New England REZ Transmission ProjectHave your say on the New England transmission project by 26 November

Nearly half the project area unsurveyed at EIS lodgement

The EIS biodiversity fact sheet states that only about 54 per cent of the 10,928-hectare project area had been surveyed at the time of lodgement, with some areas remaining unsurveyed due to access limitations. The assessment relies on precautionary desktop assumptions for the rest, which EnergyCo itself acknowledges likely overestimates impacts — meaning the true picture is unverified.

Fifteen species and communities face serious and irreversible harm

The EIS identifies 15 entities — including two critically endangered ecological communities, three critically endangered species and multiple endangered species — that face 'serious and irreversible impacts' (SAIIs) from the project. Four of these are confirmed present; the remaining 11 are assumed present on unsurveyed land, meaning the full extent of harm is not yet established.

Biodiversity offset strategy deferred and unconfirmed

EnergyCo proposes to meet its offset obligations through a Strategic Offset Delivery Agreement (SODA) with DCCEEW, but this agreement has not been finalised or secured. The EIS lists a biodiversity credit liability of 687,276 credits, more than half attributed to unsurveyed land, meaning the true liability and whether it can be offset remain unresolved at the time of assessment.

Critically endangered grassy woodland cannot be replaced

The EIS acknowledges that 146.75 hectares of New England Peppermint grassy woodland — a critically endangered ecological community — would be directly affected, with 90.96 hectares fully cleared. The assessment report states there is 'insufficient data available to determine if this EEC is unlikely to respond to management', leaving open whether any offset can genuinely replace what is lost.

Over 1,370 hectares of koala habitat to be cleared

The EIS identifies that around 1,373 hectares of koala habitat would be impacted by the project, of which 604 hectares is forest and woodland. The EIS assessment report states the removal of this habitat 'is likely to have a significant impact on the koala at the local and state scale'.

Spotted-tailed quoll loses over 1,700 hectares of habitat

The EIS finds that 1,705.22 hectares of spotted-tailed quoll habitat would be affected. The spotted-tailed quoll's mainland population is estimated to have fallen by 50 to 90 per cent since European settlement, making further large-scale habitat loss particularly significant.

Wildlife connectivity strategy not yet prepared

The EIS states that a connectivity strategy 'will be prepared' to identify habitat linkages and guide how animals move through the easement. This plan does not yet exist, meaning the adequacy of wildlife crossing measures — such as koala refuge poles and rope bridges — cannot be assessed at the time of the approval decision.

All 2,060 worker beds in remote paddock camps, not towns

The EIS proposes 2,060 beds across five temporary construction camps, none of which are located in a town. The social impact assessment rates reduced access to rentals and short-term accommodation as a medium impact, relying on the camps to resolve housing pressure — but the camps add nothing to community housing stock.

Health service strain rated high before mitigation

The EIS social impact assessment rates reduced access to health services as a high impact before mitigation, singling out areas near camps 'where baseline service provision is limited or absent'. The proposed mitigation — a health management plan — is yet to be developed, leaving communities without certainty about how this high impact will be managed.

Anti-social behaviour risk rated high, mitigation unproven

The social impact assessment rates the risk of anti-social behaviour around construction camps as high for local communities before mitigation, falling only to medium with a workforce code of conduct. A code of conduct is an administrative measure, not a structural safeguard, and its effectiveness in small rural communities is undemonstrated.

Legacy community benefits remain aspirational only

The EIS workforce management plan commits only to 'ongoing exploration of opportunities for legacy outcomes following construction, such as repurposing workforce accommodation camp facilities for community use'. No binding commitments, funding or timelines are provided for any community legacy benefit.

Equine Critical Industry Cluster threatened by corridor

Multiple submissions to EnergyCo raised concern that the proposed corridor passes through land identified within the Upper Hunter Equine Critical Industry Cluster, citing risks to the industry's reputation and long-term investment confidence. The EIS has not fully resolved how the corridor interacts with this designated high-value agricultural area.

Anthrax risk in Rouchel area not yet managed

The EIS acknowledges that some transmission infrastructure is proposed in the Rouchel area of the Upper Hunter, where historical anthrax outbreaks have been recorded. A biosecurity management plan to address this risk has not yet been finalised; the EIS states it 'will be implemented during construction'.

Final easement alignment still not confirmed

The EIS is assessed against a 250-metre corridor within a broader 1-kilometre study area, with the final easement of approximately 140 metres for dual lines yet to be determined. Landholders cannot assess the true impact on their farming operations, property layout or productivity until the final alignment is fixed.

Towers up to 70 metres high across pastoral landscape

The EIS confirms transmission towers will be up to 70 metres high, spaced 400 to 600 metres apart, across approximately 300 kilometres of New England and Upper Hunter landscape. Three of the ten assessed landscape character zones are rated as having a moderate visual impact from the project.

Vegetation screening identified for only 9 receivers

The EIS visual impact assessment identifies potential vegetation screening locations at only 9 of the 157 assessed receivers (dwellings and non-easement properties). Planting layouts are to be developed in consultation with landholders after approval, meaning most affected properties have no confirmed visual mitigation at the decision-making stage.

Property value impacts not adequately assessed

Community submissions raised concern about the effect of transmission line easements on property values. The EIS does not include an independent assessment of property value impacts on affected landholdings, leaving this significant financial risk to landholders unquantified.

Construction water sources not yet confirmed

The EIS states that EnergyCo's priority is to capture rainwater and reuse treated wastewater, then enter agreements with willing landholders, before considering surface and groundwater sources. No water licences or supply agreements have been confirmed, leaving the project's water sourcing unresolved at the time of assessment.

Localised groundwater impacts acknowledged but unmitigated

The EIS groundwater assessment finds that construction could cause small, localised changes to groundwater levels, flows and quality, particularly where groundwater is used for construction water. The adequacy of proposed mitigation measures for individual bores and stock water supplies on affected properties has not been demonstrated.

Cumulative traffic and road impacts not fully resolved

Community submissions raised concerns about cumulative pressure on regional roads from the combined effects of transmission construction, energy hub development and large-scale renewable energy projects in the corridor. The EIS cumulative impact assessment relies on region-wide studies that were still being completed at the time of lodgement.

Combined impacts of REZ generation projects not assessed

The transmission project is assessed in isolation, but it will be accompanied by multiple wind and solar projects connecting to the five energy hubs. The cumulative environmental, social and infrastructure impacts of the full REZ build-out — including workforce, housing and services — have not been assessed together in this EIS.

Emergency services capacity under cumulative strain unassessed

The social impact assessment rates the strain on ambulance, police and Rural Fire Service crews as a medium impact, but this assessment does not account for the simultaneous construction of multiple renewable energy projects across the same region and the compounding demand on already stretched rural emergency services.

Project is a controlled action requiring separate federal approval

The project was determined a controlled action under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 16 March 2026 (EPBC ID 2025/10405). A separate approval from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water is required, and that assessment is ongoing and independent of the NSW process.

NSW approval ahead of federal decision creates approval risk

Granting NSW approval before the Commonwealth EPBC assessment is complete means conditions imposed by the federal government — which must consider impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities — cannot be integrated into the NSW consent. This risks inconsistent or conflicting obligations for the proponent and inadequate protection for matters of national environmental significance.