Summary of FERA community information meeting, Ruffy Hall, Sat 25th Feb 2023

For those who were unable to attend either of the meetings on Saturday, or who did attend but couldn’t understand what was said due to the raucous nature of the meeting, here is a summary of the proceedings and some of the information learned. Please note this summary is on best efforts – it was difficult to follow.The meeting at Ruffy Hall was probably not what most people who attended were expecting. FERA had laid out the hall like a mini trade show, with display banners situated around the hall and many FERA staff available to talk with and discuss the information on display.

There was no general presentation area, or seating, just lots of banners around the outside and lots of people in the middle. There were 12 FERA employees and approximately 60 community members present.

This quickly became very noisy and rather agitated, resulting in Greg Pritchard from the SRRCG taking to the stage to ask for some calm and quiet to be restored, and suggesting that Andrew Lawson of FERA also take to the stage to answer questions and present to the community as a whole.

Members of the community appeared to be unanimous in their opposition to the proposed project, and questioned Mr Lawson for some time, but as FERA had already lost control of the meeting it was difficult for the questions to be heard.

I think it was apparent to all of the community members who attended that this was not a consultation, more just FERA informing the community of what appears to be a fait accompli, as they believe they have already contracted enough landholders to host enough turbines to push forward with evaluation of the project and that they intend to proceed regardless of whether the majority of the community support them or not.The meeting at Upton Hill CFA shed was considerably better organised by FERA, with the display banners arranged in a row behind Mr Lawson, and seating provided for the attendees.

Mr Lawson gave an overview of the proposed project, talked through the information provided on some of the banners, and fielded questions from the attendees. The questions and general feeling of the attendees were mostly consistent with those at Ruffy, as were the answers and attitude of FERA.

After repeated questioning about the current state of the proposed project, FERA gave the following information. It should be made clear that some of these details are commercially sensitive and that FERA had no obligation to make them public.As of the 12th of January 2023, FERA had apparently signed option agreements with 8 landholders in the area to build wind turbines on their properties if the project proceeds as planned. The amount of land currently under contract to FERA is enough to build 60 to 70 turbines, with one turbine to approx 500 to 700 acres. This is projected from the generator size (6-7.2MW) as larger generators will be more widely spaced. FERA advised it is yet to select turbines given the technology development in this space

The proposed height of the turbines is between 100m to 150m from ground to the hub with 90m blades, based on preliminary wind studies. FERA noted that it has only installed one test mast (in Sept 22) and it aims to install others in coming months. FERA is also utilising other wind data – possibly from the Elgo turbine. FERA acknowledged its analysis is at a very early stage.

Siting of each turbine is still unknown as this will depend on the results of environmental impact, cultural heritage, and wind studies, as well as access limitations and many other factors. It was noted that FERA committed to consult with neighbouring properties about the location of towers to minimise visual and acoustic impact. This may involve payment of minimum compensation or in kind such as landscaping to mitigate the visual impact. When asked about compulsory acquisition of land for the project, be it for power distribution between turbines and/or the sub-station, for road re-alignments or widening, or for the high voltage transmission line required to connect the sub-station to the main power grid, FERA repeated many times that as a private company they have no powers to compulsorily acquire land and that no compulsory acquisition would be made for any part of the proposed project.

Many questions were asked regarding the route of the proposed high voltage transmission line, but only a general area was indicated as the actual route will depend on the location of the sub-station and the point of interconnection to the main power grid. This area covers approximately Mt Bernard in the Nth West, Murrindindi in the Sth West, Alexandra in the Sth East and Upton Hill in the Nth East.Agreement must be made with any landholders in the path of the proposed transmission line, which would consist of steel lattice towers, operating at either 220kV or 330kV.Tranmission lines of this capacity typically require a cleared easement of approximately 60m.

Other information given by FERA covered the possibility of payments or subsidies to neighbouring landholders who do not want to host turbines, the creation of a community consultative committee to manage funds donated by FERA to be distributed for use in community projects. FERA suggested the sum of $0.5 million pa.

FERA plans to hold the next community meeting on 20 May 2023 following the same format of one at Ruffy and Upton Hill. FERA repeatedly said it is happy to meet with every member of the community – and is open to direct contact by anyone.

FERA did not adequately address the key issues associated with the project – FERA capacity to fund and build a project of this size ($1.5 – $2 billion plus), flora fauna, acoustics, transmission lines, cultural heritage, shadow flicker other than to brush away concerns that all would be subject to independent studies – some of which are at a very early stage.

In summary the project remains at a very early stage however FERA appears keen to push on.

The SRRCG committee proposes to meet in the week beginning 6th March and aim to hold a community meeting within the next month.