Valley of the Winds Wind Farm

641

CWO REZist Inc. (and myself)

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

see attached

VOW IPC Submission Grant Piper 0 redacted.pdf (PDF, 3.99 MB)

VOW IPC G Piper Attachment A IPCaddress.pdf (PDF, 83.07 KB)

VOW IPC Submission G Piper Attachment B.pdf (PDF, 347.59 KB)

681

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

We are house no (REDACTED): • We are really worried long term about the impacts to our environment and ultimately who is going to hold the hosts accountable to remove the turbines so they are not impacting on us after the end of their life. • We have grave concerns that information is being withheld from neighbours – we call it secret squirrel business • We are annoyed at the secret squirrel business. We realise this is what the developers want – division - so little information is shared. For example no one even told us about the planned Energy Co transmission/substation and planned proximity to our home. • We gave ACEN permission for sound monitoring at our home only if we were given a copy of the report. No report has been received. In all recent contact with ACEN we have asked for sound monitoring reports, nothing received. • We are worried about the noise and the impact of noise on our quality of life. • We have been given a neighbour agreement to sign yet no results of the noise monitoring they had adjacent to the clothes line for 3 months. • According to the neighbour agreement we have 4 turbines within 2 to 3 km, 8 turbines in the 3 to 4 km, 9 turbines in the 4 to 5 km. We note that there are at least 10 turbines that could be micro sited into different areas closer to our home. Of these 10 turbines at least 5 in the area outside of 5 km could come into the 4 to 5 km band. • There has been no photomontage completed by ACEN at our residence. None has been offered. • Why when we do our LPA accreditation is it asking if I am in vicinity of wind turbines or solar panels. Is this because of the contamination from eroding blades? • Our roads are bad enough already without additional traffic. Orana road to Collier road is our only access to the Black Stump Way. How are they going to stop people using these roads? Cameras won’t stop contractors taking short cuts on local roads instead of designated routes. • What provisions are they making if there is a bushfire nearby, as a result of the Sir Ivan Fire we lost 70% of the place. During that event we had aerial fire support with helicopters and Hercules. Mainly helicopters on our place, they filled from our dam and the Turee dam. They won’t be able to fly anywhere near our home – we will be a no-fly zone. If we are evacuated due to fire – because there is no aerial firefighting – what happens to our home, livestock, business? • We are concerned we won’t be able to get affordable insurance, or even if fire insurance is ever going to be offered. For example flood insurance is not available in flood country, when will fire insurance not be available to communities surrounded by wind turbines? • We’ve seen local evidence that potential buyers walk away from properties that neighbour wind turbines and their infrastructure. • We’ve seen evidence that buyers walk away from properties planning to host wind turbines. • We have no idea where the quarry, substation and batteries will be located, are they on neighbouring land to us? • We have been offered a measly sum for a neighbour payment that would not be paid until turbines were commissioned. • We would like to know when does developer/ACEN receive subsidies from the government. Is it when approvals have been acquired or on commencement of construction of the wind farm or is it paid in increments throughout construction or on completion and commissioning of the planned Wind farm? • Is it possible that the project would be sold to some other entity and what happens to any agreements? • The money offered is an insult when we are looking at the long-term impacts. • Note there has been no offer of compensation for disruption to our lives and business during construction. • An example of ACEN’s poor communication is texting us at 11.16 on Wednesday 2 April to let us know the independent planning commission meeting was being held on 10 April. This was 44 minutes prior to close of speakers’ registration. We don’t live in a mobile phone service area. • If the department puts consent conditions in to protect us who polices these? • Is it up to us to report breaches of consent conditions? Who to? • Why does common sense not prevail, when it is easy to see that the costing of this project is going to be such a financial burden to our country in particular Tax payers because of Federal government policy? • The subsidies to foreign investment/ownership alone are enormous. Will there be an investigation into the ultimate costing blow outs for this project be done by the IPC. • Why do we have to deal with the coast’s problems? The wind blows in the blue mountains and out in the harbour. • Wind and solar is just a band aid, we cannot see the whole thing working as it is no way environmentally friendly.

Dwelling 278 accompanying slides.pdf (PDF, 1.31 MB)

721

New South Wales 2329

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Refer to attachment

IPC submission 170425.pdf (PDF, 3.36 MB)

656

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Refer attached

IPC submissions due 5 pm 17 April 2025.pdf (PDF, 972.32 KB)

696

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

See attached.

IPC submission VoW redacted.pdf (PDF, 3.2 MB)

736

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

House 278 Continuing on from the previous submission. We have only just been made aware that we have the rights within the Assessment document to ask the ICP and commissioners to seriously consider the removal of at least 10-12 turbines in close proximity to HOUSE 278, this would help mitigate the severe affects and burden that we feel have not been properly investigated by the applicant in the application process in regards to the visual and noise impacts will have on our wellbeing and daily lives to ourselves and our business. Please note : No photo montage nor the results of the noise monitoring results, (We had noise monitoring equipment near our clothes line for a 3- 4 month period and I asked for the results on several occasion and did with no response from the applicant) have not been made available to us even on request. We have been keep in the dark.

Dwelling 278 accompanying slides.pdf (PDF, 1.31 MB)

631

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Refer attached

IPC submissions due 5 pm 17 April 2025.pdf (PDF, 972.32 KB)

671

New South Wales 2844

17/04/2025

Object

Website

We are landholders that live at the Leadville end of the MT Hope cluster of proposed Valley of the winds project. I aware that the applicant has procured host landholder’s water licenses to supply water for the project. We are non-associated landowners that draws water from the same aquafer. To safe guard our Primary production business we would like to see that water metering and monitoring of usage to ensure that the applicant does not exceed their water allowance. We would also like the metering and monitoring data to be publicly available, on line and in real time. We would like this to be reflected in the conditions of consent.

711

New South Wales 2844

17/04/2025

Object

Website

I object strongly to the Valley of the Winds wind factory for the above reasons. How many times can individuals waste time voluntary objecting to all the projects in the CWOREZ for all the same reasons every time. I did not retire in the Dunedoo area to look at wind towers. I urge you to reject this profect.

751

New South Wales 2034

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Please see attached

Valley of Winds.docx (DOCX, 21.83 KB)

646

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Refer attached

IPC submission due 5 pm 17 April 2025 KR.pdf (PDF, 240.65 KB)

686

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Refer attached

ipc-submission-ar.pdf (PDF, 606.26 KB)

726

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

House 278: The Assessment documentation did not to our knowledge fully nor adequately consider our residence. We feel that the applicant proposal ignored and down played the potential impacts, both visual and noise impacts to our home. Our home was LiDAR at a point of view at the applicant request and not on our preferred or our selected view point, not behind foliage. Before the commission makes a decision we request that a photo montage be completed by the applicants and the commissioners come and visit and see the impact on our property and lives for themselves. We are really worried long term about the impacts to our environment and ultimately who is going to hold the hosts accountable to remove the turbines so they are not impacting on us after the end of their life. • We have grave concerns that information is being withheld from neighbours – we call it secret squirrel business • We are annoyed at the secret squirrel business. We realise this is what the developers want – division - so little information is shared. For example no one even told us about the planned Energy Co transmission/substation and planned proximity to our home. • We gave ACEN permission for sound monitoring at our home only if we were given a copy of the report. No report has been received. In all recent contact with ACEN we have asked for sound monitoring reports, nothing received. • We are worried about the noise and the impact of noise on our quality of life. • We have been given a neighbour agreement to sign yet no results of the noise monitoring they had adjacent to the clothes line for 3 months. • According to the neighbour agreement we have 4 turbines within 2 to 3 km, 8 turbines in the 3 to 4 km, 9 turbines in the 4 to 5 km. We note that there are at least 10 turbines that could be micro sited into different areas closer to our home. Of these 10 turbines at least 5 in the area outside of 5 km could come into the 4 to 5 km band. • There has been no photomontage completed by ACEN at our residence. None has been offered. • Why when we do our LPA accreditation is it asking if I am in vicinity of wind turbines or solar panels. Is this because of the contamination from eroding blades or soil contaminates? • Our roads are bad enough already without additional traffic. Orana road to Collier road is our only access to the Black Stump Way. How are they going to stop people using these roads? Cameras won’t stop contractors taking short cuts on local roads instead of designated routes. • What provisions are they making if there is a bushfire nearby, as a result of the Sir Ivan Fire we lost 70% of the place. During that event we had aerial fire support with helicopters and Hercules. Mainly helicopters on our place, they filled from our dam and the Turee dam. They won’t be able to fly anywhere near our home – we will be a no-fly zone. If we are evacuated due to fire – because there is no aerial firefighting – what happens to our home, livestock, business? • We are concerned we won’t be able to get affordable insurance, or even if fire insurance is ever going to be offered. For example flood insurance is not available in flood country, when will fire insurance not be available to communities surrounded by wind turbines? • We’ve seen local evidence that potential buyers walk away from properties that neighbour wind turbines and their infrastructure. • We’ve seen evidence that buyers walk away from properties planning to host wind turbines. • We have no idea where the quarry, substation and batteries will be located, are they on neighbouring land to us? • We have been offered a measly sum for a neighbour payment that would not be paid until turbines were commissioned. • We would like to know when does developer/ACEN receive subsidies from the government. Is it when approvals have been acquired or on commencement of construction of the wind farm or is it paid in increments throughout construction or on completion and commissioning of the planned Wind farm? • Is it possible that the project would be sold to some other entity and what happens to any agreements? • The money offered is an insult when we are looking at the long-term impacts. • Note there has been no offer of compensation for disruption to our lives and business during construction. • An example of ACEN’s poor communication is texting us at 11.16 on Wednesday 2 April to let us know the independent planning commission meeting was being held on 10 April. This was 44 minutes prior to close of speakers’ registration. We don’t live in a mobile phone service area. • If the department puts consent conditions in to protect us who polices these? • Is it up to us to report breaches of consent conditions? Who to? • Why do we have to deal with the coast’s problems? The wind blows in the blue mountains and out in the harbour. • Wind and solar is just a band aid, we cannot see the whole thing working as it is no way environmentally friendly. • Why does common sense not prevail, when it is easy to see that the costing of this project is going to be such a financial burden to our country in particular Tax payers because of Federal government policy? • The subsidies to foreign investment/ownership/ACEN alone are enormous. Will there be an investigation into the ultimate costing blow outs for this project by the IPC.

Dwelling 278 accompanying slides.pdf (PDF, 1.31 MB)

661

New South Wales 2844

17/04/2025

Object

Website

- concern about biodiversity loss - aviation concerns, aviation ability to fly during bushfires is particularly important - concern about starting of fires by wind turbines - concern about wind turbines failing and falling - concern about soil contamination by wind turbine parts breaking off - concern about the amount of water used for the project - concern about roads, the roads will not cope with the weight and increased traffic - Warrumbungle council do not have the capacity or skills to maintain roads at this level - Warrumbungle council do not have the experience or expertise amongst senior councillors to deal with a project of this magnitude - Aesthetic concerns - Noise concerns - Lack of skilled workers - There is already a shortage of farm workers and tradies, this will only get worse - The project will be rushed to meet incentive targets. It is highly likely there will be injuries during construction and maintenance - The Renewables budget has blown out significantly, this will only get worse with this project - There is limited presence by ACEN in Leadville to advise progess of the project in that area or for people to look at maps etc - We have buildings within the near zone that haven't been identified for some reason. We would like clarity on this to know future aesthetic noise impacts - Camps in rural areas are totally inappropriate and will particularly lead to vastly increased crime in these areas - roads in rural camp areas can't handle the traffic and are prone to bush fire areas - It's imperative that any rural camp is totally dismantled at the end of the turbine build period. This must be no more than 5 years. - There are not enough food shops in Coolah and none in Leadville to cope with all the demand - Rural roads also can't cope with this extra traffic - There will be much more rubbish scattered throughout the area - The modelling is questionable. Alternative modelling shows that it's unlikely the 20 year wind turbine life will ameliorate carbon emissions from tree loss, concrete and steel use, transport of turbines from china to port to coolah. Some model numbers suggest the carbon offset doesn't stack up, extra transport generally and manufacturing of the turbines from china coal predominantly - significant loss of prime agricultural farming land. This is detrimental. - Signicant increase in crime - Significant community division - dangerous driving conditions with the extra traffic on Golden Highway particularly but also Black Stump Way etc. - Subsidy costs from Energy co, NSW Government, Federal Government will blow out. This has happened already - No reasonable finish plan with dismantling plans for the wind turbines safely - Given there was so much opposition to the project at the meeting, there should be a second ipc meeting - Time to lodge submissions should also be extended

701

Uarbry Tongy Lane Alliance Inc

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

refer attached

UTLA IPC submission.pdf (PDF, 169.86 KB)

741

Save Our Surroundings Riverina

New South Wales 2650

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Valley of the Winds is ACEN’s Monument to Green Hypocrisy, Public Harm, and Regulatory Collapse! The so-called ‘Valley of the Winds Wind Farm’ is not a renewable energy project - it is a state-sanctioned assault on the public, Intergenerational Equity, the environment, and the future of reliable, affordable, secure energy in Australia. With its grotesque cost, unworkable design, and life-threatening risks, it is a symbol of everything that has gone wrong with energy policy in this country. Clearly, Green Hypocrisy is on full display, weaponised by unelected bureaucrats, captured regulators, and corporate predators under the deceitful guise of "climate action." What we are witnessing is not a solution to climate change—it is an industrial-scale land grab, economic vandalism, and ecological destruction. A SYSTEM OF BALDFACED LIES AND RIGGED APPROVALS The approving and controlling authorities have proven themselves to be baldfaced liars, engaged in sunk cost trickery, spinning economic fairytales while enabling one of the most brazen deceptions in recent planning history. This is not environmental protection - and they know it - it’s state-approved torture, turning regional communities into experimental zones for unreliable energy policy with life-threatening health and safety implications. NSW DPHI & complicit, non-Independent IPCN rubber stamping - is a cruel, unjust imposition prioritising dodgy, unethical developers like ACEN as well as enabling predatory parasites like EnergyCo & TransGrid to gouge the public and destroy what remains of our once superior secure, reliable, affordable, 24/7, independent, Australian Electricity Grid. Torturous ACEN, EnergyCo & TransGrid trifector are being handed the keys by colluding Authorities to manipulate the market, drive up costs, and leave the public footing the bill for infrastructure that IS AGAINST OUR WILL, HAS NO CONSENT - HAS NO SOCIAL LICENCE & HAS NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER! The Regulators - whose role is to act independently in protecting consumers - have deliberately failed - instead siding with profiteers, enabling an ecocidal ruination of rural Australia while dragging us toward a blackout-plagued future. THE ENERGY REGULATOR IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE! Their so-called Integrated System Plan (ISP)- the justification behind this failed, experimental madness - IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE! ‘ECONOMIC LICENCE HAS BEEN FORGED!’ AEMO’s ISP and Valley of the Winds is: NOT Fit For Purpose NOT Independent Shambolic Policy Making Devoid of Engineering Facts Fatally Compromised by Ideology and Corporate Influence An Unmitigated Disaster Lacking Scientific Rigour Stripped of Ethics Devoid of Integrity Utterly Unreliable Socially Rejected Insecure Dangerous to Grid Operation Economically Forged Totally Mad Dead and Buried This is NOT a roadmap—it’s a death march! The ISP and DPHI ignore engineering reality, suppresses dissent, and refuses to apply basic scientific scrutiny to its pie-in-the-sky projections. NO RELIABILITY. NO AFFORDABILITY. NO SECURITY. NO INDEPENDENCE. “Carbon dioxide reduction only makes sense for those it [China] wishes to harm and supplant.” - Patricia Adams, China’s Energy Dream. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/12/Adams-Chinas-Energy-Dream.pdf The Valley of the Winds project, and the ISP it hinges on, is doing exactly that - handing China the geopolitical win by sabotaging our domestic energy capacity, under the naive belief that virtue-signalling policies will save the planet or rather, most likely - given the years of well proven facts presented to dismissive Approving Authorities - this is a deliberately orchestrated, experimental plot - designed to weaken Australia & enable CCP control of or Electricity Grid, bankrupting us consumers/Australia’s economy and handing our national security over to our most hostile enemy on a silver platter. PUBLIC HEALTH, COMMUNITY RIGHTS, AND NATIONAL SECURITY ARE ALL BETRAYED BY DPHI’s APPROVAL OF ACEN’s POISONOUS, ECOCIDAL, ENERGY POVERTY PLAN. The health implications alone are grounds for total rejection. Industrial wind turbines of this scale pose serious, credible risks: Food Resource Land & Water Contamination Horrendous, Toxic FIRE HAZARDS Noise Pollution Detrimental Infrasound Impacts Mental Health Distress Social Division Road Safety Dangers During Construction Unjust Hardship and Austerity Due to Devaluation of Surrounding Land and Property. Grief and Loss of Intergenerational Equity Communities were NOT genuinely consulted by ACEN, DPIE/DPHI, EnergyCo or TransGrid - they were dictated to. ACEN’s Valley of the Winds Monstrosity has NO genuine social licence, NO local support, and was pushed through against the will of the people, with every level of bureaucracy complicit in this betrayal. National Security is being intentionally trashed as controlling Authorities deliberately destroy domestic dispatchable generation, replacing it with fragile, CCP, Slave Labour reliant infrastructure, dependent on weather patterns and imported, toxic contaminating components from geopolitical adversaries. THIS IS NOT JUST RECKLESS - IT’S TREACHEROUS! It Defies: The National Electricity Objective The Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development The National Koala Recovery Plan The Stockholm Convention The WHO’s health standards The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines The Modern Slavery Act/Condition The LPA Program Accreditation Standards The Paris Agreement The Public Interest THE TRUTH ACEN’s Valley of the Winds is not about an environmentally friendly, ‘climate change’ solution - it’s a massive land grab, a transfer of wealth, creating an irreversible ECOCIDAL problem! It is about enriching corporations, deceiving the public, and dismantling what little remains of Australia's Energy Security, Food Security, Economic Prosperity and National Security - whilst sacrificing our environment our communities and our children’s heritage in the process. VALLEY OF THE WINDS ELECTRICITY GENERATING WORKS MUST BE TERMINATED! It is not just flawed - it is an abomination! The IPCN must amend their ways and act with ethical integrity and honesty by rejecting ACEN’s evil plan for Valley of the Winds as it is the ANTITHESIS of Jeremiah 29:11: ‘For I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.’ REFERENCES: *NATIONAL ELECTRICITY LAW OBJECTIVE ‘The objective of the National Electricity Law is to promote efficient investment in, & efficient operation and use of, electricity services for the long term interests of consumers with respect to:- (a) price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of electricity;  and (b) the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system;  and  (c) the achievement of targets set by a participating jurisdiction  (i) for reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions; or  (ii)that are likely to contribute to reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.’ AEMO, AER, AEMC, Energy Ministers, TransGrid, EnergyCo, AEMO Services & everyone in 'authority', place primacy on emissions target rather than the other requirements of the NEL.  The emissions requirement was only added to the NEL in Sep 2023, and the NSW Emissions Reduction Act 2023 was only passed in Nov 23 (other states were similarly tardy to legislate any targets),  - so on what basis did any Gov act prior to that to impose all this on us?   Yet they all did, and still emphasise emissions over other objectives.   NEL is made in the SA Parliament, and in the 2nd reading, the Minister there also reiterated that ALL OBJECTIVES ARE EQUAL. The Four Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) are:         •     The Precautionary Principle: When there is a threat of serious environmental damage, action should be taken to prevent it, even if there is not full scientific certainty. 
        • Intergenerational Equity: The current generation should take care of the environment so that future generations can benefit from it. 
 • Conservation of Biological Diversity: The diversity of plants and animals should be preserved. 
 •  Improved Valuation, Pricing, and Incentive Mechanisms: The costs of pollution and waste should be paid by those who cause them. **A range of PFAS is also subject to the Stockholm Convention for the protection of human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (ie, PFOS, PFHxS, PFOA and potentially all long chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids).  **World Health Organization now lists two PFAS as carcinogens or possible carcinogens: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as a Group 1 carcinogen and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as a Group 2B carcinogen. **The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has drafted an update of the PFAS Fact Sheet within the Guidelines that includes revised and newly established health-based guideline values. The draft PFAS fact sheet is supported by a NHMRC Statement on PFAS in drinking water, which provides a summary of the findings that informed the update.   The PFAS reviewed as part of the recent update include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS); perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS); perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid and its ammonium salt (GenX chemicals).  Further information on the NHMRC Review of PFAS in Australian drinking water is available on the NHMRC website. **COMMONWEALTH PFAS BAN Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment. In its most definitive regulatory action taken to date, the Commonwealth has effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025. (21 Feb 2024) **Biodiversity Offset Crisis https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/05/18/biodiversity-offsets-scheme-crisis/  Biodiversity offsets are arguably one of the most damaging environmental policies in a smorgasbord of bad policies, according to the environmental community….. Offsetting has become a trading market with no real transparency or demonstrative environmental benefits. Proponents self-refer projects, both at the NSW government and federal levels.’ **Wind Turbine Collapse in western Victoria ‘totally unacceptable’, engineer says - National Mining Day https://www.miningday.com.au/wind-turbine-collapse-in-western-victoria-totally-unacceptable-engineer-says/ **WIND TURBINES ARE A FAKE GREEN SCOURGE - SHEDDING TONNES OF MICROPLASTICS FROM WIND TURBINE BLADES (KNOWN AS ‘LEADING EDGE EROSION’) - AFTER ONLY A FEW YEARS OF OPERATION.  **Bisphenol A Pollution from Wind Turbines - Tim Smith 13/07/2023 “Bisphenol A is the most toxic substance we know’ - Swedish Environmental Protection Agency https://docs.wind-watch.org/Bisphenol-A-Pollution-Wind-Turbines.pdf **Will Bisphenol A be the PFOS of Wind Energy? https://www.zeeland.nl/sites/default/files/digitaalarchief/IB23_b50318e9.pdf **Bisphenol A from Wind Turbines Damages Human Fertility https://bergensia.com/bisphenol-a-in-wind-turbines-damages-human-fertility/es-human-fertility/ **GROUND WATER SUPPLIES MUDDIED BY PILE DRIVING FOR THE MASSIVE WIND TURBINE BASES. *Wind farm woes continue as Victorian turbines fail after only five years – www.cairnsnews.org - 11th April 2024 https://cairnsnews.org/2024/04/11/wind-farm-woes-continue-as-victorian-turbines-fail-after-only-five-years/ **Forever Chemicals’ used in Lithium-ion Batteries Threaten Environment, Research Finds | Lithium-ion batteries | The Guardian 14/7/24 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment **Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems “The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services. BESS present special hazards to fire-fighters….” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems **Grid Scale Batteries & Fire Risk https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/66fd2383b56dbc6906390297/1727865736681/Fannon-Batteries.pdf **Disaster at Moss Landing: The Risk of Battery Storage - YouTube - 16/1/25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTaZFQA18E **Massive Green Battery Plant Catches on Fire Again https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/20/massive-green-battery-plant-catches-on-fire-again-weeks-after-major-toxic-blaze/ **Essex Battery Storage Fire https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/21/battery-storage-fire-in-essex/ https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/02/13/environmental-tests-reveal-elevated-levels-of-toxic-metals-since-moss-landing-battery-fire/ https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/environmental-tests-reveal-battery-metals-around-20163514.php https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/elevated-levels-heavy-metals-elkhorn-slough-lithium-battery-facility-fire/

636

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Further to my submission of 16April, I am uploading photos taken during and after the 2017 Sir Ivan Fire that burned 55,000ha encompassing the entire area of the two proposed windfarms - Liverpool Range windfarm and Valley of the Winds. The effect was devastating to the communities and catastrophic for those who lost homes, outbuildings, 6000 head of stock and for those animals that escaped, no feed. Hay was donated, dog food, etc, and BlazeAid came in to assist to replace 1,000km+ of fencing and their personal support helped families to somewhat recover - though the very same people are facing similar loss trauma now with the imposition of Renewables - neighbours to hosts and particularly those whose properties will be dissected and abused, lose value with transmission lines imposed over freehold land, often held over generations. I am uploading photos I took and in particular, a poem written by a lady who lost her home, her all. Dunedoo folk rallied to help with encouraging roadside signs, hosting BlazeAid, and helping clean homes off ash and smoke damage. There were many tales of others saving homes for neighbours when RFS volunteers were withdrawn due to poor communications with Fire HQ. I witnessed personally 4 fire trucks with full tanks with a backdrop of burning historic home. This appears to be the same situation now - bureaucrats in cities dictating lines on maps with no accountability to those on the ground, good citizens, good farmers who feed the Nation. It seems improbable that when a fire starts in proximity to windfarm and transmission lines, that there will be the same level of self sacrifice actions that we witnessed in 2017. The community is just not the same. Will there be the same level of statewide donated goods and national support as in 1000's of BlazeAid volunteers? Will people just say - Well, what do you expect when you are making money out of hosting - forgetting that fires know no boundaries and neighbours will be negatively and catastrophically impacted. Are hosts going to be found culpable? The proponents will be long gone, of course. No wonder three of our wonderful neighbours have already left the district.

Laurie Stats.jpg (JPG, 216.66 KB)

Ruth's Poem.jpg (JPG, 850.45 KB)

Sir Ivan RFS map2.jpg (JPG, 970.29 KB)

676

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

House 278 Continuing on from the previous submission. We have only just been made aware that we have the rights within the Assessment document to ask the ICP and commissioners to seriously consider the removal of at least 10-12 turbines in close proximity to HOUSE 278, this would help mitigate the severe affects and burden that we feel have not been properly investigated by the applicant in the application process in regards to the visual and noise impacts will have on our wellbeing and daily lives to ourselves and our business. Please note no photo montage nor the results of the noise monitoring results. (We had noise monitoring equipment near our clothes line for a 3- 4 month period and I asked for the results on several occasion and did with no response from the applicate) have been made available to us even on request. We have been kept in the dark.

Dwelling 278 accompanying slides.pdf (PDF, 1.31 MB)

716

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Please see the attached submission. Thank you.

VOW IPC Submission April 2025.pdf (PDF, 871.2 KB)

651

New South Wales 2381

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Please find submission attached.

Sally Edwards VoW IPC Submission redacted.pdf (PDF, 89.53 KB)

691

Redacted

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Live within the neighbour 5km and immediate neighbour to a property with wind turbines yet no contact from anyone. Fire 2017 affected Risk significant concern Air access Fire mitigation Community Personal Security High risks to family, farm and home Costs to install security Privacy Significant risk and change Traffic Visua Safety - increased use People and infrastructure movements Time to travel to work and personal Risk to access highway Community Those in favour are known to community All set to receive on property income or business income Neighbour Significant impact Not contacted Costs high Value of property decreased Confirmation and clarifications required Costs of professional advice Merotherie HUB and camp Setting example of likely future of many projects Not with community knowledge nor consultation No consultation local neighbours Pop up information sessions not replacing failure to consult Unacceptable behaviour from EnergyCo and ACEREZ Dust Traffic Security Safety These concerns highly apparent in early stages What is to come IPC cannot approve More time required for Valley of the Winds to consult with neighbours to date not contacted Fail to prepare the community Prepare to fail the community No contact phone numbers on Valley of the Winds website under contacts at time of writing this - 3.45 pm Thursday Last day of submission 1800 number advertised on a flier I caught from another community member takes you to a totally different project Coolah and Gulgong office not open when we visited at advertised times on multiple occasions Community liaison officer for V of the Winds based in Gulgong rude and aggressive manner when I was able to contact. Totally shocked me. Is this the way of our future if the project continues. Not welcome here I that case. I could go with many more concerns but reflect back to leader EnergyCo and appalling management of requests for meetings. CEO’s EnergyCo and ACEREZ refuse to return emails and no responce to requests for community to meet with them. Ground persons put in roles not experienced or qualified to perform. And so on. STOP Pause this V of the Winds Ensure neighbours are involved and appropriatly recognised on maps and in consultation Ensure community are informed and listened to - may need another IPC Use local doctors and nurses Leadville has both Neither consulted Etc

731

New South Wales 2844

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Please find attached objection.

Valley of the Winds IPCn submission.pdf (PDF, 245.88 KB)

666

New South Wales 2844

17/04/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to the ipcn in my objection to the Valley of the Winds project. We live on our property (referred to in the EIS APPENDIX D as dwelling (REDACTED)) on Sir Ivan Dougherty Dr leadville. We have the wind turbines to the east of our property on the adjacent hill range. Our family home is believed to be 5.2km from the nearest turbine but our property runs towards them "well with in the project radius of 5km" We have had very little to no information and communications from ACEN Australia in regards to this development. This wind project affects my family and our small community in so many ways that it's hard not to hear from the developers and officials that are planning to submit this application. Some major issues that affects us personally if this project gets the tick of approval include: 1. The resale of our property.  The biggest asset that we hold could loose upto 40% of its value.  We can't afford that to happen. 2. Blade shadowing- since the turbines are set in the east on the range, we run the risk of having shadowing in the morning as we wake up... this would be detrimental to our health and well-being .... 3. Lightning hazard - We have many violent Lightning storms due to the mineralisation of the hills behind us. Reference to the 2017 Sir Ivan fire. Than ad 250m plus turbines on top???. 4. Fire fighting capabilities-  winged air craft would be rendered useless due to the fact turbines make air space unsafe for all flying activities. Including aerial fire fighting. 5. Environmental hazards- as these so called renewable turbines age, fibres from the blades will eventually make their way onto our land and even into our drinking water. 6. Our main access to our property is a one lane road. Our road will not be able to handle the extra amount of vehicles safely. The added road noise from trucks and vehicles to the unwanted attention of trespassing. It's such a disappointment that this project and many others are getting viewed as a positive step forward to renewable energy.

706

Redacted

17/04/2025

Object

Website

In the IPC meeting with Council you have stated that your role is to implement the State Government’s policy in terms of renewable energy. It is stated on the IPC website that you are to invite cooperation and strengthen Public Trust in the planning system. Is this secondary to your role in implementing the Governments RE policy? What is the priority for the commission? Is the overriding priority to follow the directions of Minister Sharpe? That being to “implement” the Government’s RE policy. The direction from Minister Sharpe is that, as the government is behind in it’s 2030 and 2035 emissions reductions targets, agencies involved in the assessment and decision making process within the planning system, need to prioritise the Government’s emission reduction targets. Are we simply collateral damage, some might say “road kill”, in order for the NSW Government to achieve the unachievable targets and do so at all costs. Vital strategic cumulative impact assessment (CIA) information is missing. This is contrary to DPHI’s own CIA guidelines. We submit that, without such strategic CIA information (ie whole of government assessment) for the CWO REZ, the decision making process regarding CIA is fundamentally deficient. We note that in your discussions with the Department it was stated that the Fire Safety Study and Emergency Plan should not be made publicly available. The Department is saying we are not to know what will happen in the event of a bushfire. Are we not to know what will happen in the event of a bushfire because we will simply be told to evacuate as we cannot receive any aerial support during a bushfire? The community is very concerned about bushfires there our experience in 2017. We deserve to know everything in this “secret” plan. How long will it be before fire insurance is not an option for anyone in this community? The ACEN representative, that met with the IPC, clearly demonstrated she was unaware of the local bush fire management resources. It was mentioned in objections during the Exhibition period, and the Department has been repeatedly advised by neighbours to the project. Is this because these bush fire management resources will be rendered useless once the turbines are built? The bushfire emergency plan currently looks like this: - ACEN propose a single 50,000 litre water tank; - Likely, volunteer fire fighters will refuse to enter any land where there are turbines, transmissions, BESS or substations; - pilots of Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft will decline the invitation to fly into the area given the collision risks; and - no effort by the developer to protect what the Department sees as a vital project to help NSW meet its emissions reduction targets. Does this seem odd? Putting transmission, batteries and wind turbines into a bush fire zone and then ensuring that no bush fire can be managed. There was lots of talk by ACEN about the neighbour agreements. Did you know that: - Neighbour agreements are provided in paper format never by electronic means. - Is this so it is more difficult to send to your solicitor for advice? I wonder exactly how many people who have signed neighbour agreements have run this past their solicitor first? - The common advice from solicitors is “don’t sign it…you are forfeiting your rights”. ACEN have been offering neighbours a maximum of $12,000 to $16,000 per year (once turbines are commissioned). Does this sound like a good deal? - to have their peaceful quiet home destroyed by turbine noise; - their views disturbed by industrial scale turbines and transmission lines; and - and their asset devalued. Houses sold in the last 12 months in Coolah indicate there has been a drop of 9 to 12% in value. Buyers are walking away from land neighbouring wind turbines. Buyers are walking away from land with plans to host turbines When will banks not lend to land owners impacted by turbines? When will banks foreclose on land that has become unsaleable? The ACEN representative incorrectly stated numbers during the meeting with IPC, flippantly referring to the tiny number of objectors that live close by. The Department stated that 55 of the objectors lived within 15 km of the project. 87 neighbours have still not signed a neighbour agreement – for good reason. Only 26 people have signed a neighbour agreement even though ACEN continuously harass unsigned near neighbours. This whole project will only benefit 20 land hosts and the Filipino owners of the project. I would like to acknowledge the farmers of the land within our great nation of Australia today. I pay my respects to Australia’s past, present and future farmers who have and will continue to battle setbacks such as renewable energy destruction, drought, floods, vermin plagues, diseases, and government policy, all so they can provide Australia with food and fibre. I acknowledge that these setbacks come at a high price of mental health, and many have taken their lives as a result due to such pressures. I extend this respect and am thankful for the sacrifices those within the agricultural industry make in order to provide Australia with the essentials to survive; I acknowledge the agricultural industry as the backbone of our nation.

746

New South Wales 2843

17/04/2025

Object

Website

Below are my concerns that I don't believe have been adequately addressed by the DPIE or ACEN in the documentation submitted LPA concerns I don’t believe proper consideration has been given to the damage that may be caused from any industrial pollution from the windfarm on other businesses surrounding the area. I have not seen any requests for information from the MLA or LPA clarifying why they need to know whether we border a wind or solar farm? Has the DPIE done its due diligence or like ACEN when we asked, swept this one under the rug. Height and Noise Why is the height of the wind turbines for Valley of the Winds 250 m whereas Liverpool Range has only been allowed to 215m. What kind of noise repercussions will occur due to changes in wind flow and direction because of this? Why is one side higher than the other and the other side hasn’t even been built yet for engineers and sound experts to even know what the noise pollution will be? Will it cause a valley sound effect? Under the guidelines the DPIE are to make consideration on the combined consequences from both wind farms rather than individually. Since Liverpool Range Wind Farm has yet to be built how can proper consideration and knowledge be applied to the Valley of the Winds windfarm? This wind farm will be on the height of the ridge with sound carrying over and into the neck of these valleys. Not being a sound expert, it reminds me of playing "echo" when we were kids. That is where the best echo came from Land values Whether anecdotally or with actual research, there is reason to believe that our land value will certainly be affected with the proximity of a windfarm to our property. Within our area. One sale in the Valley of the Winds neighbourhood has certainly fallen through because the buyer discovered wind farms would be erected within the region. Where is our protection from that? Where is the consideration by the state government for the damage that this will do to us, our business and profitability? Our land is important for our livelihood and our financial futures. Bushfire mitigation The Sir Ivan fire is still very much at the fore of people's memories. The guidelines and the DPIE seem to forget that it is always the volunteers that fight these big events. This is our community and having unmanned Wind Farms is not the help required. Aerial water bombing was without doubt the one tool that saved an awful lot of land and houses during this event. As a result of what we saw with that fire, we removed a large amount of vegetation from near our houses and sheds. Apparently now we have Wind Towers near us, they want us to replant them. Dept planning It is not good enough to stand in front of a group of concerned residents and tell us that you have done everything possible considering the guidelines. Guidelines are exactly that, open to interpretation. They don’t give us any protections against multinational corporations and short term thinking. There is a reason many European countries are forgoing wind energy and they have been doing this a lot longer than us.

601

Uarbry village

New South Wales 2329

16/04/2025

Object

Website

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the IPC meeting for the Valley of the Winds project in Coolah on 10 April. Further to my presentation, I wish to clarify the answer from the Applicant to my point that no visual montages were undertaken from the village as required in the Visual Guidelines 2016. The applicant stated that the montage taken some distance from Uarbry that I displayed in my slideshow was a Public Viewpoint montage. Our interest is not in what the public, mostly city dwellers passing by, will see. After all, there will be nowhere in our entire region that will not be subjected to the sight of these things and their accompanying baggage. Since it is almost entirely intended for the benefit of city dwellers, offending their sensibilities is not our problem. Our concern is what we, ourselves will have to contend with, twenty-four hours a day, for the rest of our lives and the lives of our descendants. This is therefore not a representative montage for the village of Uarbry. No other photomontages near or from the village were provided by the applicant. By not providing a representative photomontage of Uarbry, even though their consultant apparently lied by saying they did, the applicant has not abided by the Visual Guidelines 2016 and it appears that no one in the Department took the time to correct this. Both the applicant’s EIS and their Response to Submission were riddled with errors. This is just one of the errors that we know of - and it makes us concerned that the Department has rushed their assessment and recommendation of approval for this project through without suitable duty of care, which is their responsibility. My other concern presented was the possibility of workers utilizing Moorefield Road East to enter/exit the Girragulang cluster of the project. Whilst the applicant’s representative at the end of the day said they will be responsible if workers use the road, we would like confirmation that the banned use of this road is documented in the Applicant’s management plans. Please be aware that Uarbry contains several older residents who walk along the roads as well as some families with visiting children who roam the quiet village and their safety needs to be protected. During construction, wherever we need to go in our day to day lives, even to our nearest store, we will have to contend with unimaginable traffic just to leave or return to our homes. If and when construction is ever finished there will be nowhere we can escape these monstrosities. They plan on smothering us and have already gone a long way toward doing so, by sneaking in through the back door before we were even aware of their existence. There is ample evidence of the failures, dangers and utter uselessness of so-called “renewable” energy. Why is it being foisted on us against our will? If city dwellers want it, why isn’t it being constructed in their – already destroyed – areas? Too many questions to list. All unanswered. Yours sincerely Ruth White

616

New South Wales 2852

16/04/2025

Object

Website

The so called Renewable Energy is not really very healthy for our environment. The wind projects are very noisy, use an amazing amount to fossil fuels to build and maintain the Wind Towers. Have to be turned off because there is too much renewable Energy putting power into the ‘Grid’ and cannot handle the input of Solar and Wind generated power.

591

New South Wales 2843

16/04/2025

Object

Website

The Independent Planning Commission of NSW Warrumbungle Shire, Coolah Surrounds RESPONSE TO IPC - Valley of the Winds Wind Factory Statement: On the 5th of November 2021, in the midst of the COVID pandemic crisis the Government formally declared creation the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) without opposition and without public consultation. Given the level and form of public consultation by developers within the REZ so far, i.e. Tilt, ACEN, EnergyCo, it is clear to me that public consultation is nothing but a phrase to be bandied about to try to justify and undemocratic process … you have not listened to the Communities so far and the laws pushed through by the current Government will never allow you to do so with integrity! Notes: • You must not assume that because I have not commented on a clause or section that I do not have something to say. • In order to fully respond to this submission it is necessary to fully understand what it is for and the future projects that may be enabled by this project. This project does not exist in isolation and you have not completed the cumulative impacts assessment as you are required to do by law. You should not be seeking submissions until this document has been completed! Are you giving us grounds for appealing any unfavorable conclusion? You need to answer this for yourselves before you make a decision, you have the power to get this right at least! • Coolah already has one huge wind turbine project approved for construction on its edges, another such project, effectively encircling the town and its highly productive agricultural pastures, fantastic wildlife corridors in old growth forests, which are themselves endangered, that hold multiple endangered and critically endangered species is just too much! Why are they doing this? ‘They’ recon we have to build these things to save the world from global warming! However this is a lie perpetrated by those who see this scam as a means of making huge amounts of money and for some it’s a chance to exercise their narcissistic egos (Bowen). I challenge you to go back and re look at Al Gores now infamous movie “An Inconvenient Truth” and just work out how much of what he claimed has actually come to pass! None of it! Gore didn’t make this movie out of any moral belief; he was trying to make a name for himself so he could be the next president of the US. The Australian Government(s) claim that this REZ is necessary to generate what they call ‘green energy’ from Solar panels, Wind Turbines, Hydro systems and batteries (RE) without any astute analysis of whether these forms of energy production are actually ‘Environmentally Friendly’. They are not but the REZ is essentially conceived as a rurally located factory for the production of energy, so who cares right?, for most they are out of sight and out of mind and its just fine to EXPERIMENT ‘out there’, according to city dwellers. I’m an Architect with 50 years experience and am like the rural version of the converted smoker, very passionate about what I’m seeing happen to my new community. My background makes me acutely aware of the lack of care by City dwellers for the rural environments, and why should they care?, they have their own problems and these developments don’t affect them every day, they don’t have to live with the increased fire risk they bring along, with reduced capacity to fight the fires, the (forever) pollution of and the destruction of generational farming lands and old growth forests that support a huge range of wildlife, some of which is known to be endangered or critically endangered. One of these critically endangered species is a bird, the Swift Parrot, only one of three migratory parrot species in the world, is facing habitat destruction in both Tasmania and here in Coolah, its two home destinations. I guess Ms Plibersek didn’t receive any secret whispers about them before she approved the destruction of hundreds of hectares of the parrots home territory! What and outrage! Further these wind projects cannot function without additional power transmission facilities to be provided at enormous cost and disruption rural lives and farming practices on top of the proposed project. Unlike for the rest of the G20 nations there has never been a genuine attempt in Australia to compare, Value Manage, the productivity of the RE monsters, (wind, solar, hydro or batteries) to the most obvious power generation alternative to Coal, that is Nuclear Power Generation which is clean, reliable, safe, cost effective and long lasting, further it uses only a fraction of the land area required for other power generations systems. Mining required for the production of the required fuel rods is miniscule in comparison to any other form of power generation including wind and solar! What about ‘green’ hydrogen, and might as well chuck in nuclear fusion? … Contrary to Bowens insistence, at this time both are fantasy options and even if some genius solved their ‘puzzle’ tomorrow their commercial viability is 50-100 years away! How many other G20 Nations have nuclear power … All of them! How many of the other G20 Nations have cheaper power that Australia? All of them! Wind turbines have been shown worldwide to be an extremely expensive and unreliable form of energy generation. They occupy massive areas of land that is otherwise better used as it is now. The Governments insistence on being an all renewable energy producing nation is even more fanciful than his proposed use of Green Hydrogen. Why, because the only way companies can afford the build these things is for governments to throw unrealistic amounts of money at them, in the order of $600,000 per turbine every year according to Senate Estimates. Stop the subsidies and you will stop the construction of these RE Monsters, everyone knows this, they are not economically viable by themselves! We the public cannot afford this especially when most of this money is going off shore to foreign companies who will not give a toss about the rubbish and problems that they leave behind and will never be held accountable for the problems they create. Further the mess that they will leave will never be cleaned up, unlike coal where land restoration finds are set aside from the beginning of the projects no such guarantee exists for the monsters! It is up to the landholder to negotiate a make good deal with a developer who has a huge upper hand in these negotiations including making contracts confidential so that the experience of each land holder can be shared and some level of fairness achieved. These arrangements should be dictated by the Government, not left to landholders who may well just pocket the money and move on once they realise the real cost of make good. No one will ever make good the spills of plastics and chemicals that come from the turbines and their blades and properties will be forever grossly devalued as a result. Primary CO2 producers, now and future projections. Compared to the major producers of CO2 Australia and New Zealand’s contributions are miniscule and even more so when you consider that Australia is penalized for exporting our low emissions coal. Australia could easily reduce it’s per head contribution to CO2 production by stopping the export of Coal however to do so would see a net worldwide increase in CO2 production because Australia’s black coal is relatively clean when compared to other coals found around the world, especially Chinas. Re-imagine the above graph if Australia stopped exporting coal to China and they had to burn their own coal, remember that China is reputedly currently building some 40-50 new coal fired power plants! World organizations, especially the Europeans are laying a guilt trip on Australia demanding that we meet some unscientific calculation of global warming, calculations and predictions that never eventuate; an online survey of graphs purporting to show the levels of CO2 v’s temperature produces highly variable range of graphs most of which do show that CO2 is a constantly and repeatable variable component of our atmosphere and that Temperature to some degree may reflect that, often with delays of hundreds of years, here is one example of such a graph which was produced by “Source: http://www.klimafakten.de/behauptungen/behauptung- der-co2-anstieg-ist-nicht-ursache-sondern-folge-des-klimawandels Accessed 5 Aug 2015” My point is that climate science is not yet sufficiently developed and accurate enough, it is too contested, to risk damaging our own local environments and to risk even further loss of habitat and species on the possibility that our very meagre contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is relevant, have a look at the above graph, the EU, US and China contribute an estimated 1,740gt of CO2 by 2030 compared to Australia and New Zealand’s 65gt (and that includes allowance for Australian coal exports).CO2 is an essential atmospheric compound which is required for all plant life to live, grow and provide us with food, even the meats we eat are reliant on plants for their growth … we will need even more food as the worlds population increases so perhaps there is some benefit to be gained but where will the supply come from if all of our farming properties have been destroyed by futile attempts to reduce CO2. Australia has one of the highest rates of animal extinctions in the world and the highest for mammals and we have one of the worst habitat clearing records in the world. The greatest cause of extinction is Habitat destruction! Australia is currently No.12 on the list of countries with the most endangered species (Mammals 63, Birds 52, Reptiles 75, Amphibians 47, Fish 125 = Total 362) (source is ICUN Red List, ICUN is the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it) NOW TO THE POINT! Reduce greenhouse gas transmissions to net zero by 2050 …. “.. the electricity generation sector ….. currently Australia’s largest source of green house gas emissions accounting for 33% of Australia’s total annual emissions in 2020”. In order to reduce our emissions by 33% our government’s genius plan is to copy other countries already failed systems and first vastly increase our emissions by constructing massive Solar, Wind, Hydro generators and energy storage plants none of which can provide the reliable base load power needed to keep industry, homes and the after hours office tower lights that are left, burning all night. Then to further decimate this beautiful rural farming country by carving up national parks and farms to provide the power lines necessary to get this power back the ever hungry cities. How on earth can this be considered Green? Not one of the proposed energy RE sources can actually demonstrate that they are both financially and / or environmentally green when you dare to look at their cost from conception to eventual removal/replacement some 15-20 years later (assuming they don’t seize up or burst into fire or have the blades fall off before then) and include their full lifecycle cost including maintenance. Transmission towers are also not immune to construction and maintenance problems and no matter how hard designers may try they will cut up rural properties and reduce farming output that the whole community has to pay for in their power bills! This would not be the case if we adopted nuclear power as most of the rest of the developed world has done, or is doing even third world countries now use nuclear power safely! Currently Bangladesh, Egypt, and Turkey are each building their first nuclear power plants and another 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes according to the World Nuclear Association website. A collection nuclear power plants would remove almost all of our electrical generation CO2 contribution and will save out rural and coastal environments from the disastrous RE blight. Even Germany is pulling back from their RE fantasy! Australia is criticised as having a higher per head CO2 output than many other countries, currently 17th on the list of 209 Countries based upon tonnage and 14th in the same list of countries per head of population @ 17.15 or a share of 1.6% of world production but this is because we do not use nuclear power and because we sell our 'clean' coal to other countries helping them reduce their emissions and for which we get penalised. No literature has been found that shows any Country has demonstrated a real reduction of CO2 emissions using RE and no calculator that can be found on line that supports the use of RE which actually takes into account the full lifecycle carbon foot print of the RE industry. Simple example TILT Renewables Liverpool Plain Wind Farm proposes to remove 234.7 ha of the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater habitat and 256.3 ha of the endangered Swift Parrot habitat. Each of these habitats is old growth forests that have been sequestering carbon for hundreds of years. What will happen to the forest as it is cleared, will the timber be burned? Probably! Also quite probably we will record an increase in Australia’s Bird extinction rate from 52 to 54 and when the trees are burnt it will release that carbons back to the atmosphere as CO2 and the trees will no longer exist to store more carbon. These measurements and so many more, like transport carbon costs, are NOT considered when measuring how green the RE systems that replace the forests are. According to Australia’s Chief Scientist “1 Dec 2009 — Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies (stores) is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.“ If Australia is emitting, as claimed 414,988,850 tons of carbon (2016) our existing forests must be preserved, just these examples are worth and estimated 982 tons of Carbon sequestered per year that the trees are alive. We should be planting more trees, gardens, plants of all types not destroying them what we have left!! Need for the project - the project would not be needed if Nuclear power was developed instead of the inept RE as proposed. That Coal fired and gas power generation is being withdrawn is a political one decision, not one made for environmental concerns. We do have time to develop carefully, sensibly located Nuclear Power plants in time to meet the 2050 commitment made by Government however our Governments have not done the work necessary to either prove or disprove this claim from either an energy production or a cost per Kw of power of the alternatives. This is just another version of the Snowy 2 financial situation where the public is expected to wear a cost blow-out from 2 billion to 12 billion, plus another 10 billion for transmission lines. What will the cost blow-out for this project be? You don’t know because you haven’t completed design of the project. The paying public has a right to know what these infrastructure projects are going to cost before committing to them, a fact that one of the current State Government ministers was making recently in an ABC interview in relation to infrastructure projects initiated by the previous government. Is this government going to actually fix this and give the public accurate project costs before committing to the project?, no they are not because they don’t know and have not provided accurate costing for this project before committing to it. Now we have a global war on CO2, a compound that we can't live without by the way, so the corporations have convinced various governments that, on the basis of what a few scientists say we must get rid of CO2 .... and make the corporations even richer ... Lets ignore the fact that CO2 is a constant variable in our world as it was so long before man started fiddling with the environment, CO2 is a compound that we need to live, it is food for plankton and all of our plant life and once converted, which the plants do for us, it provides food for us too. Landscape character and visual amenity I chose to live where I live BECAUSE of its current landscape character and visual amenity! The monstrous constructions that the RE contractors are proposing are totally alien to the existing character of this beautiful land. I challenge you to find any body of people (who have not been paid of by the ‘developers’) who do not agree with me. Your projects are dividing communities; over the last two weeks I have been abused by 2 people because I was posting information about the proposed wind farms on line, these men were previously casual friends. Both were concerned that my posts on line may cause Tilt to withdraw their financial sponsorship for the ‘club’ that we are members of. I do not know if Tilt ordered their actions but I would not be surprised if they had! “During construction, the project would result in negligible to moderate impacts at the landscape zone viewpoints and representative viewpoints during the day and night. Moderate impacts would occur in locations where views …..” quote I ask says WHO? .. city based members of the project teams that have a vested interest in the projects progressing and who have no love for this country but can only relate to a few exciting highlights, a kind of viewpoint fed by the moronic power consuming displays like Vivid! Unstill minds that cannot appreciate quiet slow moving beauty. I chose to live where I live because of my love of this wide open beautiful undulating country as has been so wonderfully described by so many artists and poets, none better that Dorothea Mackella's A Sunburnt Country ... "I love a sunburnt country, A land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges, Of drought and flooding rains, I love her far horizons, I love her jewel sea, Her beauty and her terror - The wide brown land for me.". This country is not for city folk to destroy!!!!! Perhaps Dorothea’s poem will have to be rewritten something like this ... I love a sunburnt country, A land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges, Of towering power transmission lines and bird swatting generators, Of drought and flooding rains, I love her far broken horizons with flashing tower lights, I love her jewel sea with flashing tower lights, Her beauty and her terror - The once wide brown land for me.... Biodiversity No impact on any threatened species is acceptable! No removal of old growth forests can be acceptable! No destruction of already declared National park or state forest is acceptable! Biodiversity offsets do not work, they are not correctly recorded and managed, they are just a methodology for developers without conscience to destroy more of our environment. The use of Biodiversity offsets are not an acceptable method to justify more environmental destruction and they never actually compensate for that destruction. Once the forests and associated ecosystems are gone they are GONE forever! History proves this! Re Consultation I reiterate what one of my neighbours has submitted to you … this is important! “State Significant Development On their website, Barker Ryan Stewart, property development & infrastructure experts, state that ‘the SSD assessment process is comprehensive and involves extensive community participation under the EP&A Act (my emphasis).1 The IPC is informed (by US) that ‘extensive community participation’ has NOT taken place for the ACEN Valley of the Winds (VOW) project. • ACEN have rented a vacant shop in Coolah. Have not bothered with any improvements as a welcome to impacted residents. Have put a few posters in the window that lack any detail. And worst of all are rarely, if ever, open! On every occasion, that I visited the shopping centre, at least twice a week, it has NEVER been open. ( I share this observation - IG ) • On their webpage, ‘Valley of the Winds Community Information Sessions Leadville & Coolah’, ACEN highlight three information sessions, dated March 2021. 2 Coolah: Wed. March 24: anytime from 3pm-7pm, &Thurs. March 25: anytime between 9am-11am Leadville: Thurs. March 25: anytime between 9am-11am This was at the time of NSW COVID lockdown. Information sessions have not been repeated. • On the same webpage, ACEN state: ‘A Community Consultative Committee (CCC) is also being established for the project under guidelines from the department. The Committee will provide a forum for open dialogue between the Valley of the Winds project team and representatives of the local community, stakeholder groups and local council on issues related to the project.’2 ACEN have failed to advertise on their shop front who the local community members are, when the CCC meets, how frequently it meets. • Instead of extensive community participation & consultation, ACEN have behaved appallingly in their active hostility to locals who have openly voiced opposition to their project. They have caused our local postman to be sacked for voicing his opposition. And they have boycotted a local business for voicing their opposition. Barker Ryan Stewart state: ‘Community engagement plays an important role in assessing SSD projects, by helping to create improved project design, ecologically sustainable development, and reduce environmental impacts’.1 ACEN have definitely NOT been facilitating ‘extensive community participation’ at their shop or through information sessions. They have not widely advertised the CCC. They have, therefore, NOT met the DPIE requirements of the SSD assessment process which ‘involves extensive community participation under the EP&A Act’.1 “ I fully concur with the above description of ACEN’s lack of community consultation! Agriculture Agriculture is of utmost importance to the Coolah region, which is noted for grain crops, cattle, mixed farming, Lucerne & hay, fat lambs & wool. According to the NSW Govt, Dept. of Primary Industries, ‘The value of agricultural production in the Central West Slopes & Plains Sub Region (CWSP), including Coolah, was over $1.77 billion from a range of livestock for meat & wool, cotton, broad acre crops & vegetables. Agriculture & agricultural product manufacturing employ the largest percentage of people across the Sub Region (ABS2015/16). The Central West Slopes & Plains has the advantage of large areas of unfragmented land that allow the achievement of economies of scale for broadacre agriculture including irrigation. This coupled with suitable soils & water supply, infrastructure as well as access to markets in Dubbo, Orange, Sydney, & Newcastle make the Sub Region one of the most successful and profitable in NSW.’ The imposition of the wind turbines and especially the transmission lines to accommodate grid expansion will disrupt this agriculture and it remains unknown if the acoustic and infrasound effects from the turbines will impact upon the health of livestock, as it has been show to do to humans, and livestock fertility.   Concluding statement and advice: Many of my neighbours have and are able to go into far greater detail in these submissions and I commend their submissions to you but above all you must understand that our community does not want ACEN’s Valley of the Winds project, the Tilt project is already more that we can reasonably tolerate. Other topics covered in neighbours submissions include; Health & welfare Bushfire risk & air safety Noise & Infrasound ACEN EIS State Govt recommendation Global emissions ACEN have not been a ‘good neighbour’ in the 4-5 years that this project has been public and have shown no inclination to change their nasty ways! Their claims re the level public consultation are not true! We ask you to demonstrate some real leadership and reject this unconscionable renewable energy scam project. You need to make clear the level of desire in the community to make the decision to go nuclear NOW. Nuclear is safe when managed competently and we have demonstrated experience doing so, we have been safely running a nuclear plant at Lucas Heights on the fringes of Sydney for over 65 years and even third world countries are safely managing nuclear power now! Nuclear power is (I believe) cheaper overall, it is sustainable, it will provide reliable peak and base-load power and we have an abundant supply of all materials required to produce it and we have many ideal sites upon which to build them without further destroying our environment.

606

New South Wales 2843

16/04/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Valley of the Winds windfarm development as it is completely altering the environment and causing great division within our formerly close knit community. The Liverpool Range windfarm has been talked about since 2009 and has caused great angst to us personally since that time, being directly impacted by Deans Quarry and all that will entail with water impacts, traffic movements off the scale for many years. The disruption to aviation that will increase bushfire threats, when volunteers are stretched to save neighbours, (I can instance the Sir Ivan Fire of 2017 when 55,000ha were burnt out before aerial resources were finally brought in, Attached). The added workforce making demands on our very limited medical services is extremely poorly addressed in any impact statements. NOW, we find that another windfarm is proposed on Coolah’s doorstep – how can we absorb the complete destruction of our farmland, our community and our lifestyle? It is beyond belief that mines are legislated to have a dedicated Mine Rescue unit fully equipped team on hand, on standby 24/7 in case of accidents and there is no such legislation for any Renewables to provide any emergency vehicle, trained personnel or any contingency plan if a worker was to fall off a tower, any traffic accident, any electrical mishap – nothing. First aiders – stated in Impact statements. Around our area, there are very poor mobile communications – how is a first aider to even be called, sans vehicle, sans rescue equipment. There is a contingency plan whereby Mines Rescue COULD be called upon in a dire emergency situation. However, this has to be negotiated Minister to Minister – not a mere phone call for HELP at 4.30pm on a Friday afternoon. We have legislation involved here, remember. Dad’s Army of VRA and SES are not equipped nor trained to step up to help your windfarm employees at a time of emergency. All volunteers, remember.

fire-06-00438-v2.pdf (PDF, 27.71 MB)

581

Redacted

16/04/2025

Object

Website

I object to this project due to its environmental impact now and in the future. Second, taking valuable farming land will impact our already stressed economic situation as farmers. The process has not been transparent, and local people have not been truthfully informed. Thirdly the companies which have these types of contracts are foreign owned and sucking money from Australia with out minimal cost to them, we are making our country a target for foriegn ownership which leaves our nation in a very vunerable position on the worldscene of economics and trade. Australia has lost it true identity of being able to be self sufficient and resourceful.

596

New South Wales 2843

16/04/2025

Object

Website

Please see attached document.

Independnt Planning Commission Submission.docx (DOCX, 43.45 KB)

611

New South Wales 2113

16/04/2025

Object

Website

See Upload

Ivan Kennedy attachment redacted.pdf (PDF, 744.27 KB)

586

New South Wales 2850

16/04/2025

Object

Website

We attach our submission for uplifting.

Valley of Winds Submission IPC.pdf (PDF, 59.48 KB)

626

New South Wales 2820

16/04/2025

Object

Website

I am a resident near the Bodangora and Spicer’s Creek wind projects. The economic activity that is expected from this project will come at the expense of locals. They will be unable to afford to rent locally, as was experienced in Wellington, and good luck to anyone who needs to see a doctor. There will be very few long-term jobs because of this project. Healthcare services should be provided for the community by the developer. This project will have a large negative impact on birds, especially wedge tail eagles. The roads to be built will impact water run-off and erosion, as we have seen with the Wellington Solar project. Nothing can be done to reduce or remove the visual impact, or the noise. We are about 7km away from them and we can hear them at night depending on the wind. Community engagement does not work if there is no trust, and the negotiations and horrible tactics used to sign people on and split communities does not build trust. Our community is sadly divided now due to these projects. Landowners should have a say in what they do with their land, but those forced to have roads, mines or lines have that choice removed by those who have a choice. Further, those free to make the choice have a far greater financial benefit than those forced to have no choice. This splitting of communities is unfair and very sad. From our property we could see the smoke rise from the St Ivan’s fires. How do we tackle fires around turbines, no planes can fly. How will neighbouring landowners be able to afford insurance with such high risks around them through no doing of their own. The project owners should be taking on the fire risk for neighbouring landowners. These things are not sustainable, and there is a huge cost at the end of life. There should be a fund established for each turbine, money held in trust somewhere, so that at the end of life, after however many sales, if the last company goes belly up, there are funds there, not taxpayers, to dismantle and dispose of them. Looking at the Energy Co grants that were recently released is appalling. Small communities who do not know how to do submissions properly missed out. Gilgandra (no projects), Dubbo (no new ones) and Mudgee, (barely there) were winners! The way community grants work from these projects needs to be better managed. The money should be going locally, not to places that don’t have projects or are far away. What about residents withing a 20km radius getting cheaper electricity, as they do not get any other compensation unless they are a close neighbour. How on earth is electricity going to get cheaper with this sort of money being thrown around. At the IPC hearing in Dunedoo for the Spicers Creek Wind project, the department of planning and environment was asked about the cumulative impacts of all these projects. This is being completely ignored. The answer did not address the question. The Wellington solar project and the Maryvale solar projects are on BSAL soils. This should never have been approved. Now there is a Ven energy one proposed near Geurie that is also on BSAL, the SLRUP is being completely ignored by this department. The Boda-Kaiser mine near Wellington, early stage, is also on BSAL. Who is tracking what is happening to our agricultural land. We can’t get it back once it’s damaged. How are all the roads going to cope with all these projects. Healthcare is struggling, water and waste are an issue, as is housing. What is being done to mitigate these cumulative impacts. How did the REZ even happen without community consultation in our food bowl.

551

New South Wales 2843

15/04/2025

Object

Website

This will NOT in any way benefit our town and will ruin so many lives and the landscape. We are but a small community and you probably won't LISTEN, however, you are NOT WANTED. Many meetings CLEARLY show this. We DO NOT want the wind farms. We have been LIED to before when the gas went through with promises of it being connected, was NOT connected to our town. MORE LIES! The wind farms WILL NOT REDUCE OUR POWER BILLS nor will it's energy be used here. For the UMPTEENTH time, we DO NOT want the Wind Farms...Are you LISTENING?

566

Redacted

15/04/2025

Object

Website

I am not in favour of the wind farms so close to the Coolah, Dunedoo and surrounding villages. Why to coastal residents entitled to larger buffers? I am relatively new to town and enjoyed the willingness to embrace a newcomer. The wind farms are splitting these wonderful cohesive communities. My submission is to object to the close location and the major loss of the uninterrupted vista that is so very appealing to the area. Once erected those views are changed forever and a loss to the personal peace that open spaces provide. If the project must go ahead why can’t the turbines be painted black or blue to match the sky to make them less obtrusive and incorporate solar panels in some way. They are painted white so why not a colour? The reduction in prime farming lands will have flow on effects for use, operations and reducing the margins to remain viable and profitable. A major concern is aviation safety used for general farming operations, medial emergencies but also for fire fighting. We need to feel safe in our own communities: large turbines and towers (which are even more unsightly) make aviation negotiation far more complex making for more resistance to attend our area. We have more to loose socially, psychologically and financially than any gains put forward.

541

Redacted

15/04/2025

Object

Website

Noise and Vibration: Constant humming and vibration can affect sleep, stress levels, and overall well-being of nearby residents. Visual Intrusion: Tall turbines dominate rural landscapes, often against the wishes of locals. Community Division: Wind projects can split rural towns between landowners who profit and those who don't. Road Damage: Heavy equipment and trucks used in construction can damage local roads and infrastructure. Limited Local Benefit: Jobs are often temporary, and long-term benefits for the local community can be minimal.

531

New South Wales 2831

15/04/2025

Object

Website

With the influx of renewable projects to the area it is needed that a cumulative impact statement for all projects in the Central West REZ be prepared.

546

Redacted

15/04/2025

Object

Website

As a local to the area with family in the said area, i do object. You are ruing good farm area, using fuel to make these areas to be green, so much so it would supply a whole town like Coolah for a couple of years, you are using more water then you need. This water will afect local farmers and towns, which isn’t good as we are heading into drought. You walk all over the farmers and other owners, telling them they have yo have this. Consultation only happens after it’s approved. And the power lines going in are ridiculous

521

Warrumbungle Shire Council

New South Wales 2357

14/04/2025

Object

Website

Submission is attached below.

Valley of the Winds Assessment redacted.pdf (PDF, 628.84 KB)

511

New South Wales 2354

13/04/2025

Object

Website

Doctors worldwide believe up to 30 percent of people react to Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise (ILFN) and that more people are affected by it the longer they are exposed to it. And that means it could impact on tens of thousands of people in rural Australia alone, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of place-bound farm animals such as horses, cattle, sheep, dogs, and pets on properties, and the distress caused to native fauna in National Parks near wind farms that have shown changes in behaviour, including serious signs of uncharacteristic stress, conception difficulties and adverse neonatal outcomes. Given the research into ILFN generated by wind farms, a correlation of stress in humans, livestock and fauna would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis, and particularly to when potential commercial production losses are considered due to unappealing tough eating, dark cutting meat – ‘a dark cutter’. There also needs to be a far greater focus on the toxic contamination risks arising from wind farms and BESS caused by erosion of BPA from the blades and the leaching of PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ and numerous heavy metals such as cadmium, cobalt, lead, lithium-copper, mercury, and nickel into our agricultural lands, water resources and atmosphere. Please read my attachments for indisputible evidence on the deleterious effects of ILFN and BPA contamination matters arising from wind farms and BESS.

What you can't hear won't hurt you - or will it - 1 April 2024 redacted.pdf (PDF, 186.66 KB)

Bisphenols - BPA 17 Jan. 2023.pdf (PDF, 65.98 KB)

516

New South Wales 2381

13/04/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Valley of the Winds wind farm, as I've stated in numerous other submissions on the subject. I agree with all the speakers who gave reasons against building the turbines, who spoke at the IPC meeting on Thursday. I will not repeat everything again, as it seems to just be a waste of my time, both the commissioners and the developers all get paid to be at these meetings, while the community members have to take time from their jobs/businesses.

496

New South Wales 2850

10/04/2025

Object

Website

I wish to object to this project as a member of community within the ‘Orana Rez Zone’. We are being completely inundated with renewable projects, please consider the communities this is destroying let alone peoples personal lives which are filled with stress and worry and time consuming research and submissions. Why should we be constantly targeted to defend our basic rights just because we live in an area that has been zoned without us ever being consulted. This project has significant effect not only on the local community but also surrounding communities for what reason when we are the most resource rich country in the world. Please consider looking into how coal is mined in the mid-western area. The strip ratio to coal is the smallest in Australia with exceptional coal seems. The coal burnt in power stations here is the inferior coal and will just be tipped back into a hole if we don’t use it but still mined to get to the export coal. As we will still be mining export coal to send to China to make our so called renewables, where they burn it in coal power stations! This is crazy how many more communities in our area will be destroyed before someone finally can see the whole picture.

486

New South Wales 2844

10/04/2025

Object

Website

Rural community v NSW State We are critical significant rural infrastructure - let the community decide. Let the community vote.

501

Burrendong SOS

Redacted

10/04/2025

Object

Website

Please find attached PDF submission from Burrendong SOS

Burrendong SOS - Submission to Valley of the Wind Wind Farm SSD-10461 - NSW Independent Planning Commission 10-4-25.pdf (PDF, 2.05 MB)

476

Redacted

08/04/2025

Object

Website

I completely object to the development of the Valley of the Winds Project. Despite my objection to the Orana REZ project seemingly being pointless I will again use the only channels available to us to have some form of an opinion. A consideration of my submission is hopeful. Main concerns of the Valley of the winds project include: ▪︎Visual impacts, scaring beautiful landscapes and outlooks ▪︎Environmental impacts, affecting bushland and native species ▪︎Is this renewable project being proved as a green alternative? How is this financially viable? ▪︎ Reduced agriculturally farmed area with the area of Dunedoo which in turn provides population and money towards our town-i.e schools, small business and community ▪︎ Lack of health services in our township of Dunedoo already at full capacity and unable to provide GP care for the already low numbers of population. At least half our towns population do not have access to a local GP and must travel. How can our health services accommodate this massive change in population. How will our emergency services cover this worforce both during construction and afterwards?? ▪︎ Fire hazards, insurances of farms to cover possible liability towards this company. ▪︎Lack of compensation to neighbour properties (ours included). As our main residential home is within metres of a company decided 4.95kms to the nearest wind turbine which at this stage we have been told we will not recieve any form of compensation. Despite our property boundary being well within that. We are set to receive no compensation and will also deal with an obvious depreciation towards our property. This financial depreciation, visual impact, and the unknown future of our property is simply devastating. Funding from these forms of projects toward community events such as Arts unlimited, Tunes on the turf have shown small positives to the area. I am personally uninterested in this. It is minimal, and financial loss on properties and visual impact is in no way subsidised with any of these minimal amounts of community funding. We are only impacted in negative ways, however it continues to come down to where a residential house is built amongst a neighbouring property. It doesn't consider other parts of our property that are used for living and working. In a meeting with ACEN I was meant to feel assured as areas of the map on our property would only show the nacelle part of the turbine! Devastatingly close. There is zero compensation for this proximity. There hasn't even been an offer of electricity rebates. I have read the published detailed reports from ACEN on why distances were decided upon. I guess we have to just trust this? Will my family not be affected by humming, noise disturbance, sleep disturbance? I have to just hope so. Our life is impacted. Our future, our property depreciation. After 12+ years of paying our mortgage, raising a family, is this an ok outcome for us? At the very least a pathetic minimal neighbour agreement has not been offered fairly. This company is a business that is solely for profit and in our eyes are skimping on providing appropriate compensation following the impacts on its surrounding properties. I am not against clean forms of energy, please consider the obvious environmental impacts on the beautiful land we are so lucky to live amongst. Please consider the obvious negative financial, emotional and mentally challenging impacts this project has on people like us. We were never considered just told of the project. In fact we were not approached and rather had to intiate a meeting to be heard and in turn dismissed of its obvious negative affects. It makes us consider our future within the area. Please consider this submission, Tamara Phillips

Screenshot_20250408_222531_Drive.jpg (JPG, 294.07 KB)

Screenshot_20250408_222438_Drive.jpg (JPG, 118.36 KB)

471

Victoria 3677

06/04/2025

Object

Website

Submission setting out thirteen failures, of the Valley of the Winds Wind Farm (VWWF) and why it is worthless and should never be built: There are two reasons why the Valley of the Wind, Wind Farm was to be built. 1. Reason one. Was to reduce Co2 Emissions, as part of meeting the NSW Government’s Net Zero by 2050 program. As declared by the NSW Minister for Energy and Environment in 2021 to help meet its objective to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. In doing so the VWWF would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions being emitted. 1A. Failure one. It is now worthless for Australia to try to achieve Net Zero by 2050. This is because China, India, Russia and now the USA, who emit 60% plus of the World’s so called Climate Change emissions are no longer interested in achieving Net Zero by 2050. This is emphasised in that they are now running their 2,196 coal fired power stations at full throttle, and are building several more each week. And for Australia, which only contributes 1.4% of the so-called Green House Gases to continue to pursue and closing its 18 Coal fired power stations to reduce its emissions to Net Zero by 2050, has absolutely no benefit and is only causing a severe case of economic self-harm. 2. Reason two was to supply electricity to the Grid. 2A. The requirements of the modern Australian electricity Grid in 2025. The Grid requires a completely reliable and stable supply of low cost, base load electricity for every second, of every minute of every 24 hours of every 365 days of the year. 2B. Failure two. Because the Valley of the Winds Wind Farm (VWWF), is assured to be an unreliable, intermittent, inefficient and uneconomic electricity generator. 2C. Unreliable because VWWF’s wind turbines, use Medieval 15th Century technology, that is driven by an unreliable weather fuel, ‘the wind’. And VWWF is unable to guarantee to generate even one KWh of electricity on demand or supply a large amount of electricity, at a future date and time for an extended period of say 4 hours. 2D. Intermittent, because VWWF uses Medieval 15th Century technology, that is driven by an unreliable weather fuel, ‘the wind’. Because wind turbines can only produce electricity, when the wind speed is between 12kms/hr and 90kms/hr and the wind speed varies from minute to minute. Electricity production from a wind turbine, also varies wildly. Of particular concern is wind droughts, when the wind is calm for hours or days. Wind droughts are common and can occur for 6 to 10 hours on cold, frosty nights. And for days and weeks during ‘rain’ droughts, which may last for 18 months or more. 2E. Inefficient and uneconomic. Because VWWF wind turbines need to rely on an unreliable and variable wind for fuel. Because of this unreliability and variability of wind speed, for wind turbines the industry average for electricity production is only 30% of their rated capacity. This dramatically reduces the economic production of VWWF as shown below. Estimated economic Production of the Valley of the Winds Wind Farm (VWWF). Estimated cost of wind turbine Rotor and blades = 750000 Tower 750000 Generator & Gearb 525000 Transportation 60000 Installation 130000 -------------- Total cost of WT $2,125,000 VWWF 131 turbines = $278.375million Estimate total costs $750 million From VWWF fact sheet. Originally 175 turbines over $1 billion. Currently 131 turbines $750 million Estimated economic value of annual electricity production @ $100/MWh Installed rated capacity 131 Wind Turbines 900MWh per day @ $100/MWh = $90,000/day. Actual average capacity @ 30% = 270MWh per day @ $100/MWh = $27,000/day Per year = $9,855,000 Return on Capital. Totally uneconomic. Estimated capital cost up to being operational. $750 million. Gross annual income @ $100/MWh = rounded to $10million. Return on capital = 1.5% From that 1.5% running costs, maintenance, dividends and community payments. Such as Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Warrumbungle Regional Council, commencing at construction of the project through the end of the project life. Likely to consist of a payment to the equivalent of 1.5% of the project’s capital expenditure to Council for the purpose of delivering and facilitating community projects and infrastructure. It is almost certain, that without a huge amount of subsidies VWWF would operate at a substantial loss. 3. Failure three. No capital available for dismantling, disposal of wind turbine blades, towers, all electrical parts and restoration. As seen by the small return on capital. There can be no money put aside for decommissioning, disposal and restoration. As there is no money able to be set aside for decommissioning, disposal and restoration. It can only be assumed that ACEN, has no intention of decommissioning, disposing of toxic waste and doing the restoration. 4. Failure four. VWWF claims to power 500,000 homes, (for 24hrs/day?) 4A. Because the claim that VWWF will power 500,000 homes (Valley of the Winds Wind Farm - https://acenrenewables.com.au/project/valley-of-the-winds/) it needs to be qualified to say that the VWWF may power the 500,000 homes intermittently for an average of 7.5hrs a day. With the 500,000 homes needing at any time to seek a completely different source of power for the remaining 16.5hrs and even 24hrs of each day. 4B. Note: The VWWF will only produce a weak power, because it is being combined from 131 turbines. This is why only the number of homes is quoted as being powered. Only coal, gas, hydro and nuclear, can provide the dense powered needed by manufacturing and heavy industry. 5. Failure five. Because the Valley of the Winds Wind Farm will place 131 Wind turbines on the 695 hectares of agricultural land. It will in fact be placing 131 potential incendiary devices on 200m towers. The Fire danger is astronomical. Take a Day of Total Fire Ban, the temperature is 43dC with a NW Wind blowing at 75kms/hr. A wind turbine catches fire on the top of a 280m tower. It throws burning debris for 400 to 500m. Ariel water bombers are out of the question as they have to stay between 5 and 10kms clear. Ground crews have no ability to control the fire in the turbine, because of the height of the towers. Note it has been reported whether the 131 wind turbines are to be fitted with fire suppressors. NOTE: VWWF appears to have taken negligible precautions in the way of fire breaks or fire fighting facilities. NOTE: It would be quite likely that a fire starting from the VWWF, could start a fire causing hundreds of millions of dollars damage. Does ACEN Australia have a Public Liability Policy to cover damages of $100 million to a $500million? 6. Failure six. The 695 hectares will be permanently polluted by putting the 131 wind turbines, ancillary equipment and roads on the land. The turbine bases consisting of Concrete: Over 2,222 tonnes of concrete (approximately 903 cubic meters) are needed. This equates to around 143 concrete agitator truckloads per turbine foundation. Reinforcing Steel: Just under 90 tonnes of reinforcing steel bars, commonly known as ‘reo,’ are required to reinforce the concrete. Sand: Over 833 tonnes of sand are utilized in the construction of each foundation. It’s important to note that these figures are per wind turbine base, and the industry believes the bases will never be removed. 6A. There has to be some loss of agricultural production from the 695 hectares. The inability to carry out any aerial fertilizing, aerial spraying of locust plagues, aerial fire suppression. It would not be unreasonable to see an annual loss of production of $500 per hectare, which would when it reached the retail sales amount to $2,000 per hectare. When multiplied by the 695 hectares it is an annual loss of $1.4million, with the flow-on jobs in a multitude of areas to Coolah and surrounding communities and eventually Australia as a whole. When consideration of the miracle ability of agricultural land to rejuvenate itself as in 6B. It is the very possible when the annual loss of $1.4million is considered over the 100 years, 2026 to 2126, to have a loss of $140million and associated jobs to Coolah and surrounding communities and eventually Australia as a whole. 6B. When the fact that Agricultural Land is annually able to rejuvenate itself and continue to produce food and fibre, is a miracle, and it should be kept as one of the most priceless, uses of land in Australia. If it is fertilized and nurtured it will continue to annually rejuvenate itself, and produce agricultural produce, for the period from 2025 to 2125, a period of one hundred years and then indefinitely. 7. Failure seven. Of great concern is the pollution of surrounding land with microplastics and Bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is a chemical produced in large quantities for use primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. And is used to coat wind turbine blades. As the blades wear the BPA breaks down and the microplastic and BPA is blown over the surrounding countryside. Some comments. “Bisphenol A is the most toxic substance we know’ —Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. New EU Hazard Classes 2023 • Endocrine disruption for human health • Very persistent, very bioaccumulative • Endocrine disruption for the environment • Very persistent, very mobile * Avoid release to the environment! https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/bisphenol-a-pollution-from-wind-turbines/ 8. Failure eight. The effect on biodiversity (particularly on birds and bats), has been acknowledged by the removal of 17 turbines. As birds and bats fly, the removal of 17 turbines is only a cosmetic change and over several years the biodiversity of the are will be decimated. 9. Failure nine. The amenity affects on surrounding dwellings by visual and sound movements, on the peace and serenity of residents, has been acknowledged by the removal of 17 turbines. I believe that this is only a stopgap measure and over time it will create mental problems, such as depression and anxiety in local residents. 10. Failure ten. The building of the VWWF in the area, will have the effect of lowering land values. Who would want to buy any place that had a vista of constantly moving wind turbines? The fire risk will be greatly increased? The biodiversity greatly reduced? The use of light aircraft made very difficult. 11. Failure eleven. Increased heating of surrounding land. It has been found that Wind Turbines actually increase the land temperature downwind of where they are operating. (It only stands to reason as we see how winds dry up the Country. Wind Turbines, chop and change the wind as it passes through the blades, causing a more drying effect. And it even has a global effect https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/wind-farms-raise-temperatures-at-the-surface-level/ 12. Failure twelve. Who is going to be responsible to dismantle and remove the wind turbines including the bases? All ACEN Australia has is one line. Commitment to responsibly decommission all project infrastructure at the end of project life. There is no mention of how and where the turbine blades and towers will be disposed of. Is it proposed they will be buried on site? As we have seen the VWWF is very likely to make big losses. It is very likely ACEN Australia are going to become insolvent and walk away. It is unknown if ACEN Australia has put anytime into looking at how the decommissioning will be done, the disposal, the resoration and the cost. They certainly have not been asked to put up a bond. 13. Failure thirteen. Then where is it all going to be disposed off. That doesn’t bare thinking about. I believe that the hosts will have the first responsibility and when they are broke, the Council? Summary. For these thirteen reasons I believe that the Valley of the Winds, Wind Farm can be challenged as being a fake, inefficient, intermittent, unreliable, uneconomic, very high fire risk, extremely expensive, electricity generator. That never ever should be considered as an electricity generator to supply electricity to the Grid. Submission by John Moore Wangaratta Victoria

466

New South Wales 2787

01/04/2025

Object

Website

Please refer to attachment

Valley of Winds Submission redacted.pdf (PDF, 287.05 KB)

461

Victoria 3181

28/03/2025

Object

Website

Valley of the Winds: Submission by Alan Moran, Regulation Economics

Valley of Winds Alan Moran.pdf (PDF, 519.23 KB)

266

New South Wales 2844

24/03/2025

Object

Website

Hi there , this is the second written objection that I am now making .To cover off ,we were advised that our Initial submission would have a response from the developer /Governing Body .Nobody has received any feedback from those submissions .Why is that do you think ? This submission will be essentially the same as my first one but the key points remain as - The Whole Warrambungle region and the farms are a superb environment and the Intstallation of these enormous Wind Turbines will transform this whole area in to an Industrial zone .It will be horrific for everyone in the area -apart of course for the ones that have been financially compensated .These farmers are in the minority in the community and unfortunately their acceptance of monies will divide the community .These Wind towers look terrible, sound terrible,Inhibit aerial fire fighting potential and destroy the wonderful region that the Warrambungles are.We will see every cluster from our farm and it will be an ever present catastrophe for us and all surrounding farms .The Valley of the Winds project will devalue our farms as who would want to but a farm surrounded by ENORMOUS wind Turbines .We have neighbours that will experience shadowing at different times of the day as we'll as Noise and Vibrations .What a disaster for them .We will have a devastating visual impact and be able to see all 158 Towers form our property .I vehemently object to the Valley of the Winds project and sincerely hope it does not proceed .Regards Jason Veale

576

New South Wales 2843

16/04/2025

Comment

Website

G’day I am highly concerned of the extraction of water from the aquifer to supply the building of substrates of the wind towers let alone the water use just for temp ammenities, Coolah town has bad town water as it is let alone drain millions of litres more from the basin. I also have grave concerns re the extent of sewer that will come from temporary camps, the sewer system is not up to speed at the present time so this is of concern. The roads are not in any way shape or form to have to take current road users let alone the extra movement of heavy vechiles to complete this project. I would love to know what happens to the grounds and roads once the life span finishes of the turbines? All aspects obviously need to be considered including the impact in the township of Coolah and constant monitoring of what’s happening in town to adjust or stop as required

571

New South Wales 2843

16/04/2025

Comment

Website

House 278 Continuing on from the previous submission. We have only just been made aware that we have the rights within the Assessment document to ask the ICP and commissioners to seriously consider the removal of at least 10-12 turbines in close proximity to HOUSE 278, this would help mitigate the severe affects and burden that we feel have not been properly investigated by the applicant in the application process in regards to the visual and noise impacts will have on our wellbeing and daily lives to ourselves and our business. Please note : No photo montage nor the results of the noise monitoring results, (We had noise monitoring equipment near our clothes line for a 3- 4 month period and I asked for the results on several occasion and did with no response from the applicant) have not been made available to us even on request. We have been keep in the dark.

Dwelling 278 accompanying slides.pdf (PDF, 1.31 MB)

556

New South Wales 2843

15/04/2025

Comment

Website

House 278: The Assessment documentation did not to our knowledge fully nor adequately consider our residence. We feel that the applicant proposal ignored and down played the potential impacts, both visual and noise impacts to our home. Our home was LiDAR at a point of view at the applicant request and not on our preferred or our selected view point, not behind foliage. Before the commission makes a decision we request that a photo montage be completed by the applicants and the commissioners come and visit and see the impact on our property and lives for themselves. We are really worried long term about the impacts to our environment and ultimately who is going to hold the hosts accountable to remove the turbines so they are not impacting on us after the end of their life. • We have grave concerns that information is being withheld from neighbours – we call it secret squirrel business • We are annoyed at the secret squirrel business. We realise this is what the developers want – division - so little information is shared. For example no one even told us about the planned Energy Co transmission/substation and planned proximity to our home. • We gave ACEN permission for sound monitoring at our home only if we were given a copy of the report. No report has been received. In all recent contact with ACEN we have asked for sound monitoring reports, nothing received. • We are worried about the noise and the impact of noise on our quality of life. • We have been given a neighbour agreement to sign yet no results of the noise monitoring they had adjacent to the clothes line for 3 months. • According to the neighbour agreement we have 4 turbines within 2 to 3 km, 8 turbines in the 3 to 4 km, 9 turbines in the 4 to 5 km. We note that there are at least 10 turbines that could be micro sited into different areas closer to our home. Of these 10 turbines at least 5 in the area outside of 5 km could come into the 4 to 5 km band. • There has been no photomontage completed by ACEN at our residence. None has been offered. • Why when we do our LPA accreditation is it asking if I am in vicinity of wind turbines or solar panels. Is this because of the contamination from eroding blades or soil contaminates? • Our roads are bad enough already without additional traffic. Orana road to Collier road is our only access to the Black Stump Way. How are they going to stop people using these roads? Cameras won’t stop contractors taking short cuts on local roads instead of designated routes. • What provisions are they making if there is a bushfire nearby, as a result of the Sir Ivan Fire we lost 70% of the place. During that event we had aerial fire support with helicopters and Hercules. Mainly helicopters on our place, they filled from our dam and the Turee dam. They won’t be able to fly anywhere near our home – we will be a no-fly zone. If we are evacuated due to fire – because there is no aerial firefighting – what happens to our home, livestock, business? • We are concerned we won’t be able to get affordable insurance, or even if fire insurance is ever going to be offered. For example flood insurance is not available in flood country, when will fire insurance not be available to communities surrounded by wind turbines? • We’ve seen local evidence that potential buyers walk away from properties that neighbour wind turbines and their infrastructure. • We’ve seen evidence that buyers walk away from properties planning to host wind turbines. • We have no idea where the quarry, substation and batteries will be located, are they on neighbouring land to us? • We have been offered a measly sum for a neighbour payment that would not be paid until turbines were commissioned. • We would like to know when does developer/ACEN receive subsidies from the government. Is it when approvals have been acquired or on commencement of construction of the wind farm or is it paid in increments throughout construction or on completion and commissioning of the planned Wind farm? • Is it possible that the project would be sold to some other entity and what happens to any agreements? • The money offered is an insult when we are looking at the long-term impacts. • Note there has been no offer of compensation for disruption to our lives and business during construction. • An example of ACEN’s poor communication is texting us at 11.16 on Wednesday 2 April to let us know the independent planning commission meeting was being held on 10 April. This was 44 minutes prior to close of speakers’ registration. We don’t live in a mobile phone service area. • If the department puts consent conditions in to protect us who polices these? • Is it up to us to report breaches of consent conditions? Who to? • Why do we have to deal with the coast’s problems? The wind blows in the blue mountains and out in the harbour. • Wind and solar is just a band aid, we cannot see the whole thing working as it is no way environmentally friendly. • Why does common sense not prevail, when it is easy to see that the costing of this project is going to be such a financial burden to our country in particular Tax payers because of Federal government policy? • The subsidies to foreign investment/ownership/ACEN alone are enormous. Will there be an investigation into the ultimate costing blow outs for this project by the IPC.

Dwelling 278 accompanying slides.pdf (PDF, 1.31 MB)

491

New South Wales 2843

10/04/2025

Comment

Website

Today I attended the public meeting of the IPC regarding the VOW proposal by ACEN . I have previously had a foot in both camps in that I thought renewable energy was a good idea to supplement other sources of energy. Personally we are off grid and generate all our power with solar panels and have battery storage. I have always maintained that even though our per capita consumption of power is quite high in Australia because we have a small population the overall impact of us as a nation reducing our CO2 output would not substantially reduce global warming. For this reason the current push to such a high renewable target seems non sensical. More so the push to spread The projects so far across regional Australia impacting so many communities and jeopardising food production in these critical areas. The lack of transparency of the costs involved $, resources and embodied energy , burying the facts in massive documents and then giving the public a minimal time to try and sift through and find the information is so unfair. Why cant the government or proponents tell us the TRUTH good and the bad and let us make an informed choice. The political agenda is skewing the information so much that I have no confidence in the information coming forward being true. I hope the IPC genuinely listened today because the community delivered very plausible reasons for this project to be denied approval. The same placating phrases were trotted out by ACEN and the planning department at the end of the day as though they hadn't even heard us. At the very minimum hold off the decision until the much discussed Report into cumulative effects is published.

621

New South Wales 2843

16/04/2025

Support

Website

Valley of the Winds Project We have been aware of the possibility of a Wind Farm Development on our property for over 15 years. We live in a very windy location, and we are fortunate to own a property that consists of several high ridgelines that have very few trees, very few close neighbours and consistent high winds. As a host landholder, I would like to share my point of view about what has been planned for the land we own, and why we are supporting this project. We have been most concerned with the effects of the burning of fossil fuel and how it has contributed to the current situation that Australia finds itself in. We are supportive of renewable energy in Australia and to have this be part of the solution to reduce our warming planet. The urgency for power has been very evident with the proposed closure of coal fired power plants in NSW. We have spoken to several developers over the last 15 years and have been well aware of the world wide climate effects that need addressing to ensure the future for generations ahead. Our exposure to the Wind farms has been long and measured. We have done our own research and visited other wind farms throughout Australia and the UK and Ireland. We are going in to this project with our eyes wide open. Our family has been settled in the Coolah Valley since the 1850s. The farm has supported many generations of farming and our farm currently supports 3 generations, with several family members independent of the current family operation as it is not possible to support them. We struggled through the Sir Ivan Bushfire in 2017 where 60 % of our property was burnt out. We make a point of saying that we were not supported at all by the RFS or Aerial support and we were left to fend for ourselves. I find the comments in other submissions to the IPC about aerial support and support from the RFS quite offensive. We feel confident that a windfarm built would mean roads around our property to enable better Fire fighting access, and a company that will protect their wind and turbine assets with a fire plan. To say we felt abandoned during Sir Ivan by fire fighting organisations is an understatement. We also survived the most recent drought following Sir Ivan. It was a terrible experience for us as it was for many others in the area. Having to relocate all of our cows on agistment after the fire, and then bringing them back to then experience drought, meant we struggled through remaining years of the drought trying to keep our heads above water. We believe that the opportunity to “drought proof” our property with wind turbines will give us the chance to provide an ongoing future for our family. We believe we have done our due diligence as to what to expect as the Host Landowners, and to hold the constructing company to account to ensure that they do the right thing for us and the community, in construction, ongoing management and decommissioning as necessary. We also believe that the benefits being provided for Coolah and surrounds will also ”drought proof” the Coolah Community by ensuring that our area continues to grow and develop and thrive. I hope that our local community rallies together to work in the right direction to have a say in how the promised VPA funds to Council ensure that we are all able to benefit from proposed windfarms. I hope that Coolah Residents will get behind the opportunities being made available for our community to ensure that all who live here obtain the maximum benefit being given for our area, for hosting any renewable energy projects. Thank you for the opportunity to present a written submission.

561

New South Wales 2843

15/04/2025

Support

Website

Submission in support of the Valley of the Winds Project I would like to declare that we are hosting turbines on our land holdings. We accept that many would discount our views as being purely self interest, which is understandable. However I would be in favour of such a project if this were not the case. Personal perspective and Impacts As primary producers we are always subject to the capricious nature of the weather. In my view global warming is occurring, resulting in increased atmospheric volatility. Whether this is entirely due to our rapacious burning of megatons of fossil fuels is open to some debate. The weight of evidence suggests it has made a major contribution. These changes will have potentially catastrophic effects on our enterprises -Increased bushfire risk ( Sir Ivan Fire 2017/ Warrumbungles NP fire 2013 very extreme events becoming more frequent) -Higher incidence of severe storms, wind and rainfall extremes -Increased intensity of droughts with longer duration Within our enterprise we are addressing our carbon footprint by both increasing CO2 sequestration and minimising emissions. Initiatives such as Tree planting, conservation farming, improved grazing management, conversion to solar pumping where possible, promoting deep rooted perennial grass species, adopting methane amelioration technologies to name a few. The development of large scale renewable has to be part of the solution to our warming planet. From our perspective a wind farm is something that our enterprise can coexist with and would have very little if any impact on our productivity. We have calculated that in our enterprise the actual footprint is approximately 2Ha /Turbine plus 2.5/Ha for Substation. In our case about 39Ha. This includes the ancillary road and transmission infrastructure ( less than 1% of the land area ). Compare this to Coal mining where the total land area is lost and the large offsets result in productive land being depopulated and productivity adversely impacted. Community Perspective I have lived and worked in the Coolah district and surrounds for 40 odd years. The major source of employment in this region has historically been agriculture and the various industries that support such pursuits. Some are government instrumentalities ( Railways, Power provision ,Health care, Education, Policing to mention a few) others are private enterprise (Stock and Station agents, Veterinary Services ,Transport services etc) Unfortunately the terms of trade in agriculture have steadily declined resulting in the need to constantly improve productivity and mechanise. Holdings have tended to become larger with a loss of smaller producers and a concurrent decline in population. This has had a knock on effect with regard to the demand for Education (much lower enrolments) Health Services, Policing etc. As population declines government, at all levels rationalises the services they provide. It is becoming exceedingly difficult to staff even the reduced facilities we now have. The result of this downward spiral is fewer attractive job opportunities for our children if they would like to stay here. This project and others in the REZ will stimulate a lot of economic activity within the region. Economic activity stimulates job opportunities and creates alternative areas of employment that are not solely dependant on agriculture. Money will flow into local government infrastructure and the community through various pathways. Also a very large % of the lease payments to host landholders will be spent locally because these people have a local focus and support local businesses. Once the project is established apart from providing maintenance jobs it may well open other avenues for synergistic businesses that could utilise excess power when generation exceeds demand.eg Fertiliser production A project like this has the potential to broaden the economic base of our community, improving it's resilience and sustainability. The Big Picture Mankind has been very successful in overpopulating this earth. The thirst for ever increasing amounts of energy will hasten our demise unless we find more sustainable ways to produce it. This project will be a contribution to the transition away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately there is never a solution without some impacts. I make this observation. Many years ago when the Hunter Valley became one big coal mine and the transmission lines marched out to all corners of the state there was little opposition from those that were finally receiving mains power! Finally I would like to draw the commissioners attention to the effect that the Box Woodland Ecosystem has had on the approval process. The footprint of this project is almost entirely on land that has been cleared for agricultural pursuits. The destruction /modification of these woodlands has been the result of these activities. A windfarm could in isolation coexist with a Box Woodland, and in all likelihood flourish. It is the persistent grazing pressure and other agricultural practises that inhibit any recovery of the ecosystem. It appears to me that there has been overzealous emphasis on the windfarms impacts on the current status of the Box Woodlands with regard to offsets and approval. A number of turbine locations have been redacted from the project in order to satisfy perceived impacts that are not necessarily based on good science. I question the wisdom of obstructing the most efficient project development in such a way. It will eventually result in extra projects in other areas to recover the lost generation capacity along with duplication of the attendant infrastructure. In the process creating more community angst and further increasing the cost to the consumer. Thank you for your consideration

536

New South Wales 2833

15/04/2025

Support

Website

I support this project for the benefit of the community and I just want to say one thing it is a 400 person camp tilt are having on my place Thanks

526

New South Wales 2843

15/04/2025

Support

Website

I support this project

506

New South Wales 2843

11/04/2025

Support

Website

I am a land owner and signed proponent in the Liverpool range wind farm , I support the valley of the winds wind farm. The project will bring employment and boost the economy in the town. Landowners will able to have income when in drought or good times which again they spend money in the town The project will have on going employment which is great for the central school and catholic school junior rugby league and netball club , coolah rugby league , coolah rugby union and the shops and pubs and club. More positives than negatives We need both projects to happen soon Thanks

481

New South Wales 2843

09/04/2025

Support

Website

I, Danny Miller fully support the proposed the ‘Valley of the Wind’ wind farm at Coolah NSW. I have been a resident of Coolah since 1972 and have seen many chances to our town including the lose of job opportunities for our youth. Bringing these projects to Coolah will give people a greater opportunity for employment which means they can stay in our town. During construction every business has a great opportunity to profit from this. Yes our little town will become busier, but for the better. After construction is complete there supposedly will be up to 70 full time unskilled jobs to maintain both wind farms. Coolah will not secure all of these, but if we can secure 25 of those jobs, this would be a huge benefit to the towns economy and population. All communities within 20 kilometres of these projects will benefit from the community grant money paid per turbine which must be spent within that area. We will see improvements in our road system to accommodate the increase in traffic during construction, but those roads will remain a legacy long after the workers are gone. While there is a portion of the population are against these projects, I believe the majority of people are either neutral and in favour of these developments. Unfortunately there are enormous amounts of untruths being spread by some people regarding facts about these industries which is a shame. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you must tell the truth or run the risk of being found out. Yes there will be a short term pain, but there will be long term gains for the districts.