Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Project EnergyConnect (NSW - Eastern Section)

Wentworth Shire

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Development of a new transmission line connecting Buronga Substation and Wagga Wagga Substation, and construction of the new Dinawan Substation (170 km west of Wagga Wagga).

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Application (1)

SEARs (1)

EIS (17)

Response to Submissions (10)

Agency Advice (17)

Additional Information (4)

Determination (3)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (20)

Reports (1)

Independent Reviews and Audits (5)

Other Documents (10)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 21 - 40 of 58 submissions
Anna Grimes
Object
LOWER SOUTHGATE , New South Wales
Message
I object please see below my objections and consider my concerns more thoroughly.
1.
I have been investigating the supply of solar power across Australia and the consistent message is that there already exists an oversupply.
2.
Everywhere I look we are having basically the same Planning and Regulation nightmares in regards to Solar Floodgates opening and as a consequence it is negatively impacting our agricultural land, our natural ecosystems, our local towns and social communities in so many ways which I am sure even the basic reading of similar project proposals and material points out highlights and addresses plainly same repetitive issues and shortcomings that in the end are just brushed to one side dealt with by cleaver word manipulation and suggested fixes that are flawed and mostly disingenuous.
3.
National security is being compromised.
The Chinese Communist Party has increased their presence in private companies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), with media reports suggesting they are exercising a growing influence on management.
Source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/new-challenge-communist-corporate-governance
The USA stopped use of Chinese components in critical infrastructure - Executive Order May 2020 - due to the National Security risk posed.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-executive-order-securing-united-states-bulk-power-system
Instead, through this unreliable, inferior solar/wind/battery/Interconnector transition project - Australian Governments are throwing caution to the wind and
Committing us to ever increasing reliance on China & threatening our national security.
Heightened hostilities with China urgently require implementation of a similar executive order for Australia as has happened with the USA.
Name Withheld
Comment
LOCKHART , New South Wales
Message
We own and operate a property in the Lockhart Shire 5Km South of Lockhart which will border the proposed EnegyConnect transmission line. We received a letter from Transgrid stating that our property was in the area of interest corridor for this project but then received no consultation what so ever in regards to where the lines easement may be. After finding out via neighbours that it was to be on their property which borders ours and which is only 800m from our homestead we contacted David Stokes, a Land access Consultant from JLL to meet with us to discuss. He advised we would receive no compensation as the easement would not be on our property although we would be adversely impacted in many ways and would have the Transmission line within 800M of our house and yet would be 1300m from our neighbours who would receive compensation. We are requesting that this section of the Transmission line be moved further North away from our boundary as we can see no reason why it needs to run along our boundary and we would have stated this if we were consulted in the first instance when this section was in the planning phase. Transgrid have, via JLL's consultant David Stokes stated that they may have to review this section of the line, it was originally intended to be just South of the township of Lockhart and was moved further South as it was deemed to close to houses. It has created the same problem with our house and therefore needs to be addressed, especially when there appears to be no valid reason for it not to be loacated further North from our property boundary.
We have also received a letter requesting we acknowledge a proposed easement on a property we lease ( Lease dealing AQ98829 ).This letter was dated 04/02/2022 from Transgrids Aquisition manager Linda Butler, and at this stage we will not be agreeing to the terms of no compensation and fail to understand why an easement would even be required on the property if the transmission line is situated to the west of this property inside the neighbouring farm which is what's proposed.
Please find attached for your reference a copy of our letter to David Stokes of JLL dated 13/09/2021.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
SPRINGVALE , New South Wales
Message
This will impact a large amount of farming land and could cause an increased fire risk. I and many others believe the best solution would be Nuclear power which would be more efficient and less costly. The Riverina and other towns are the "Food Bowls of Australia" with fertile land especially in my area.
I do not support Project energy connect
BALRANALD SHIRE COUNCIL
Comment
BALRANALD , New South Wales
Message
Please see attachment for Council comments in relation to the EnergyConnect proposal
Attachments
John McBratney
Object
Keperra , Queensland
Message
For the attention of the NSW DPIE Planner
OBJECTION TO PROJECT ENERGYCONNECT (NSW - EASTERN SECTION)

Dear Sir,
I wish to lodge with you my sincere and personal extremely strong objection to the building of the Project Energy Connect (Eastern Section) transmission line.
As a professional engineer of many years standing I consider the project a total catastrophe for the rural environment through which it is planned to be built, with scant concern for flora, fauna or indeed the local populous.
The huge towers and associated transmission wires are:
• Ugly and not in keeping with the rural surroundings;
• Transmission line and towers are an eye-sore and they ruin the rural view from local resident’s homes;
• Dangerous for birds;
• Noisy through wind passing through steel structures and over multiple wires;
• Potentially dangerous during heavy storms;
• Destruction of native habitats along the easement;
• Destruction of farming land and native habitats by heavy machinery during construction along the easement and access routes – recovery time could be extensive depending upon the extent of damage, construction workers seldom take care of surrounds;
• Potential danger from electromagnetic radiation. This depends on AC or DC lines and voltage but there is no definitive scientific evidence one way or the other as to the extent of radiation effect nor of the resultant damage or instigation of disease. The risk is not acceptable.
Much of the above could be mitigated by using underground cabling as is done in marine crossings.
Geoff Passfield
Object
HOLMESVILLE , New South Wales
Message
There are many either under the spell of the green agenda or driven by the dollars on offer from our governments in the form of subsidies, who either do not understand or do not care about the real long-term impacts of this project and projects like it. They sit in their inner-city coffee shops sipping their soy lates dreaming up ways to 'save the planet' with seemingly no ability to project their ideologies into a real-world future and understand the consequences. I seriously wonder whether some of them believe that food just comes from the supermarket and that milk comes from a carton. We must protect our agricultural land at all costs. This is the legacy we leave for future generations. It is ridiculous to conceive turning land that has been producing food for generations into inefficient, costly, virtue-signalling wind and solar 'farms'. As major cities have expanded over the years, much land that has produced food for Australians is now just another subdivision. Our national security depends on us being able to produce food here in Australia and not be reliant on imports.
Sally Carn
Object
MILBRULONG , New South Wales
Message
The proposed Energy Connect line will run approximately 300m from the house which I live in with my husband and three children. We live in a beautiful rural area and see ourselves as caretakers of the land we farm. This powerline will not only impact our farm business operations, it will also be a mammoth metal structure which we have to look at every day of our lives. We do not know what impact this poweline will have on our lives - will it be noisy? Will it interfere with our internet or phone reception? Could it affect our health? There are so many unknowns for me as a mother and a business owner, which are concerning. From the start of this engagement process, we feel that Transgrid have not been transparent and upfront about the impacts of both the construction and ongoing impacts of the powerline. Transgrid have changed the goalposts on so many occasions and to our astonishment, still cannot give us a definite design of the towers. It started as a 330kV line and then changed to 500kV - the tower bases started as 8m X 8m, but are now proposed at 26m x 26m!!!
The original compensation offer we received from Transgrid was insulting - this powerline will not only take up important farm land, but it will also affect many aspects of our lives on a daily basis. I feel Transgrid have not placed enough value on the impacted landowers and have treated us as pawns in a game, which can be manipulated to achieve their desired outcomes. We have had little to no say throughout this process - it has been forced on us and if given a choice we would prefer the line did not go through our land. If, as it seems, there is no stopping Energy Connect from going ahead, we would like Transgrid to show us the respect we deserve as important stakeholders in this process.
Beth White
Object
BEN LOMOND , New South Wales
Message
Re: Project 40021 – SSI -9172452 Project Energy Connect (NSW - Eastern Section)
I object to this project on the following grounds:
This EIS is not only voluminous to attempt to read and understand, but also fails to declare the pecuniary interest of the funding source that underpins the tone, direction and value of the contents, therefore compromised from the very beginning.
Projects such as these fail to help our local, regional and national economy. They fail in CO2 reduction, when comprehensive, appropriate calculations are used to account for expended energy in their creation in comparison to their excessive energy in production when considering their diminishing efficiency/effectiveness over their life span.
Subsidised by the Australian taxpayer, these developments enhance the productivity in the country of manufacture. That manufacture must be held to account for by demonstration and provision to demonstrate compliance with the regulations of “The Modern Slavery Act 2018”.
The calculation of CO2 emissions need to be transparent, accounting for freight required to provide raw materials, to move components worldwide, to engage the types of mechanised apparatus required to transport and to set up on site.
The processes by which the licence is considered /granted fails to recognise the value of the best agricultural land given the small percentage of Australia that is actually suited to our most valuable agricultural practices especially for highest quality food production. Along with an Australian propensity to swallow good land for expanding residential commitments, this proposal ignores the potential loss of productive capacity. The project therefore should be denied on these grounds.
The loss of income to the local economy has not been accounted. - The values in the EIS attributed to the value of production from the agricultural land, will have an extended impact not recognised in the comparison with values of a solar farm.
There are small scale combinations of solar wind such as Tri Helix, Vortex Bladeless and Murmur Wall vertical axis systems that I agree have potential but again only with local manufacturing and adequate provision of appropriate disposal / recycling/ recommissioning, without the need to denigrate agricultural and food producing land but not to the detriment of quality agricultural land!
It is imperative to recognise and attempt to account for the pollution of agricultural land. The impact from heavy metals entering the food chain, pulverised glass and uncontrolled weeds, is indelible, unrecognised and has failed to be adequately accounted for.
The EIS makes no provision for either progressive waste management, by way of a surety for local Councils implicated in the waste stream, nor for or end of life restorative or removlal processes. There is no provision for any recycling of any expired components. Local communities and ratepayers are vulnerable to meeting these exorbitant costs for which they achieve no benefit.
The flow on loss in communities of imposed relocation from/within communities, and the relative costs to families have an irreversible effect on all services such as medical, educational as well as every classification of local enterprise, business and service including that provided by the Local Council.
While the construction phase will create employment, evidence from experience reveals that it is rarely local employment that benefits. Observed tendencies indicate that the jobs created are of a high intensity, specialised, temporary nature and are filled by FIFO workers. Not only is the economic loss to the community not responsibly calculated, the lifetime of the employment is misrepresented. Economic loss will continue and be ongoing for the life of the project and beyond as action, contrary to the exodus, are not likely to be immediate.
The proposed projects provide the perfect environment for plant growth. The promises for controlled management, are not modelled in existing structures/facilities that clearly demonstrate the failure of the grazing methodology and therefore stand to contribute to the mounting case against this project's approval.
Definitive research is insufficient to projects of these dimensions to adequately translate to conclusions that underpin the modelling used to determine or demonstrate the impact of the heat island on the locality, its communities of interest, local practices and communities.
I present my belief that the accumulation of these points, substantiate a sound case against the approval of the project:- Project 40021 – SSI -9172452
Yours sincerely,
Val Osborne
Object
GOOVIGEN , Queensland
Message
Project Energy Connect (NSW - Eastern Section) (SSI-9172452) Submission - OBJECTION.
I would like to strongly object to the proposed Project Energy Connect (NSW - Eastern Section) (SSI-9172452) Submission. I am wondering when people will realise that Solar has a lot of disadvantages. When the sun doesn’t shine there is no power generated, which quite often is when the most power is used.
The amount of power used to produce the solar panels and batteries which are then required to store the power is huge. At the end of their life there is an issue with how to dispose of the waste panels and batteries that is required during the solar farms working life.
There is now quite a lot of data to back up the problems with the batteries at Solar farms causing fires. This is another issue that needs to be addressed.
Australia is a huge country with millions of acres of land that can’t be used for agriculture. Why are we not using that?
This solar farm will also impact numerous aboriginal sites. How can this be allowed as once again we have millions of more acres of land.
On these grounds I object.
Jeanine Bird
Object
LEETON , New South Wales
Message
See attachment
Attachments
Richard Carn
Object
MILBRULONG , New South Wales
Message
I own and manage an Agricultural holding affected by the project. It will have a significant impact on the operation and the value of our farm.
I draw your attention to Technical Paper 6 - Social Impact Assessment, in the Energy Connect EIS.
On page XIV, under the heading; Livelihoods, the statement reads '-affected landholeders would receive economic benefit from easement compensation while still being able to utilise land, improving their economic standing and financial resiliance to agricultural shocks such as drought.'
I take issue with this statement on a number of grounds;
1. The compensation will do nothing more than cover lost income or property value as a result of the project, it will not make affected landholders more 'financially resiliant', and as I will discuss later, may put landholders in a worse economic position as a result of the poor way in which Transgrid has handled the valuation process.
2. Anything that affects the value of our Agricultual Holding has a significant impact on our ability to borrow funds from our bank. The capacity to borrow working capital is one of the key factors in making farmers more' resilient to agricultural shocks such as drought'. As this project will have a negative impact the value of our property and that of other affected landholders, and I believe, and will discuss in more detail later, Transgrid are not prepared to provide adequate compensation to offset this , then there will be a negative economic benefit from this project.
3. Transgrid have rushed the land valuation process. They have opted for a 'Desktop Valuation', which I consider inadequate given the affect that this project will have on landholders, and particularly since, for all intense purposes, this is a compulsory aquisition. As Landholders we have been able to engage our own valuer at Transgrid's expense. The problem we now have is that our valuer has done a comprehensive valuation and assessment of our property, with a detailed report but it is very difficult to negotiate given Transgrid have not done what I would consider the required work for such an important matter.

Technical Paper 6 of the EIS, point; 6.7.1.3 Income; It suggests that the 'compensation process may provide an alternate source of income for landholders, improving economic livilihoods and supporting economic well-being.'
We believe the first round of compenstion offered by Transgrid would under no circumstances cover the combined loss of income and land value brought on by this project, and this is supported by our valuation report.

The goal posts seem to be continually changing on this project. We were initially told the line would be 330kv but then it was changed to 500kv with a subsequent increase in the size of the base of the towers.

This experience has had a significant impact on the mental health of those affected landholders. It feels like Transgrid are not empathetic to our circumstances and are simply trying to 'tick all the boxes' and get this project going as quickly as possible. Offering Counselling to affected landholders is a poor substitute to treating them properly in the first instance, and taking there concerns on board as proven by actions!
Peter McCrabb
Object
BOOROORBAN , New South Wales
Message
Submission Attached as PDF
Regards
Peter McCrabb
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Goovigen , Queensland
Message
14th February 2022

Dear Mr Davies.

As a food producer fighting a 5000ac solar plant in Central Queensland I would like to add my objections to what the NSW government is doing to their very rich, safe food producing land. It is inexcusable for any government to be allowing and approving these developments on food producing land that is precious and vital to the future of Australians.
If COVID has not alerted governments to the importance of FOOD SECURITY and SELF SUFFICIENCY, then we do not believe anything will.

Why are you allowing this prime food producing land to be lost to renewable projects when Australia has so much rubbish country they can be built on? And how can this be done in the name of protection of the environment when so much evidence is emerging regarding the toxic effects, wastefulness of resourced and photovoltaic heat island effects of these developments on entire regions?

Why are you allowing these projects to be built in closely settled areas when we have so much open space in other, less valuable areas of the country?

Why are you not learning from overseas problems that have happened and been heavily documented?

Who is going to deal with the mountains of waste these short term developments produce when they expire, keeping in mind that they are too toxic for ordinary landfill? Who will compensate surrounding land holders for contaminated land and water that has run from these sites, and the degraded pastures/crops from the excess heat produced?

How can a government that claims to be looking after the future of its people, be allowing our limited and precious resource - arable land (6% of Australia's landmass) to be jeopardised?

Why are you not protecting from potential contamination our limited precious food producing land for future generations?

Why are you letting foreign entities with undemocratic leaders take control our power grid, and is the public aware of who the parent companies of the 'green' projects are, and that some of the panels are made using unethical/underpaid labour?

I strongly disagree with what you and your other state counterparts are allowing to be built on our most precious (Qld has 2.5% of its land mass ALC A and B soils) . It is so short sighted and irresponsible from governments to let this happen. Where is common sense in all this!

Regards Cedric and Therese Creed
Name Withheld
Object
Leeton , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Olivia Hanel
Object
JINDERA , New South Wales
Message
My objections to Project Energy Connect (NSW-Eastern Section) are as follows.
1. Protecting the areas of agricultural land across NSW should be a priority given the demands both current and futuristic of growing food in a chemical free and safe manner. Agriculture Industry is important to preserve and protect always.
2. Protecting the native bush once again huge areas of our plains and the wildlife and fauna will be lost. The aboriginal sites of 7 scar trees important to preserve.
3. Excessive works of Solar that have been undertaken have shown unacceptable outcomes of screen plantings not being cared for and many landowners being overwhelmed with the necessary research and understanding of the intended projects, not an easy task.
4. The loss of agricultural based jobs under threat in the area, grazing of sheep also not always an option due to constraints of having towers and glass panels.
5. Extremely worried about the future problems with dealing with the State Grid of Corporation of China the major owner of ElectraNet, why are we going down this track?
Name Withheld
Object
Morundah , New South Wales
Message
The EnergyConnect project will significantly impact many at risk flora and fauna species, including the critically endangered Plains Wanderer, and should be scrapped.
For more than 50 years my parents have owned a station on the Riverina plains.
Transgrid are currently trying to compulsorily acquire part of the property for the EnergyConnect project.
The property forms part of the state’s most important habitat for the Plains Wanderer, which has highly specific habitat preferences for grassland structure due to their inability to navigate through dense grassland habitats.
According to the documents on public display the Plains Wanderer population has already dropped from 3,000 to just 600 in recent years. How many more birds are we willing to sacrifice?
Who knows what impact the ground disturbance during construction and the ongoing permanent infrastructure footprint, including nearby solar farm, will have on this at risk population?
Not to mention the other threatened ecological communities (6), fauna (81) and flora (45) species potentially impacted by the whole project.
Transgrid’s mitigation plan appears to be nothing more than hoping for the best, buying some biodiversity credits and making a payment into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund.
Plus the benefits of the EnergyConnect project are negligible.
The project promises reliable and cleaner energy, lower power bills and new jobs in the region.
But can they guarantee fewer power outages? Lower energy bills? That the project will genuinely encourage future renewable energy providers to invest in lower emission electrical generation alternatives? And how many jobs will stay in the region once the initial works are complete?
All that appears guaranteed is the disturbance of unique habitat for these critically endangered birds and more than 100 other threatened species.
To ensure the survival of irreplaceable ecosystems the whole project should be blocked by the state government, or at the very least re-designed to actually avoid and therefore protect endangered species.
FEDERATION COUNCIL
Comment
Corowa , New South Wales
Message
Impact on Road Infrastructure - the EIS and Technical report 11 - Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment
Council officers have reviewed the report and have a number of concerns regarding the likely impacts and a number of the assumptions that have been made or detail that is missing from the report:
There is no detail on the source location of the construction materials. This will impact on the haulage routes through all affected Local Government Areas. Given the mapping within the EIS Federation Council has assumed that the materials will be transported to the development sites from Melbourne or Adelaide.
Council object to a number of the road being utilised as primary haulage routes without significant upgrade, most notably Back Berrigan Road.
Further consultation for the Secondary haulage routes is also required as a number of the road identified will require significant upgrades to permit heavy vehicles usage over the construction period as a number of the identified road are only utilised by local traffic except during harvest period.
Road closures are briefly outlined in the EIS, however there is no detail regarding the timing or the roads that will be impacted. It is requested that no road be closed during the peak harvest period of October – December within the Federation Council area. This is a key economic period for Federation Council.

Potable Water Supply
The EIS outlined the potable water requirements for the overall project. There are concerns for Federation Council residents in Boree Creek and Urana and the ability for the Water Authority (Riverina Water) to provide potable water to the project and the 2 villages, especially during peak periods of demand, i.e. over summer months. It’s noted that the EIS states that water supply negotiations are yet to be finalised. Council would like assurance that there will be adequate potable water supply throughout the construction period for the residents and businesses.

Waste Management
Federation Council request that a waste Management Strategy and Plan be prepared for the overall proposal and all potential streams of waste, including the proposed locations for disposal, i.e. nearest licenced landfill or unlicensed landfill. This will provide the impacted Council’s with a better understanding on the impact the waste from the construction phase of the development will have on the life of the impacted landfills.

Construction Compound and Accommodation Camp Site.
There is no information regarding the decommissioning of the Construction Compound and Accommodation Camp sites. Additional information is required to ensure that affected sites can be developed in the future.
Adrian Batterby
Object
PYMBLE , New South Wales
Message
Please see the attachment entitled "Objection"
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Morven , New South Wales
Message
Dear Ian,

Please accept this as a submission opposing the Project Energy Connect.( NSW-Eastern Section) (SSI 9172452). It is not so much a direct opposition to the line but the ramifications it will cause.
My main objection is that a great swathe of arable and even irrigation land is already covered with solar absorbers in what I term are Solar Industrial Complexes or S.I.C’s. I believe there are another 95 applications for these complexes that have been forwarded for consideration.
In this submission I will not go into the many objections I have, because given the approvals granted to these complexes by N.S.W. State Government authorities, it is a waste of time. This is despite
the many valid objections that have been submitted by others.
In a nation that has only 6% arable land available compared for example to The U.S.A. 16.50% with a similar land mass, I believe that Australia cannot afford the largesse of allowing a proliferation of S.I.C’s on valuable productive or potentially productive farming land.
The availability of the transmission line being proposed between Wagga Wagga and the South Australian Border, supported by taxpayer money, will bring a multitude of applications for S.I.C’s many of which will be located on arable land.
Belatedly the N.S.W. Government has announced that the consideration of the use of potentially productive farming land and the objection of neighbours will be taken into account when approving S.I.C’s. This is a very welcome introduction, although given past history I don’t place much store in it.

Thankyou for your consideration brief as it is, of my objection.

Sincerely
Arthur osborne
Object
GOOVIGEN , Queensland
Message
All of these renewable energy projects are going ahead without due thought or consolation with all the affected land owners. Australia only has a limited area of good food producing land and the solar sector seems to grabbing a lot of this type of land. There is alot more less productive land that could be used for solar . Large battery banks that are being used in conjunction with solar is another issue. 1.Fire .Contamination of surounding area when there is a fire. 2. The use of so called dirty power (coal fired power) to recharge the battery bank during the night so solar isn't all clean energy. Solar panels arn't allowed in landfill because of chemical makeup so if panels are destroyed due to fire or storm there is a good possibilty of contaminated water run off will affect the surrounding land and make it unusable for primary production. Solar farms have the effect of devalueing the sourround properties. 4. Solar panels will change the hydrology of the area . So I think a low more thought and planning on behalf of all the Govenment and semi Govenment body needs to happen before any solar or wind company gets the tick of approval to start projects.Not against solar or wind but against their locations.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-9172452
EPBC ID Number
2020/8766
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Electricity supply
Local Government Areas
Wentworth Shire
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister

Contact Planner

Name
Iwan Davies