Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

If you must continue with the lies of "clean" energy put your REZ in the middle of Australia where no one will be affected.
Residents & landholders of Turill & neighbouring areas do not want to be affected by being in your REZ.
How ironic is it that Ulan with its x3 coal mines exporting all their coal to China to make the Chinese made solar panels, wind turbines, transformers, steel, copper, precious metals - all non recyclable & a not too distant "white elephant".
All this government spending contributes to higher costs of goods & services due to inflation of the money supply by the government adding to the deficit to pursue the lie of "green energy" & "renewables". There is no "downward pressure" on power prices! Overpaid consultants, contractors, government bureaucrats & ministers getting rich off one of the biggest lies in history.

We object to the Central-West Orana REZ Transmission Project EIS. We live at 678 Birriwa Bus Route North.

The EIS does not adequately address the impacts of the project on us as neighbours to the Merotherie Energy Hub and Workforce Accommodation Camp and our main concerns are as follows:

-Noise at our dwelling will be audible during construction.
-We are concerned about security with over 1000 workers several kilometres from our house and using our roads. Security will not adequately monitor every worker and their whereabouts. We do not currently have lockable gates and sheds.
-The wind will cause dust to be blown in our direction during construction and the increased number of light and heavy vehicles using our dirt road will increase that dust dramatically.
-Road noise will increase given the huge amount of light and heavy vehicles using our roads.
-We are concerned about the fire risk from the substation. We do not believe that the fire mitigation is plan is adequate.
-Land valuations will be negatively affected considering our proximity to the hub.
-We currently use the Birriwa Bus Routes for stock movement and we have a permit to use the roads for stock feed. Will we be able to continue using our permit and how are we to move stock without internal lane ways? We do not believe this should be a cost that we incur.
-The predicted number of vehicles using the roads is a vast increase to the current numbers and the road barely withstands its current usage. The road use will create a huge amount of noise and dust, especially from the heavy vehicles and this will add to the issues we will experience with noise & dust from construction. The condition of the road is not suitable for this increase.
-We have not been offered any compensation or mitigation for the impacts the project will have on our land and home. Communication from Energy Co has been very disappointing. The negative affect that this project will have on us and our business is vast and we are saddened by the changes that this project will have on our community and way of life.

We request the Proponent be directed to provide us and all other affected residents with adequate compensation and mitigation for the impacts of the project.

See attached

See attached

See attached

High EMF readings directly correlates with higher occurrence of childhood leukaemia.
As such, I do not consent to my family living within a modern day ‘power station’ supported by EnergyCo’s transmission infrastructure with associated increases in EMF, infrasound and increased risk of bushfire in an area that is already highly bushfire prone.
EnergyCo, Government and individuals will be held legally accountable for adverse health impacts from the influx of energy generating developments surrounding our homes and businesses. It will follow a similar legal scenario as the PFAS debacle that has devastated communities.
We do not consent.
We were not notified nor consulted when the Electricity Infrastructure Investment Bill 2020 was effectively snuck through NSW Parliament when we were all preoccupied with surviving the Covid Pandemic. This is clear evidence of lack of consultation when establishing the CWO REZ and renders the BILL and this EIS public exhibition invalid.
You must go back and notify and consult on the Bill.
EnergyCo is not welcome on properties in the Central West., EnergyCo has no social licence.
Pushing this through like a bulldozer will result in civil unrest and anarchy!
Lock the Gate!

Myself and my wife live in Ancrum Street, Cassilis. NSW. 2329. We have resided in this quiet rural village for the past eight years. The total attraction to this town , with little to no services, is the peace and quiet. We accept the fact that we have no fuel station, no town sewer, unacceptable roads and very limited infrastructure but we for go all these services so we can live with peace and serenity,

The suggestion of allowing traffic to use Ancrum Street for the construction of this project is absurd. This road and the houses on this street were designed for a quiet small town area where only local residents would enter the street to access their appropriate dwelling. It was certainly not designed or intended for any purpose other than the minimal amount of traffic that local residents create.

We have been informed that this project will add up to an additional 20 heavy vehicles an hour. That is one every 3 minutes which is totally inappropriate and unacceptable for this small Street. Then there is the fact that at the top of Ancrum Street we have our local school. Again another quaint, quiet location in a picturesque area of town. This will no longer be a quiet location for our future generations to commence their learning as they will now be on a busy thoroughfare which will no just interfere with the peaceful learning environment but will impact on the safety of all those who attend the school due to the large increase in traffic.

To allow the township of Cassilis to be a thoroughfare for construction traffic will change the whole social fabric of this small community. We were designated a village by council and this town has several sites of historical significance to our local community. It is not a town that is designed for significant traffic or population increase. The peace, tranquility and strong community bonds is what this township offers to residents and this is why people choose to live here. This project will directly impact the social structure and local culture of this peaceful village. Your impacts will ruin what has been recognised and maintained over several generations. It would be totally inappropriate and a tragedy to change this village in anyway as places like Cassilis a very hard to find.

The roads and houses in this village are built predominantly on black soil which is infamously unstable to build on. Your massive increase in traffic will cause substantial damage to current road surfaces and large scale maintenance would be required to roads just to keep them in a stable state. This maintenance would further impact local residence with noise, vibration, dust and reduced road availability whilst maintenance was undertaken, This vibration could also cause stability problems with current structures who coexist on this soil.

Whilst most people understand the future needs for renewable energy and the reality of these projects coming to fruition, I am sure these projects were not intended to exist at the expense of destroying or majorly altering the social fabric of small communities neighbouring these projects. I believe a major rethink of traffic, noise, dust, light and other impacts have not been properly addressed. At no stage does our small township or community warrant be majorly impacted by this or any other project.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Hello,
I am writing on behalf of my parents, Ken and Sandra Mayberry of 'Glenwarri', 6293 Ulan Road, Mudgee 2850, as well as myself (Sally Mayberry).
We would like to provide context for our objection.
Our family is from Moolarben. We have lived there for generations. Recently a coal mine was approved (despite our vehement objections, including having NSW State Legislation successfully amended to ensure that the coal mining was more important than agricultural land - much to our chagrin).
The mining company started small, and was bought out and bought out, until our years of relationship building and purposeful (on their part) handshake agreements were forgotten, and we became the annoying landholder that slowed progress of mining coal for international (not Australian) benefit.
We worked as best we could with the companies that acquired our property. We did not want to sell.
Eventually as coal prices increased, the mine progressed and our agreement to live on the property while the mining was not too close could not longer be withheld.
We spent more than 11 years trying to find somewhere to move to. Somewhere that retained our position in the local community - our friends, our family and everything we know. Somewhere that had the carrying capacity to support the animals that my parents, and their parents genetically bred to be some of the best merino sheep and Angus cattle in the region.
Alas, money cannot buy everything and we ended up having to move to somewhere that was not suitable. Our farming operation became disjunct and was absolutely an afterthought for the mining company that we reported to. Our lambing seasons were interrupted with 'well meaning' visitors who would walk through paddocks while lambs were dropping. Our shearing shed was cut off from the main portion of the property, with no alternate option provided (despite this being part of the original agreement with the first mining company), except being advised by a mine representative dedicated to working with us that we should ‘reconsider our business enterprise’.
We now run our farming operation, which supported four generations of us, from Moolarben (around the mine) as well as a smaller and less arable property at Turill.
As we were moving from one property to another, Ken was diagnosed with Squamous Cell cancer that required radiation therapy, multiple surgeries and eventually regular (every 3 weeks) trips to Sydney for immunotherapy.
After trialling a move to a property on a main road, we sold up and shifted to Glenwarri, Turill. Turill provided us with the peace and opportunity for a fresh start. It was by no means a replacement for Moolarben, but we had long accepted that there was no such replacement in existence.
The outlook of Glenwarri was the highlight. Sitting on the deck and looking out onto the hills, even after the Sir Ivan bushfire (twice) ravaged the place, we felt a peace that we hadn't had for many years. The outlook holds dear memories for Sandra, of her late brother Wayne.
The visual impact of a great big powerline cutting through the property will be a constant reminder for us that we don’t actually have any say on what belongs to us. And that’s without even stating how plain ugly it will be.
The present alignment of the powerline has significant visual impact from our house. The alternative alignment that has been presented to us recently is a minor amendment in the grand scheme of things, however it does minimise the direct impact on us. We appreciate the effort gone to proposing this amendment, and despite our opposition to the concept in the first instance, definitely prefer the amended powerline location. We would be very grateful for the amendment to go ahead.
Ken would like to share his frustration with an overline powerline – and would instead prefer an underground powerline.
The impact on potential subdivision is subjective, however pretty obvious. Buying a peaceful block with a dirty great big power line straight through it would be much less salable than a peaceful block without a dirty great big powerline straight through it. This concept is considered in the valuation that’s undertaken (which has been a reasonably straight forward and well-communicated process), however we don’t feel like it really does take it properly into consideration.
Finally, I do wonder – at the extent of my personal wellbeing – where your steak comes from? Where your lamb chops are grown? Where your wool socks are grown?
They’re not grown under a coal mine, or by a farmer who has given up primary production as a viable way to support their family because they’re such an afterthought that they can no longer viably plan ahead.
Having been forcibly impacted by two different energy concepts, as a farmer I wonder where my livelihood stands in the hierarchy of importance. I provide food and fibre to Australians; must I also provide the land to create and transport energy at my detriment?
We know for sure that farming is less important than coal mining; it’s legislated now.
Linear infrastructure, and energy are both imperative to the growth and development of Australia. We are happy recipients of a continuous supply of electricity, internet, gas and diesel.
What we are not, are happy farmers who feel safe and supported by the NSW and Australian governments.

I strongly object to the Central-West Orana REZ Transmission. I don't like what the visual impact will be with high voltage transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines everywhere I drive. I'm very concerned about what the impact will be to landholders and the stress it will bring to them. Also what will the impact be to those neighbouring properties. I'm finding it hard enough now to get a Doctor's appointment, what will it be like with hundreds more workers in our region? The roads are already damaged due to recent wet weather, what is the impact of heavy vehicles going to be on these already damaged roads?

The fact that during Covid we were rezoned to that of a ‘Renewable Energy Zone’ with no community consultation, simply shows that the odds are stacked against us and that exercises like this are simply box-ticking procedures in order to make it look as though some thought has been put to rural communities; aka, let’s make the peasants think they have a ‘say’.

I am a generational farmer and my family have been farming my property for close to 100 years, so the emotional connection I hold to my property and community is significant.

I am a landowner who has been approached by several developers over the last few years to host renewable energy infrastructure. It is disappointing that our governments are not doing a single thing to stop this process; in fact, they started it. Why is it that primary producing agricultural land is allowed to be destroyed in the name of unreliable energy? The world is experiencing significant uncertainty and unrest regarding wars in both Europe and the Middle-East, and as a matter of absolute urgency, the Australian government should be ensuring our nation’s food sources are secure. Australia’s primary producing agricultural land should be off limits to anything other than productive farming practices.

The mental load these projects are putting on those within “REZ” communities is excessive. As a business owner, the expectations that we need to fight for our land – land we own – all whilst running and operating our businesses seems extreme and simply unjust. With business and life commitments, it is hard for us to find capacity to fight for what we own. We simply should not have to do this, yet here were are. Proof that the Australian government holds rural Australia in contempt. I do not want my children and their children, and my future generations shaking their heads at the poor decision making that is currently in place by EnergyCo and our governments.

I do not think it is fair that our landscape will be changed from its current beautiful standard to that of an industrial complex. The proposed structures by EnergyCo (and future renewable structures) are of permanent nature and will do no justice to our amenities. The only thing they will do is ruin what we have, our businesses, our homes, our communities, and our ways of life. Our communities do not want to be surrounded by high-voltage transmission towers, industrial wind turbine factories, and related industrial solar factory set-ups.

I do not think it is fair that rural Australian communities will forever be exposed to EMF/magnetic fields due to EnergyCo’s project and renewable energy infrastructure. Nor do I think it is fair that our livestock and wildlife are exposed to these risks. Do those at EnergyCo realise that we still need to work (and live) around these high-voltage power lines? Do those at EnergyCo realise that our livestock still need to graze around and under these power lines? What safety measures are in place to protect us from EMF/magnetic fields? The last thing I want is for my children to develop cancers or have fertility issues later in life because of proximity to renewable energy infrastructure and high-voltage transmission infrastructure (be it on our property or while visiting other properties, or simply having been forced to live within a modern-day power station).

I do not think it is fair that due to EnergyCo’s project and renewable energy infrastructure, we will be significantly more exposed to fire risks. When fires do occur, we will be left to fend for ourselves within an inferno as the RFS indicate to landowners that we are not allowed to help our neighbours. According to the RFS, we must wait for the aviation water bombers to come and save the day. However, the question I raise to EnergyCo is: how will such firefighting measures work around transmission towers and industrial wind turbines? Will they be able to fly amongst these structures scattered all over our paddocks and landscapes? How will EnergyCo guarantee our safety during such catastrophic events?

I do not think it is fair that because of EnergyCo’s project and future renewable energy infrastructure, our properties will be significantly devalued. The minimal compensation that the government is offering us is nothing but a slap in the face. An insult.

I do not think it is fair that due to EnergyCo’s project and future renewable energy infrastructure we will be exposed to biosecurity risks. These exposure risks are not just limited to construction, but that of on-going maintenance as well. The fear of disease, contamination, and spread of weeds is a constant concern in the minds of farmers. The added footprints and traffic through our properties will only add to the concern. What procedures will EnergyCo have in place to ensure we are not at risk for the lifetime of the project?

Water is of concern. What will EnergyCo do when we hit future droughts during construction periods? Water is an absolute necessity for farming operations, and farmers’ access to water should not be put under threat. Perhaps EnergyCo can install tanks at required transmission sites and wait for their catchments to fill up before their project starts – similar to how many farmers have to wait for rain in order to operate.

All the companies who have approached us to host infrastructure have foreign ownership. How is this allowed to happen? How are foreign owners allowed to come in and control Australia’s energy supply? As a matter of national security this should not be allowed to happen. Why are profits going back to international companies? Why are international companies obtaining subsidies from the Australian government in order to develop the renewable infrastructure here? Again, in the importance of national security, this practice should be stopped.

Public State significant projects should simply be built on public land. Private landowners in rural NSW should not have to take one for the entirety of NSW and have our land cut up and destroyed because of poorly planned projects. If this is not practical, then proper compensation needs to be offered to the effected property landowners and communities involved whose livelihoods and homes are being changed and, in some cases, destroyed.

Really, what worth do rural Australians have?

However, if you want to come in and change our land use, then you need to buy the land you are wanting to develop. And buy at a premium. EnergyCo/government/developers simply cannot expect land holders to give up the rights to their properties, that they have invested a great deal of both money and time into developing their businesses and livelihoods. But like anything in a capitalist society, you need to offer attractive deals to purchase land from existing landholders. Once you own the land, you can do what you want. To forcibly acquire land is simply un-Australian. The games EnergyCo and developers are playing here would never be accepted in the cities. Why then should rural NSW have to put up with it.

I reserve the right to add to my submission at a later date.

I strongly object to the Central-West Orana REZ Transmission. I was born and bred around Gulgong and Dunedoo and I don't want to see good arable farming lost to these projects. I don't want to see high voltage transmission lines everywhere I drive. I don't want to see a sea of solar panels as far as the eye can see and I don't want to see wind turbines on every hill. I'm disgusted with the way landholders are being treated, being told where these power lines are going with no consultation (or if there is consultation they are not being listened to) and in a lot of cases they are going way too close to dwellings. The approach being used is "my way or the highway"!! Why can't they use a softer approach, they might actually get somewhere then. The land acquisition makes me feel sick to my stomach. How would you like to be told that the Government is "acquiring" your land/house and there is nothing you can do about it? The disruption to the region is going to be intense. How will these heavy trucks affect our already damaged roads? Where is the water going to come from for these worker camps? Where will the waste be taken to?

I object to EnergyCo’s project due to the below reasons:
- Destruction of habitats for wedge-tailed eagles.
- Destruction of habitats for koalas.
- Destruction of much-needed trees for livestock’s shade purposes.
- Destruction of trees such as Kurrajongs. These trees play an important role in livestock sustainability during droughts.
- Destruction of our beautiful rural landscapes. These will be littered with industrial renewable infrastructure, and something we can never recover from.
- Too much land will be needed to be cleared for construction and easements. This will impact local livestock and wildlife.
- The workforce camps will cause considerable damage to local environments and landscapes.
- There are not enough fire-fighting facilities available to assist should fires break out at worksites or in workcamps. We do not have enough local water to supply for firefighting purposes.

I object to the Central West Orana REZ transmission due to the following points;
- insufficient community consultation
- the EIS is an overwhelming document, with limited time and resources placed on individuals to review
- missing and inaccurate information within the EIS
- the EIS is incomplete with 28 documents missing
- the accumulative effect of so many renewable energy projects on such a small community. How will we cope with increased demand on services like healthcare, emergency services, Rural Fire Service, SES, especially those run by volunteers.
- the accumulative impact on our roads from so many projects
- the impact on prime agricultural land
- the strain on the mental health of so many
- the demand on water supply
- insufficient research in to flood prone areas
- how will the projects ensure that when decommissioned the correct process will take place for removal and regeneration of land
- the visual impact of landscapes and views
- the impact on agricultural practices, during construction, once established and following decommission
- the emotional impact placed on families who may decide to leave the community
- no transparency for stage 2 and beyond for the project
- no empathy or understanding shown for a people who choose and enjoy to live within a small rural farming community
- no real understanding of the accumulative impact such a project and several projects of its magnitude will have on the day to day lives of individuals, families and the community
- impact on flora and fauna in such are large area. Surely this will have a significant impact if all proposed projects for the area take place

My objection to this project is attached.