaged consultants to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement (Planning Application)
- 5th December 2022: Marco Rubbo (EnergyCo) provided Edify's landholder with an email, including a detailed design map (Attachment 1), prepared by AECOM (dated 12th May 2022). Edify's landholder immediately shared the design map with Edify's project manager. At this time, no details had been provided to Edify from EnergyCo, regarding the easement's intended route. In addition, the AECOM design material was not provided via EnergyCo's website or other public-facing material.
- 15th December 2022: Edify commenced Aboriginal Cultural and Heritage Assessment Report surveys, with fieldwork attended by various Registered Aboriginal Parties.
- 14th January 2023: Edify paused development efforts on Ulan Solar Farm, following advice from EnergyCo that the 500kV easement route was "not able to be changed to be changed at this time". No supporting information was provided by EnergyCo regarding why no changes to the easement could be made.
- September 2023: EnergyCo lodged the EIS, making no reference to the Ulan Solar Farm. This is despite the Scoping Report advising that all cumulative impacts to SSD projects would be investigated in the EIS.
- 5th October 2023: Edify provided email to EnergyCo, querying why Ulan SF was omitted from the CWO REZ EIS.
- 17th October 2023: EnergyCo responded to Edify's email, advising that the Ulan Solar Farm "was not included as it had not progressed to a stage where the EIS was publicly exhibited, and it was not deemed to be a related development. If an EIS had been prepared it would have been incorporated".
- 17th October 2023: Edify responded to EnergyCo's email, highlighting that EnergyCo's EIS Section 20 included five (5) SSD projects that had also not yet lodged EIS documents (i.e. same status as Ulan Solar Farm).

Following EnergyCo's own justification and definition of a "related development" (mail from 17th October 2023), Edify continues to seek clarification from EnergyCo as to why the Ulan Solar Farm has been omitted from the easement route plans for the 500kV CWO REZ Transmission Line.

Should the easement route not be altered, Edify estimates that approximately 35% of the Ulan Solar Farm’s intended development footprint will be impacted by the easement, undermining the requisite scale and economic viability to establish the Ulan Solar Farm as intended.

Edify requests EnergyCo provide justification for omitting Edify's State Significant Development when planning the 500kV easement route. Edify has made representations to EnergyCo on 14th December 2022, encouraging a minor adjustment to the easement path, so that Ulan Solar Farm and CWO REZ Transmission could co-exist. Unfortunately, the EIS does not make any reference to this consideration and has ignored the potential for both projects to proceed.

This will kill our environment, destroy the heritage, wildlife and agriculture.
I am totally against any such development

Dont kill our district by covering it in high voltage transmission lines and towers and I don't want the area to be turned into an industrial landscape of wind turbines on the hills, fields of solar panels, battery storage and the associated environmental costs is enough!
stop the destruction

Council objects to the Proposal

As a landowner at Cassilis who will be significantly impacted by the Energy Co powerlines I would like to bring to your attention the lack of personal consultation during the whole process. I feel the communication between the project managers and us as landowners has been very inadequate. The unwillingness to work with landowners to optimise design has been minimal.
The visual montage in the EIS for the Tangarratta substation is not accurate.
The proposed direction as to which the traffic will be travelling through Cassilis and up past the school should not be allowed. The safety of the students and the residents of Cassilis should be a high priority and with the number of cars or heavy vehicles on the road it will be very unsafe.
Thank you for your time and considering my concerns Sophie Soster

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached