The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission investigated the Black Saturday fires where 125,000 hectares burnt, 1000 homes were destroyed, and 119 lives were tragically lost.  

The commission found that the blaze was caused by the negligence of SP AusNet and their assets managers Utility Services Group in the duty of safely maintaining the infrastructure under their control (ABC News – 30/10/2013). The plaintiff lawyers argued that SP AusNet misled landowners after the fires, installing conductors on farmers’ land to gather evidence for the SP Ausnet defence case. Justice Jack Forrest has ruled that “electricity contractors were trespassing” (ABC News – 30/10/2013). 

Keep this deplorable behaviour and lack of honesty front of mind when considering AEMO and SP AusNet’s bungled attempt to rush through a flawed and less-than-optimal solution to the VNI West project.

Plans

Initial plans were made in response to the Government’s intent to transition to renewables; however, after years of trying to get the project off the ground and generating much community backlash to the preferred and most direct routes, the VNI West project is now subject to the laws of NEVA (National Electricity (Victoria) Act) which seeks a new alternative option ‘to expedite the development and delivery’ of this project.

After critically analysing the “VNI West consultation Report – Option assessment limitations”, I find it illogical and scandalous that Option 5 has been deemed the newly preferred option. Despite having numerous identified limitations, Option 5 is also the only option which fails to pass near – or supply – Bendigo. As stated in the Consultation Report (Pg 13) “AVO will continue to monitor required power into Bendigo, and if required can plan to do something in relation to the demand in the future and will outline this in the annual power plan report.” Surely delivering a holistic future-proof solution should be the fundamental requirement of an investment of this scale.

Report

The Consultation Report (Pg 13) clearly identifies that an “existing 220 KV transmission line easement that is already in place through the national park (that supplies Bendigo)…[and] that initial findings indicated that the new line could be erected on the same easement in the same location”. Not only does a suitable easement already exist, but in so utilising this easement, this would eliminate further adverse social and environmental effects of this project. This considered, removing the social and environmental weighting from the project’s assessment rating (due to use of an existing easement), Option 3A would return a weighted score of 1.88 (compared with Option 5’s score of 2.01). Option 3A is clearly demonstrated to be the best option for delivery of this project.

Option 5 is also identified as having less Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) development than that of Option 3A. The VNI West Consultation Report (Pg 14) identifies that Option 5 offers the lowest indicative improvements to REZ of all 7 options, and furthermore, the least REZ potential. A $3b+ project, and of all the options considered, the preferred option ‘has the least REZ potential’. Are taxpayers really getting best value for money here? With time running out for AEMO, and landowners (understandably) outraged, it seems the longest route with the least number of voices is the quickest way to push this project through to meet election promises of Government. 

This project will force easements through primary production farmland, substantially reducing farmable area. Reducing the area being farmed results in less food being produced, and drives further increasing of costs for consumers. The flow on effects to the viability and profitability of farming operations will be felt throughout every rural community. I doubt this has been appropriately considered or measured in AEMO’s assessment of social impact. 

Lifespan

I am not going to begin to try to understand the lifespan of a power grid, but I understand when the VNI West Consultation report (Pg 13) clearly outlines that Bendigo’s grid is going to require further development in the near future and that this is likely to occur within the next 10 years. Option 1, 1A, 2, 3, 3A and 4 all incorporate a route via Bendigo. Option 5 does not. If Option 5 is to be assessed along with Options 1 through 4, then logically it must also consider the future cost of upgrading the infrastructure around Bendigo that would be achieved through the other options. Failing to do so simply flaws the entire analysis, and Option 5 must be removed from consideration in its entirety.   

AEMO and Transgrid have illogically concluded that of the 7 options, the option with the lowest RMZ capacity and the most indirect route, is somewhere deemed the best. Option 5 has come about after several years of community backlash along the initially proposed route; the route which is more direct, more efficient and offer higher electrical capacity. Let’s not forget the behaviour of those bodies who were happy to lie to landholders to collect evidence for their defence case back in 2009. Can we rely on the data presented in the VNI West Consultation Report? Was Option 5 only added after the other (clearly better, cheaper and more efficient) options got too hard? 

Options

Why, of the 7 options that have consumed so much time and effort, 6 of them (or 85%) are so heavily correlated, yet it is Options 5 (the late curve ball) which now comes up trumps? How accurate are the project costings when 85% of your times has been spent analysing the other 6 near-identical project routes? How can Option 5 be deemed the most cost effective when the route isn’t even known?  Is it also true that transmission lines can be erected with just 300m of a residence? How can we feel safe in our own homes given the previous asset management history and deplorable behaviour of those who’ll also be responsible for this project? 

We may only be lightly populated along Option 5, but we are people with families; fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who’ve been here for generations working, protecting and improving the precious land from which we make our livelihood, and provide the food for our nation. 

I’ve raised a number of concerns with the conduct of AEMO, and the flawed assessment of options outlined in the VNI West Consultation Report. For these reasons, I know I speak for so many in my community in voicing my fierce objection to Option 5.

Sincerely,
The Farmer From Option 5.
(Name Provided)

This article appeared in The Buloke Times, 25 April 2023

Related story: As AEMO’s transmission blunder boils over … the placards say it all!