Project EnergyConnect (NSW - Eastern Section)

1. The EIS documents are extremely lengthy and it is unreasonable to expect a primary producer who is working long hours trying to run their farm to be able to read all the information and digest it and make a detailed submission. We were given a Community Guide document to make it easier but it doesn't.
2. In table 13-12 on page 372 of the EIS viewpoint 16 isn't even listed. It is marked on the map/diagrams but not in the table. This is the viewpoint very close to our property entry and yet there is nothing in the table about it.
3. There is no diagram that I could find that shows the areas that the visual impact section references (eg: Lockhart valley area). This is an ambiguous term as it includes a large area involving more than the Lockhart LGA. Without a map of the areas the report refers to it is really difficult to know exactly where they are referencing. Photos taken close to our property are labelled with this term, yet we are never referred to as being in or near Lockhart.
4. "We have tried to minimise potential impacts to landholders with Parallel Existing Infrastructure" makes no sense. By using the same corridors the impact is actually greater to those landholders and neighbouring properties where there is an existing line and the project intends to add another line. Compensation may be available to directly affected landholders but the daily visual and operational impact is unable to be compensated.
5. Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Seems that the easy option is to use an existing corridor and potential future projects will just continue to impact the same landholders over and over.
6. "Indicative duration of construction activities" diagram indicates 43 weeks to erect a tower. This is nearly 12 months of construction and interruption to peoples livelihoods which seems excessive.
7. In the 43 weeks there are multiple weeks of breaks, which is nice for the construction team. There will be no "breaks" for the affected and neighbouring landholders once the towers are operational. We get to put up with it 24 x 7 ongoing.
8. The project is not on our property, yet the close proximity means we will be impacted. There is no compensation or ongoing acknowledgment of this impact and its ongoing affects.

Farm land will be impacted. It is important to protect farmland for purposes of food security.

Farmers face risks when machinery is working under high voltage lines.

- Hectares of native bush land will be impacted.


- Has the potential to impact threatened species like the unique Plains Wanderer bird.

- EIS states there is the potential to impact a number of aboriginal sites
- There is no adequate compensation to communities affected by the visual and electromagnetic effects
- This will open the area to solar generating works . There is potential of soil contamination by heavy metals from damaged panels and disturbance of natural fauna and flora.

We object to the location of the proposed transmission line for Section 2 – Coonong Road to transmission line 99A (between Morundah and Lockhart), in particular near Lake Cullivel, Boree Creek, Brookong Creek and in associated wetlands. See attached our submissions.

I object to Project Energy Connect because it is a very destructive transmission line that will seriously impact a lot of Australia's precious farming land & the environment.
Rural families will suffer from Transgrid's unhealthy & ugly transmission towers that are also an increased fire risk for the rural communities.

Even more horrible, ugly Solar Works & Wind Turbines will then be built because of Project Energy Connect, which is terrible for Australia, as they contaminate the land, water & destroy the beautiful natural landscape for no benefit at all.
Coal & nuclear energy is far better for Australia - as we have plentiful natural resources that would further support Australia's economy.
Australian taxpayers are being forced to subsidise foreign companies to ruin Australia!p

Yours Sincerely,

I am unable to submit this on the portal, would you please do so. Thank you for your help.
I have made no political donations & request that my name & contact details remain confidential.
Thank you.

I object to Project Energy Connect (NSW - Eastern Section) SSI-9172452 for the following reasons:-

Farmland will be negatively impacted - when our limited Agricultural land should all be fiercely protected for growing healthy food.

Native bush land & indigenous sites will be irreversibly damaged.

This Interconnector is not necessary as Australia has far better energy options than ugly intermittent Solar panels & Wind turbines - that this transmission line is planned to support - which completely fail to provide Australia with secure, reliable, economical & efficient power which is essential for Australia's welfare & prosperity.

Australia has great reserves of energy resources that don't reply on Chinese manufacturing - which would be a wonderful advantage for all Australians - with nuclear energy the best, cleanest option to develop.
There is already an over abundance of rooftop solar - with a looming toxic waste burden from solar panels, turbine blades & short term lithium-ion batteries.

Fire risks from this hazardous energy transition are also seriously increasing, with this PEC transmission line making things so much worse - which is very alarming, as these deadly risks should have been thought about, researched & eliminated prior to rushed, mass approvals which are now putting lives at risk.

Yours Sincerely,

To whom it may concern

It beggers belief that this type of construction is going to be erected on prime agricultural land,where is our food going to come from if these projects go ahead??
We are a heavy producer of quality food in the Riverina and were able to still produce during our recent drought ,particularly in Hume Shire no good of having extra
power and a shortage of food .

Reading an article written by a visiting American Professor (here on holidays) speaking of our clean landscapes and wonderful vegetation that will just be gone replaced with ugly reflective panels glaring at us as we travel our roads.

We live in our lovely Rural settings and dont wish to have that occupied by this type of development

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project.
Council has reviewed the project and has no comment to make in relation to it.

Solar farms should not be placed on good farming ground or anywhere near to residental areas. Place them in the more romote areas.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Project EnergyConnect (NSW ‐ Eastern Section) (SSI‐ 9172452).
Council has no objection to the subject proposal however requests that a dilapidation report be completed prior to works commencing. Such may be called upon if damage to Council assets requires rectification.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Transgrid EnergyConnect(NSW‐Eastern Section) Environmental Impact Statement
Council has no objection to the proposal including the Dinawan 330kV substation and believes the proposal has significant social and economic benefit to the State and the local region.

See attached

ARTC have already had several meetings with TransGrid representatives over the project where it passes over the ARTC Network near Uranquinty.
ARTC will require that:
 - The design compiles with ARTC and Australian Standards;
 - All safety documentation is submitted for working in the rail corridor;
 - The construction works are not to affect rail operations.

See attached

See attached representation

See attached