Restart of Redbank Power Station

3206

17/08/2025

Object

Email

To the Proper Officer/ assessment body / decision maker I'm writing to strongly oppose the proposal to restart Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960), which would involve burning up to 850,000 tonnes of native vegetation every year to generate electricity. This is not renewable energy. It's large-scale deforestation disguised as a power project, and it will drive up emissions, destroy native habitats, and make both the climate and biodiversity crises in NSW worse. Let’s be clear: the fuel source here is native vegetation—not waste. This proposal is dangerously irresponsible. If it is allowed the impacts will be felt for centuries to come. Forest clearing is destroying the environment at rates that have never been seen before. This is well,proven and documented. The wood for this project would mostly come from clearing vegetation under the Invasive Native Species (INS) framework in western NSW. These aren’t weeds—they’re native shrubs and trees that provide vital habitat, including for threatened species. The INS rules allow landholders to self-assess clearing, with little oversight, and the system is regularly misused. Here are some worrying facts: • About 145,000 hectares are approved for clearing each year under the INS rules, but only around 11% of that is actually cleared. • To meet Redbank’s needs, clearing would have to jump 5 to 7 times above current rates. • In 2021 alone, over a third of all woody vegetation clearing in NSW couldn’t be explained—it wasn’t authorised or even recorded. I'm really concerned that the fuel sources for this project rely on expired approvals, outdated maps, or agreements with companies that no longer exist. No one has done proper, on-the-ground checks to see whether this much native vegetation can actually be cleared legally, economically, or sustainably. The emissions accounting in the proposal is seriously flawed. The Environmental Impact Statement claims that burning native vegetation is low-emissions or even carbon neutral—but this just isn’t true. Here’s what would actually happen: • Burning 850,000 tonnes of vegetation would release over 1.3 million tonnes of CO₂ every year. • Even more emissions would come from the clearing process, soil disturbance, transport, and processing. • The cleared vegetation won’t grow back. These are permanent land use changes, so that carbon stays in the atmosphere for decades. There’s been no full life cycle analysis of the emissions from this project, and no proper accounting for the carbon that’s currently stored in the plants, soil, and ecosystems that would be lost. And the environmental assessment is missing a huge piece. The EIS only looks at the power station site. It completely ignores the places where all this vegetation would be cleared. That means no assessment of the impacts on biodiversity, threatened species, ecosystems, or habitat connectivity. Most of the clearing will happen on private land, without a development application or proper planning process. • No surveys are required to check for threatened species before clearing. • The satellite processing sites where vegetation will be dried and chipped haven’t even been identified, let alone assessed or approved. This project also leaves the door wide open for future expansion. While the proponents say they won’t use logging residues now, the proposal clearly allows for this to change later. It even says they may seek approval for other sources if the current plan isn’t viable. Given how unreliable the INS framework is, it seems likely they’ll push for more fuel sources. This proposal would set a very dangerous precedent. Creating a market for burning native vegetation would encourage more deforestation and land clearing across the state—at a time when we desperately need to protect what’s left. It would increase pressure on already struggling ecosystems, especially with climate change, drought, and invasive species all in play. It would also pull funding and focus away from real renewable energy solutions. This project needs to be assessed based on the full picture—including the environmental damage caused by sourcing the fuel, not just what happens at the power station. So I’m asking the Commission to reject this proposal. • Burning native vegetation is not clean or renewable energy. • Logging residues should not be approved in future. • Environmental impacts must include the source areas, not just the power station. • Emissions must be properly measured and assessed against current climate goals. This proposal isn’t in the public interest. It doesn’t have community support. And it completely undermines our efforts to cut emissions and protect NSW’s remaining biodiversity. Please reject SSD-56284960, and stop NSW from becoming the first place in Australia to power its grid by clearing and burning native forest. This idea is appalling in its entirety. Stacy Wake

4406

Graeme Wood Foundation

15/08/2025

Object

Email

Please find attached. Please let me know if you have any questions, best, Anna

Graeme Wood Foundation Submission Opposing Redbank Power Station Biomass Proposal.pdf (PDF, 39.51 KB)

4421

New South Wales 2579

15/08/2025

Object

Email

To whom it may concern, I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. So what has happened since this promise and to the party we voted in to uphold these protections? We cannot continue to strip our planet of its natural resources to support yet another disastrous coal fired power plant. We cannot sustain life on earth if the destruction of our ecosystems continues. It is actually obtuse, selfish and anachronistic. Australia should be seen to be a progressive and purposeful nation with environmental protections at the forefront of its governance. Please reconsider and put a stop to this project which, if it goes ahead, will ultimately and unequivocally result in a climate catastrophe. Sincerely, Rachel Gregg R A C H E L G R E G G

4396

15/08/2025

Object

Email

I oppose the Redbank power station reopening propposal. Verdant Earth Technologies (Verdant) is proposing to re-open the Redbank Power Station (near Singleton NSW) to burn up to 850,000 tonnes of biomass - most of which would, in the first few years, come from native tree clearing in the west of NSW. -The proposal relies on burning tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation from “approved” land clearing during the powerplant’s first few years of operations. Land clearing and associated habitat fragmentation is already one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in NSW, threatening endangered species and ecosystems. - Our current land clearing laws are being reviewed because they have accelerated habitat loss due to ineffective regulation and oversight, and clearing rates are shooting skyward. Now is not the time to incentivise further clearing of habitat on rural land. - This project’s environmental impact statement only assesses on-site biodiversity impacts at the powerplant and has ignored the potential biodiversity impacts it will have by creating a market demand for land clearing outputs and accelerating habitat loss. - The project isn’t climate friendly or “net zero” emissions. The proposed project has used a method that underestimates its carbon footprint; the trees cleared for fuel will not grow back, future growth and carbon storage is lost and not accounted for. Burning vegetation will release immediate large bursts of carbon dioxide into the air – changing the natural slow release of carbon that occurs when vegetation falls to the ground and rots slowly over time. Most of the fuel sources proposed will result in the permanent loss of living carbon via land clearing. - Over the long term the project proposes to convert up to 72,000 hectares of land to fuel crops for burning. The documents provided indicate these will be “economically unviable” farmland, mine remediation sites and grasslands. We are in a biodiversity crisis. Native grasslands and sites set for rehabilitation, should be used to conserve and restore nature, not create monocrops for repeated harvesting and burning. with kind regards Dr Ken Wilson

4436

15/08/2025

Object

Email

This submission is in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). This proposal will heavily rely on clearing and fragmenting vegetation that is core habitat for threatened and endangered species. This immediately conflicts with the recommendations put forward by the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 which found ‘clearing of native vegetation’ to be a key driver of habitat fragmentation and destruction. In response, the NSW government committed to ‘end excess land clearing.’ Land clearing is increasing with rates having skyrocketed in 2023 with clearing of 66,498 hectares of native forest, a 40% increase from the year before. The proposal for the Redbank Power Station will exacerbate this rate by using a loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species,’ in which land used for sheep and goat farming has trees constantly cleared to retain pastures that would otherwise regenerate and be of benefit for farms and biodiversity. Additionally the claims that this project will be carbon neutral contradicts the latest science which found that burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal. There is also no requirement to asses the carbon emissions from projects associated with biomass burning and clearing which should be taken into account as climate change is fuelled by such emissions. The NSW government has recognised in the past that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. The current NSW government does not have a fit for purpose planning framework to prevent biodiversity loss and addressing climate change. Australia has made commitments to halt the loss of forests and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. We are the only developed country labelled as a deforestation hotspot. It should be recognised the that burning native forests as a power source, when other cleaner and cheaper options are available, is unnecessary. Sarah Brennan

4411

Biodiversity Council

15/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Independent Planning Comimssion, Please find attached the Biodiversity Council’s submission regarding the Restart of Redbank Power Station. We are happy for it to be published with our name. Kind Regards Lis

Biodiversity Council_Redbank Biomass Project.pdf (PDF, 1.16 MB)

4426

15/08/2025

Object

Email

To Whom it may concern I think it is dispicable the government goes on and on about climate change and now you want to cut down trees to burn for electricity🤷‍♀️. I am not going to pretend I write well or claim to be very smart but I will say this is absolutely WRONG. What about all the Wildlife??? How is cutting down trees that litterally suck co2 out of the air going to help in any way? We need to be planting trees and protecting the animals that call the bush home not chopping it all down. I am a Wildlife Carer and Rescure and our wildlife is in serious trouble, serious trouble... Please head our warning and listen to the people that you are supposed to be working for. Thank you kindly Jessica Gibbins

4401

15/08/2025

Object

Email

I am surprised to have another opportunity to stand against burning timber or biomass as a source for power generation as I thought the research had been done and the correct conclusion that this was a bad idea was now old hat. Apparently not. Rather than regurgitate all the points made previously could I just refer you to an excellent article in Pearls and Irritations by David Lindenmeyer, Heather Keith and Brendan Mackey on 14 August this year? This informative article should hopefully bury the crazy, unsustainable idea for the umpteenth time. Thank you John Beale

4441

15/08/2025

Object

Email

I strongly oppose the proposal to re-open the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). Burning trees for electricity is worse for the climate than coal (Mackey et al., 2025). This project would drive mass land clearing, destroy critical wildlife habitat, and emit huge amounts of CO₂ — none of which is being properly assessed. I came to Australia as a refugee from a communist regime, drawn by its values and the promise of a healthy, pristine environment. I now have granddaughters, and I want them — and all future generations — to enjoy the same clean air, thriving wildlife, and quality of life I hoped for when I arrived. We all — citizens and governments alike — must act to protect the natural heritage our children will inherit. Approving Redbank would break government promises, undermine Australia’s international commitments, and push us further towards climate and biodiversity collapse. Please reject this proposal. Dr Robert Klenner

4416

15/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners, Please find attached my objection to SSD-56284960 Restart of Redbank Power Station. I ask you to question whether this development really is in the public interest of NSW. Thank You, Janet Murray

Janet Murray submission.pdf (PDF, 184.88 KB)

4391

15/08/2025

Object

Email

Burning native forest for fuel? There are many other options available and all the trees form part of an ecosystem, with fungi, insects and animals living within them. This is a ridiculous proposal I am strongly AGAINST. Whoever is reading this, surely you cannot support it. Alex

4431

New South Wales 2251

15/08/2025

Object

Email

Submission in Opposition to SSD-56284960: Proposed Reopening of Redbank Power Station I strongly oppose the proposed reopening of the Redbank Power Station and its plan to use biomass for electricity generation. Burning biomass is not a sustainable or climate-responsible solution. In fact, it is more carbon-intensive than many existing fossil fuel sources. The scale of biomass required to sustain this project will inevitably drive further land clearing, with devastating consequences: the destruction of native fauna habitats, increased soil erosion, and reduced groundwater absorption—all of which will intensify the impact of flooding in our region. The government has so far failed to implement effective measures to mitigate flood risks. Endorsing a project that will directly worsen those risks is not just irresponsible—it is indefensible. Gordon, when I last voted for your party, it was under the assurance that legislation would be introduced to prohibit the burning of forests and cleared vegetation for electricity generation. This proposal stands in direct contradiction to that promise. I urge you to honour that commitment and reject this project. David York

4366

14/08/2025

Object

Email

To whom it may concern, I am emailing you re the Restart of Redbank Power Station and my objection to this project commencing. My concerns are for the future of our forests. • There is nothing sustainable about clearing tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation to fuel the power station. • There will be habitat loss for all our amazing native animals. • We will be changing the biodiversity of our forests. • There is already enough clear felling in forests and on private property. Trees do not grow in five minutes. • Land clearing needs to stop not expand. • There will be increased CO2 emissions. • Burning wood for electricity is far more polluting than coal. • The use of solar and wind as alternative power sources need to be considered, rather than just comparing the proposal to coal. Yours Sincerely, AlbalSky

4341

14/08/2025

Object

Email

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Dear Sir or Madam My husband and I, Faye and Michael Wellard are Long point residents living about 3kms from Redbank Power Station. At the end of last week we heard of the community meeting concerning the re opening of Redbank Power Station. We were unaware of this proposal until then, the manager of Redbank informed us at the meeting that residents should have received a letterbox information sheet. I can assure you we and other residents did not receive that information. They have tried to restart the power station before, the residents then had the same concerns as we do now. 1 Seventy B double trucks to and from along the Golden Hwy daily. That movement is too much for a Hwy already busy, we have to make turns in and out into 100kms traffic. 2. They plan to bring weeds from Cobar to burn. Do we have those weeds in our area and what do they propose to stop that spread ? Storage and wind when unloading could cause problems. 3. The products they are burning could be harmful to our health, at this stage not all is revealed. 4. We are not for the plant reopening as we believed the risk to our wellbeing is compromised. We hope our submission will help you in making the right decision. Thanking you Faye and michael Wellard

4381

New South Wales 2484

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners, I am writing to you to express my dismay on learning that a proposal has been lodged to burn native vegetation to fuel the Redbank Power Station in the Hunter Valley. Verdant Energy plans to clear and incinerate 850,000 tonnes of native vegetation per year for this project. This would be a disaster for NSW on two fronts - accelerating loss of biodiversity as well as deepening the climate crisis. The Invasive Native Species framework, under which this would operate, allows for self-assessment of clearing, with no requirement for ecological studies or protection of endangered species. The framework is weakly regulated and often misused. In 2021 one third of all woody vegetation cleared in NSW was unauthorised or unrecorded. Each year 145,000 hectares is approved for clearing, of which 11% is actually cleared. The Redbank project alone would consume hugely more than this, in the realm of five to seven times more. This is not green energy by any stretch of the imagination. It is vandalism that will drive many imperilled animal and bird species closer to extinction, and on top of that will further magnify the climate crisis which we all now know is a stark and frightening reality. 1,300,000 tonnes of CO2 will be released annually from this Redbank scheme. As a 70 year old, I am already witnessing capricious and extreme climate events, but I fear more for the future that my children and grandchildren will inherit. I urge you to dismiss this proposal. The future of our country is too important to allow this devastating project to take root. Yours hopefully, Ian Herscovitch

4356

14/08/2025

Object

Email

I am submitting an objection to the proposed reopening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). As someone deeply concerned about the destruction of our natural environment due to human activity, I am imploring you to stop this project for the following reasons: • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Yours truly, Geraldine Simmons Geraldine Simmons AFC - Wildlife Artist for Conservation

4331

Western Australia 6150

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear IPCN, Thank you for allowing feedback on the proposed Redback Power Station Biomass proposal. I am greatly concerned about the ecological impacts and strongly oppose the proposed Redbank biomass project. The Environmental Impact Statement understates its greenhouse emissions and ignores off-site impacts from clearing at least 20,000 hectares of native vegetation in its first year. Burning “invasive native species” on this scale is neither ecologically sustainable nor carbon neutral. It will worsen biodiversity loss, fragment habitat, and release large, immediate carbon emissions. In ‘Appendix L: Life Cycle Submission’ Verdent mention that ‘if biogenic carbon emissions are captured before being released to the atmosphere, e.g. through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) this could result in an overall greenhouse gas removal’ yet it is unclear from their proposal whether this technology will be used. For any biomass project, carbon capture should be a requirement. The plan risks future use of native forests and will further significantly increase truck traffic and air pollution. Please urgently put a stop to the devastating impacts stemming from this proposal. Thank you, Alys

4371

Western Australia 6275

14/08/2025

Object

Email

I oppose the burning of trees to generate electricity as any sane person in 2025 would. We need every tree to be sequestering carbon into the soil . We need to reduce the burning of wood and fossil fuel. Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Please put this eco illiterate proposal in the bin where it belongs. Thnk you and regards from Bee Winfield

4346

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Please find attached my submission. Best wishes Evan

Dr Evan Christen Submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 212.61 KB)

4386

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Attention to The Independent Planning Commission The Redbank Power Station (SSD- 56284960) (the project) has been referred to the Independent Planning Commission (the Commission) for determination. Verdant Earth Technologies wants to repurpose an old coal-fired power station to burn biomass for energy, and in doing so will both incentivise land clearing and move NSW away from its clean energy future. Burning native trees to make energy will accelerate more land clearing in NSW, more habitat destruction and rapid native species decline. I am therefore strongly opposed to the Redbank Power Plant project. As the community have been opposed to the start-up of this Power Plant for years now, proceeding further raises alarm bells in that the NSW Government has not adequately assessed and addressed the issues and concerns of the community- in fact they have been ignored. As Redbank Power Station wants to repurpose an old coal-fired power station to burn biomass for energy-, this will result in more land clearing which in turn will lead to more destruction of species' habitat with the end result being a further escalation of species extinction. The more habitat that is lost, the more we lose native wildlife. The biggest concern I have is the fact that there will be Unacceptable environmental and biodiversity impacts. Verdant Earth Pty Ltd (Verdant) wants to use biomass as a fuel to generate electricity with a capacity of up to 151 MW and operating 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Based on information provided by Verdant, at least 20,000 hectares of “Invasive Native Species” (INS) will need to be cleared to provide the required fuel levels during the project's first year. Clearing of INS is poorly regulated and overseen and can be just an excuse by landholders to clear healthy wildlife vegetation, so as to increase agricultural productivity. The clearing and burning of tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation cannot be described as ecologically sustainable and will have dire consequences for species whose habitat is destroyed. NSW latest land clearing rates data (July 2025) shows we are wiping out over 66,000 hectares of bushland each year – that's equivalent to bull-dozing Sydney’s Royal National Park four times over. Land clearing across NSW has increased by 40%. Providing a market for dead native vegetation will drive increases in land clearing even more which is not sustainable. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) only assesses what happens on site at the power station and does not take into account the impacts off site and over time to biodiversity loss caused by habitat destruction. This translates into environmental vandalism that causes unbelievable cruelty to native animals due to the continuation and the escalation of destruction of native species habitat which causes suffering, decline and death. Redbank's proposal fails to deliver a true assessment of Redbank's total negative impact on the environment. It will exacerbate biodiversity loss from increased tree clearing. Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss, land degradation and land clearing to reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030, as many trees will take decades to grow. And as this project destroys species' habitat, it will only accelerate species extinction. Susan Sorensen A concerned member of the public for what the future holds if the rate of destruction is not halted.

4361

New South Wales 2193

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Madam / Sir, I do not support the current Redbank Power Station Biomass proposal. • The proposal relies on burning tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation from “approved” land clearing during the power plant’s first few years of operations. Land clearing and associated habitat fragmentation is already one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in NSW, threatening endangered species and ecosystems. • Our current land clearing laws are being reviewed because they have accelerated habitat loss due to ineffective regulation and oversight, and clearing rates are shooting skyward. Now is not the time to incentivise further clearing of habitat on rural land. • This project’s environmental impact statement only assesses on-site biodiversity impacts at the power plant and has ignored the potential biodiversity impacts it will have by creating a market demand for land clearing outputs and accelerating habitat loss. • The project isn’t climate friendly or “net zero” emissions. The proposed project has used a method that underestimates its carbon footprint; the trees cleared for fuel will not grow back, future growth and carbon storage is lost and not accounted for. Burning vegetation will release immediate large bursts of carbon dioxide into the air – changing the natural slow release of carbon that occurs when vegetation falls to the ground and rots slowly over time. Most of the fuel sources proposed will result in the permanent loss of living carbon via land clearing. • Over the long term the project proposes to convert up to 72,000 hectares of land to fuel crops for burning. The documents provided indicate these will be “economically unviable” farmland, mine remediation sites and grasslands. We are in a biodiversity crisis. Native grasslands and sites set for rehabilitation, should be used to conserve and restore nature, not create monocrops for repeated harvesting and burning. Kind regards, Horst Thiele

4336

South Australia 5422

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Independent Planning Commission (NSW), Please find attached my submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of theRedbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). Thank you. Regards, Dr Christopher Dean.

Dr Christopher Dean submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 318.07 KB)

4376

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners, Please see the attached submission Regards Mary Edwards

Mary Edwards submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 68.28 KB)

4351

New South Wales

14/08/2025

Object

Email

To Whom it may concern, I am totally opposed to this project as the new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat and we should not be burning native forests for power. This is an unnecessary distraction from actual renewable energy solutions, especially considering the strident claims from the energy monopolies of too much PV solar overwhelming their poor grid infrastructure and their solution will be to charge users for both energy produced and used. It seems hard to believe that both these claims can co-exist. Is there too much power, or not enough? I suppose it depends on what type of power is being referred to. This will obviously not “help” as claimed, but greatly rewind decarbonisation of the energy system. Burning cleared vegetation is not "carbon neutral" and this project will create a new source of greenhouse pollution. This proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions. As a consequence there will be a massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank, another source of emissions with far reaching effects and further overloading our tired roads and adding more risk to travellers. This proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally and outrageously failing nature that are currently under review. Biomass burning has negative health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution. This project is clearly not the way forward in the twenty first century when we are facing massive environmental crises, unless the intended outcomes are for destruction of our future, habitat loss, reduction of oxygen generation, increasing heat loads by reducing cooling vegetation and just general spite, never mind this being being a dubious business proposal that will doubt require further massive public funding for private profit. The claim of “near-net zero” emissions, due to the regrowth of feedstock, is patently ludicrous in almost any time frame. Trees cleared for land clearing will not grow back, future growth and carbon storage is lost and other emissions from soils and processing are not counted. Verdant (a very ironic or most likely FU choice of title/name) claim that burning vegetation bulldozed from agricultural lands will have a neutral effect on greenhouse gas levels; this is totally untrue. Burning vegetation will release instantaneous bursts of carbon dioxide in the air. There is no plan to replace the woody vegetation that has been cleared resulting in a net loss. Burning vegetation is very different to the slow carbon release that occurs when vegetation falls to the ground and rots slowly over time. The emissions from biomass burning is compared to high emitting coal plants rather than wind and solar, significantly overestimating the emissions benefits. The lifecycle analysis of the project shows that the release of ‘CFCs’ which contribute to ozone depletion are more than four times higher than burning coal. Has there even been a competent energy balance (engineering 101) of the whole process? True net-zero projects should be prioritised over projects that add even more carbon to the atmosphere. The other important concern is that burning “biomass" has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing deadly air pollution. Burning biomass can have even more significant public health impacts than burning coal. This project’s plans for sourcing fuel assumes that 42 tonne capacity B-double trucks move to and from the power station 112 times PER DAY to haul the required biomass feedstock in and the resulting ash out. That is more than one truck in and out every half hour on average and equates to 20,238 trips per year. How is this supposed to be sustainable? Although excluded from the current proposal, the loophole that enables the use of native forest trees for biomass energy production still exists. There is still no guarantee that the use of native forests won’t be allowed under future governments. NSW Labor has had a longstanding commitment to close the loophole that allows the burning of any native vegetation for electricity “Labor recognises that burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean or renewable energy” - we must push for this to happen. For our renewable energy goals to be achieved NSW should focus on high value cleaner energy solutions like solar and wind power and community storage. Biomass energy may have potential in NSW in the future, but further scoping is needed to determine the best opportunities in NSW that will not have unnecessary impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. In ‘Appendix L: Life Cycle Submission’ Verdent mention that ‘if biogenic carbon emissions are captured before being released to the atmosphere, e.g. through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) this could result in an overall greenhouse gas removal’ yet it is unclear from their proposal whether this technology will be used, sounding very like tooth fairy logic. For any biomass project – carbon capture should be a requirement.
 I have grave concerns regarding the clearing of the rather convenient “Invasive Native Species” (INS), which is poorly regulated and overseen. ‘Invasive native species’ is a term that’s been used to let farmers clear abundant native vegetation on their property with essentially no oversight, for the purposes of increasing agricultural productivity. Land clearing and "INS” will provide 71% of fuel in the first year and 64% in the second year. Based on information provided by Verdant, at least 20,000 hectares of “INS” will need to be cleared to provide the required fuel levels during the projects first year. How on God’s brown earth is this sustainable? The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review by the Natural Resources Commission. Providing a market for dead native vegetation will drive further increases in land clearing. The demand creates the likelihood that “INS” is managed in an ecologically unsustainable way. The EIS only considers impacts on the 18ha of land the power station sits on, ignoring the obvious biodiversity impacts from the thousands of hectares of land clearing required off-site. This project says they would establish biomass fuel crops to sustain the project long term. Verdant state, ‘in order to meet the total required biomass demand, a total planted area of 72,000 hectares would be required’ and seeks to convert grasslands to crops. The project plan specifies it will target marginal agricultural lands. It does not specify how native vegetation, like biodiverse grasslands, will be protected. We are clearing far too much land and desperately need to plant trees not cut them down. Tree planting is one of the simplest and most effective ways of tackling climate change caused by greenhouse gas. Planting trees will have a hugely beneficial effect on climate from reducing flooding in urban areas and providing shade and cooling the environment. The trees, shrubs and grasses we plant are natural cooling mechanisms, as plants draw soil moisture up into their leaves, which then evaporates from the surface of the leaves and cools the air, much like an evaporative air conditioner, not even considering the cooling shade and absorption of sunlight to grow. The Urban Heat Island Effect is reduced in suburbs that have good canopy cover. As trees grow they capture carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. When communities plant trees they can help to reduce the impacts of climate change in their local area and around the world. Land clearing and associated habitat fragmentation is already one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in NSW, threatening endangered species and ecosystems. The claim of “near-net zero” emissions, due to the regrowth of feedstock, is unsupported, convenient fantasy. Biodiversity & Climate Impacts: • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns about this new project, thank you for taking the time to read this submission and taking time to consider the topics raised. Ernie Marton

4286

14/08/2025

Object

Email

I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Regards Rebecca Reynolds

4326

14/08/2025

Object

Email

To whom it may concern, This submission is in OPPOSITION to this proposal to re-open Redbank power station, not as a coal fired plant but to burn biomass from cleared native trees. The proposal by Verdant Earth Technologies says it's ‘ecologically sustainable’ and ‘near net-zero’ yet appears to be using some extremely flawed science as it's claims negate the CO2 produced both from the clearing of the trees, and then the actual burning of them. Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no official requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. How can this possibly be passed with the current Government drive to prevent climate change? Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for purpose if it allows this. Secondly this is going to be a biodiversity disaster, both from the destruction of habitat for wildlife and from the resulting effect of emissions on the surrounding land. NSW is already considered a deforestation hotspot, 66,498 hectares cleared in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. NSW has a terrible record on habitat destruction of vulnerable species, often to the benefit of corporate interests.They will say that the vegetation being cleared is "Invasive species" on old farmland but these areas are in the process of natural regeneration, including native trees and vegetation, after sheep and goat farming and create valuable corridors for wildlife. At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. How is this company's proposal even being considered? It is the exact opposite of protecting the environment and it's name "Verdant Earth Technologies" is the worst example of "green-washing " I have yet seen - almost pure mockery. I would remind you that the NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. I urge you to reject this proposal utterly and any re-submissions or appeals on the same grounds. Best Regards, Wendy Cazzolato

4261

New South Wales 2021

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear IPCN, Please find below my submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). The project would rely on large-scale clearing of native vegetation, increasing biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. Burning wood emits more CO₂ per unit of energy than coal (Mackey et al., 2025), yet the proposal does not account for emissions from either clearing or combustion. The project conflicts with several NSW and Australian Government commitments, including: • Ending excessive land clearing, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. • Introducing legislation to prohibit burning forests and cleared vegetation for electricity. • Meeting Australia’s international obligations to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. • Aligning with the Federal Government’s exclusion of native forest wood as an eligible renewable energy source. In light of these factors, the project should not proceed. A refusal would align with stated government policy commitments, scientific evidence on emissions, and the urgent need to reverse biodiversity loss and mitigate climate change. Thank you for considering my submission. Kind regards, Michael Rolik

4301

New South Wales 2091

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Independent Planning Commission, This submission is vehemently against the proposal, by Verdant Earth Technologies, to re-open the former Red Bank power station and fuel it by burning native vegetation as so called “Biofuel”. This type of project has considered and rejected many times in the past because it has been revealed as “greenwashing”. How can the destruction of native trees and wildlife habitat ever be considered “sustainable? How can burning wood and releasing vast amounts of carbon ever be considered as good for our climate? This video from 2010 (when the NSW Labor government ultimately rejected similar schemes) puts things in perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjc-40hWtrI It was recently revealed that the already shocking levels of land clearing in NSW had risen by 40% in one year. This proposal would compound that frightening statistic. Surely it’s way past time that the NSW Government reformed tree clearing laws and reversed the awful levels of biodiversity loss in NSW ( as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. NSW should be a biodiversity hotspot. Instead it has become the land clearing capital of the world with even our iconic koalas being pushed rapidly towards extinction. This kind of project sadly exemplifies the distain for biodiversity from some quarters. The fact that regeneration woodland and bushland has been termed “invasive species” in this application is scandalous and ridiculous. So much land has already been cleared in our state…where in some places vegetation is trying to regenerate does not suddenly transform it into “weed species”. This “Orwellian” language is surely an insult to the Planning Commissions intelligence. Shockingly there has been no assessment of the impact on biodiversity and the extent of Co2 emissions has not been made public either. The NSW government made an election promise to prohibit the burning of forests or native vegetation for electricity. Australia has also made international commitments which preclude such environmentally irresponsible schemes. The Federal Labor Government also ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. So surely this proposal doesn’t qualify for approval in any shape or form. Yours Sincerley Mal Fisher

4276

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Hi Team, Burning trees for electricity generation seems like the most unsustainable project to come to my attention in recent years. Is this Verdant project actually for real? Wilderness Australia have contacted me, as a specialist in ecology and climate change, requesting my support for opposing this ludicrous proposition. But I am wondering if it is a scam! Reducing our carbon footprint via emissions reduction is imperative and burning our native forests or other timber source, is not the answer. Protecting our native forests and unique fauna should be one of the primary goals of government, at all levels. In the 2019-20 Megafires, research has shown that NSW State Forests had a much higher intensity of wildfire and catastrophe, particularly to wildlife, than found within National Parks. This is because forest management is failing. The previous century's regular management practice of thinning regrowth has been dropped, or so diminished, that the forests are filled with same-age, thin trunks growing close together, which colloquially, "are like a tinderbox". Despite the dire need for thinning, logging of mature trunks continues and management fails to address this major issue of regrowth and the associated fire hazard. But even if thinning were to increase across the whole state of NSW and, the Verdant project was proposing to only use material derived in this way, the proposal would still emit carbon and increase our emissions, effectively hampering our collective goal of reaching net zero as swiftly as possible. Please reject this proposal. Thanks, Suzzanne Gray B.Sci. Dip.Ed.Sci. M.Phil.

4316

14/08/2025

Object

Email

I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-566284960). Please see my attached submission. Sally Wilson

Sally Wilson submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 38.71 KB)

4291

New South Wales

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners I am very concerned about the proposal to restart Redbank Power Station, by providing a market for native vegetation it will increase land clearing, destroying habitat for our native animals and taking away the ability for the trees to store carbon. It will increase air pollution,people have been asked to get rid of their wood burning heaters because of pollution, Redbank would only add to the pollution. The number of heavy trucks on the road would increase enormously damaging the roads and increasing pollution from the fuel they use. Verdant's proposal to plant crops to feed the power station is unsound, to grow crops on degraded land would require lots of fertilizer and water which could be better used elsewhere. Please do not approve this unsound project. We have much better options with renewables. Yours sincerely Elizabeth Honey

4266

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear minister/ipcn, I write in opposition to the Red bank power station refiring. Firstly the emissions of carbon from our forests is way too toxic to the environment above us and around us. People are asked the register a home wood stove to reduce emissions, so why produce electricity with wood. The forests will become dry and open allowing fires to rage through and cook the little trees that are left to survive without the tall trees around to shade and help translocate water in the roots. Secondly, the trees and undergrowth are Australia's life blood for oxygen and nature who don't have another forest that they can go to. These forests provide food like small flowers, nuts and insects to small and large birds, arboreal mammals and wallaby's, who need more than grass to eat, they need the shaded grasses and vines that flower at different times of the year, for a year round supply of sustenance. Perhaps some food for our travelling birds. Third, our forests provide a thick layer of mulch, something a plantation does not have. Under the mulch are truffles and mycelium that swell and fill with water when it rains. Then releases this water in a slow release to the trees around, some of which are old growth with large root systems, also covered in Mycelium. Mitigating the flood issues facing not just coastal towns but also major cities of Sydney and Brisbane. Flood mitigation is costing tax payers millions of dollars, far exceeding any perceived savings of burning wood. This project does not make financial sense to Australia, which rely heavily on Green tourism. Please do not restart this old energy technology. Regards Martin Leyssenaar.

4306

New South Wales 2450

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/Madam, Please find enclosed submission. Sincerely Susan Coleman

Susan Coleman submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 68.44 KB)

4281

New South Wales 2250

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Hi I wish to make a submission in opposition to the proposed reopening of the former Redbank power station. It beggars belief that the NSW government can on the one hand be doing good work in supporting nature, with its Save our Species program, but can on the other hand be considering approval of a project which will completely undermine the SoS goals, as well as increase our carbon emissions! Approval of the Redbank project would have significant biodiversity and climate impacts, some of which are listed below: • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. The above points demonstrate that the NSW planning framework is clearly not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Further, the proposed project conflicts with the Government’s own commitments: • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. If the NSW Government is serious in honouring its election promises, and its commitment to nature, it must reject this project. Regards Julie Lee

4321

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners, please find attached my submission against burning biomass for energy. sincerely, Steve Garthwin

Steve Garthwin submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 79.21 KB)

4271

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Please find attached a submission re: Reopening the Redbank Power Station SSD-56284960

Iain D. Williams submission.pdf (PDF, 116.72 KB)

4311

New South Wales 2450

14/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/Madam, Please find enclosed submission. Sincerely Susan Coleman

Susan Coleman submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 68.44 KB)

4201

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/Madam, I object to the proposal by Verdant Earth's to burn 850,000 tonnes of native vegetation (mostly from land clearing) at Redbank . This proposal would result in a massive increase in land clearing and the emission of over 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per annum at the plant . Our wildlife is ALREADY under immeasurable stress due to habitat loss/ human impacts including feral animals, road kill, poisons, fencing and escalated stress issues due to these increasing factors. Koalas for example were only listed as Endangered about 18mths ago, this listing should have been enacted 30 yrs ago? The level of CO2 emissions are unacceptable in a drastically warming planet, which has exceeded all scientific expectations and data ? Our nation and the GLOBE is in serious trouble, so we can NOT permit more unnecessary emissions and toxins to destroy our reefs and the planet. This crazy proposal must not be allowed. Think of future generations, not only of human primates but of our innocent native wildlife. Your decision is critical , so surely you must put survival before profit for ALL of our sakes. Yours in Hope Lindy Stacker & Family

4241

South Australia 5154

13/08/2025

Object

Email

I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). I understand that Verdant Earth Technologies is proposing to re-open the former Redbank coal fired power station (near Singleton, NSW) to burn trees cleared on farm lands under woefully weak land clearing laws. The assessment process that recommended approval of this climate and biodiversity disaster was deeply flawed. The proposal ignores greenhouse gas emissions from clearing trees and treats CO₂ emissions from burning wood as zero - despite the fact that burning wood is more emissive per unit of energy than coal. The project will be involve the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation which is core habitat for many threatened species. The project will exacerbate rates of clearing which have already increased to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from 2022. At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. The Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 found that the clearing of native vegetation was one of the key drivers of destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to end excess land clearing which has not been delivered. The NSW Government made an election promise to introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity, and has long recognised that burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy. Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Given all of the foregoing, I recommend that the proposal be rejected as extremely irresponsible and damaging to the environment. Donella Peters

4216

13/08/2025

Object

Email

To Whom It Concerns: • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. We must not put these species at risk. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Thank you for your attention to these details. Sincerely, Virgene Link-New

4191

New South Wales 2777

13/08/2025

Object

Email

I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed reopening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Sincerely Peter Stephens

4231

13/08/2025

Object

Email

To whom it may concern, I am very concerned regarding the proposal by Verdant Earth Technologies to reopen the Redbank Power Station for biomass burning, particularly when it involves sourcing from native tree clearing. This approach can have detrimental effects on local ecosystems, including the loss of biodiversity and disruption of habitats. The practice of clearing native trees for biomass can lead to long-term environmental degradation, contradicting the goals of sustainable energy practices.The broader implications of reopening the Redbank Power Station to burn biomass sourced from native tree clearing encompass various environmental, social, and economic aspects: 1. Biodiversity Loss: Clearing native trees can lead to habitat destruction, threatening local wildlife and plant species. This loss of biodiversity can disrupt ecosystems and diminish the resilience of these environments to climate change. 2. Carbon Emissions: While biomass is often considered renewable, the combustion of wood releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the biomass is sourced from trees that would otherwise sequester carbon, this can negate any potential climate benefits and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Soil Degradation: Tree clearing can lead to soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, and disruption of water cycles, which can have long-term impacts on land productivity and local agriculture. 4. Community Impact: Local communities may be affected by changes in land use and resource availability. This can lead to conflicts over land rights, particularly if Indigenous lands or interests are involved. 5. Economic Viability: Relying on biomass can create economic dependencies on industries that may not be sustainable in the long term. This can hinder investment in truly renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power. 6. Public Health Concerns: Burning biomass can release pollutants that affect air quality, potentially leading to health issues for nearby populations. Our beautiful forests are worth more standing and it is an abomination to consider their decimation for unnecessary causes. Please reconsider and help to save our natural environment for not only ourselves but for the generations to come. Thank you for your time, Bryce Gage

4206

New South Wales 2113

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Independent Planning Commission I am writing, as a concerned Australian, to oppose the planned burning of biomass at the Redbank Powerplant. I have many concerns about this project and have listed them below: Land clearing to provide fuel during the initial phase. I am concerned that the burning of biomass resulting from land clearing will further encourage land clearing and associated habitat fragmentation. This is already one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in NSW. Our current land clearing laws are being reviewed because they have accelerated habitat loss due to ineffective regulation and oversight, and clearing rates are already increasing. Based on information provided by Verdant, at least 20,000 hectares of native vegetation would need to be cleared to provide the required fuel levels during the project's first year. The use of grassland to grow crops for burning. Over the long term the project proposes to convert up to 72,000 hectares of land to fuel crops for burning. The documents provided indicate these will include grasslands, without specifying how native grasslands will be protected. Australian native grasslands are globally unique and biodiversity-rich, but have been significantly impacted by land clearing and invasive species. Many threatened native species are dependent on the few remaining areas of native grassland. The use of “economically unviable” farmland to grow crops for burning. This land is, by definition, low fertility land. It seems unlikely that there is available land that could produce biomass within a viable time frame without the need for fertiliser and water. The use of water to grow crops for burning, would be unjustifiable. Perhaps a better use for such land would be solar or wind farms? The threat of invasive plants and animals. Verdant have not stated anything about their proposed stewardship of the land. Invasive weed species would grow, and be harvested alongside the crops. The seeds would be spread during transport. Pest animals such as pigs and deer would find refuge among the crops and invade neighbouring farmland. Verdant's claim of “near-net zero” emissions, due to the regrowth of feedstock. This is not supported. Vegetation harvested will not grow back without the application of fertiliser, the manufacture of which is a significant source of carbon emissions. The processes of harvesting, and transporting the feedstock to the power plant are also major sources of carbon emissions. The proposal assumes that 42 tonne capacity B-double trucks move to and from the power station 112 times PER DAY to haul the required biomass feedstock in and the resulting ash out. In this respect biomass is very much less efficient than coal due to the need to transport all the water associated with living material. The public health effect of the proposal. The burning of biomass and the use of diesel trucks to transport it would produce airborne particulates with detrimental effects on the health of the local community. Thank-you for taking the above points into consideration. Yours, sincerely, Hester Slade

4246

13/08/2025

Object

Email

To: The NSW Independent Planning Commission Re: Submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960) I strongly oppose the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). The proposal is in total conflict with and contradiction of State and Federal government commitments. The implementation of this proposal would be further destructive of a liveable environment for native species and a contributing factor to the ongoing destruction of our country for future generations. The proposed project relies on the destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation thus further endangering many threatened species. Tree clearing laws must be reformed immediately to reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. Rates of tree clearing have increased disastrously to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from 2024. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. This proposal gives no consideration to the ecological value of the regeneration of woodland forests including the importance of survival of and restoring connectivity for native plants, wildlife and birds. This proposed project is NOT carbon neutral. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal and in some cases emissions may be double. Landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. The NSW planning framework is demonstrably not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and mitigating the disastrous effects of human caused negative climate change. The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ but this commitment has not been implemented. In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. This has not been followed through. The NSW Government promised at the last election to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. This proposed project is in contradiction of this promise. Australia is committed internationally to halting and reversing forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. This proposed project is inconsistent with this commitment. In 2022 the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. This proposed project contradicts this policy. There is absolutely no justification for the re-opening of the Redbank Power Station. Yours sincerely Graeme Curry RN BA(Hons) BD DipEd MA FACN FACMHN

4181

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/Madam I am making this submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). The NSW government assessment process for this proposal is deeply flawed and should not proceed for the following reasons: Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Your sincerely Greg Johnston

4221

13/08/2025

Object

Email

I object. We need to be regenerating forests, not exploiting them further, and we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than increasing them. For a cool future, Ian Dixon.

4196

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act.

4236

New South Wales 2484

13/08/2025

Object

Email

I strongly object to the proposal by Verdant Earth to burn 850,000 tonnes of native vegetation at the former Redbank Power Station. This is not clean or green at all and with the native vegetation mostly coming from landclearing, I see this as a huge backwards step resulting in massive landclearing, and the emission of over 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per annum at the Redbank plant. A 24/ 7 incinerator is the last thing needed by residents of the Hunter Valley who deserve a healthy environment to live in rather than more ongoing pollution. The proposal to use B Double trucks to travel a 1200 km round trip from near Cobar is also an environmental travesty. The Drax Power Station in the UK holds the title of its largest carbon emitter, showing just how much of a backwards step this proposal will be. Shifting from burning fossil fuels such as coal to burning trees for energy is a disastrous concept which will only contribute to both the climate crisis and a loss of biodiversity. Susie Hearder

4186

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/Madam I am making this submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). The NSW government assessment process for this proposal is deeply flawed and should not proceed for the following reasons: Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Your sincerely Dianne Johnston

4226

13/08/2025

Object

Email

To whom it may concern, Please find my response to the above proposal. Yours faithfully R. Johnston

R Johnston submission redacted.pdf (PDF, 44.93 KB)

3881

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Hi, I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change, nor to protect our water assets which, with land clearing will clear as well. Native forests, mangroves, woodland, waterland are all Australian assets that need conservation to beter protect us from future famines and water supply loss. Clearing land, burning trees are exactely the opposit of what needs to be achieved, focus should be on restoring what has been destroyed for the benefit of all humans and living creatures. Replanting native trees, not clearing them. Humans and Wild Nature (fauna and flora) are totally interdependent for a healthy life. How can supposedly leaders can't understand that? How can supposedly leaders can't put their brain in action to lead with the understanding that 'profit' is not a money value but a natural life value to be passed on to future generations? It's time for a big change and new directions of thoughts and actions before total devastation, it's getting late so the urgency is now on us. Thank you far taking the right decision to oppose the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). Regards, Mo Fo

3921

New South Wales 2031

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioner, I am writing to inform you that I 100% object to restart the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960) under the pretence to burn mostly weeds from across the state. It seems such an impractical proposal to truck in weeds from hundreds of kilometres away to generate electricity. This is not sustainable in terms of the fossil fuels used to truck the material on site to be burned, nor does it sound economical. The power Station would require 850 000 tonnes of weeds for electricity generation. That’s a huge amount of trucking and burning needing to be done. And a lot of weeding if the power station really was to absorb weeds only. In reality, we will see an increase in land clearing and likely deforestation across NSW just to burn timber and timber residue or electricity. In a climate and biodiversity crisis this seems absolutely insane and the NSW government should see through the lies of this proposal and make the only sensible decision, which is to reject this project outright. Feel free to get in touch if you have further questions. Please note I will be overseas until 28 September 2025 Kind regards Dorothee Babeck

3961

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Committee Members, I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). In summary, this project is not consistent with State and Federal Government commitments. It will increase greenhouse gas emissions and by burning trees cleared from farm lands, it threatens biodiversity and reestablishment of natural ecosystems Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016- NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promiseto ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Thank you for considering my submission. Yours sincerely Rebecca Bishop

3896

13/08/2025

Object

Email

To the department of planning I am writing to object to this proposal by Verdant Technologies to burn biomass for energy. This proposal will result in burning native vegetation and exacerbate the land clearing crisis that we already face. The environmental impact statement does not fully address the issues as it focuses only on on-site impacts and not the potential for accelerating habitat loss. We have seen the imapact of logging in this area on native flora and fauna, not just koalas and therefore call on the department to reject this damaging proposal. Yours faithfully Dr Elizabeth Ann Macgregor OBE AM

3936

13/08/2025

Object

Email

My submission for the Proposed Restart of Redbank Power Station SSD-56284960 is attached below. My submission to the Office of the Independent Planning Commission NSW Regarding the proposed Restart of Redbank Power Station SSD-56284960 My property burnt in the 2019 Black Summer Fires and went a meter underwater in the 2022 North Coast Floods that created an inland sea. Even generational farmers around me are saying we need to act on climate change. That is one of the main reasons I strongly oppose the Redbank biomass proposal because I don't want to become a climate change refugee forced to leave my beloved home. It will also worsen biodiversity loss, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and repeat the damaging mistakes we have already seen overseas. Governments know we are in a climate crisis costing billions of dollars, loss of billions of animals being cooked in extreme fires or drowning in unprecedneted flooding. It's crazy to fuel deforestation that will only exacerbate our climate crisis. It's time to transition from greedy use of reasources and take care of our earths declining health when it comes to complex ecosystems. The forests of eastern NSW are part of one of the world’s 35 biodiversity hotspots, rich in unique species already under severe threat from habitat loss. In the midst of a biodiversity crisis, clearing tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation—home to millions of animals—cannot be considered sustainable. It will release huge amounts of carbon dioxide, further driving climate heating. Land clearing is already the single greatest threat to biodiversity in NSW. Most clearing is unapproved, and there is no requirement for habitat surveys to protect threatened species. Supplying 850,000 tonnes of biomass per year will create a strong economic incentive for even more clearing. Claims that most of this will come from Invasive Native Species (INS) are misleading—these species still provide vital habitat for wildlife. Land clearing must stop, not expand. We don’t need to guess what will happen—there are clear warning signs from overseas. In the southeastern United States, surging demand for wood pellets to fuel European power plants has led to unsustainable logging, including the clearcutting of mature hardwood forests. This has degraded ecosystems, driven biodiversity loss, and caused long-term carbon deficits, as forests take decades to recover. While marketed as “carbon neutral,” burning wood pellets often releases more CO₂ than coal when the full lifecycle—logging, processing, and transport—is considered. These overseas experiences show how biomass creates a dangerous false sense of climate progress. It allows governments to claim lower emissions on paper while real-world emissions and environmental damage rise. Local communities in the US have also suffered from air and water pollution caused by pellet production—an impact we risk repeating here. Redbank’s claim of planting 56,000 ha of biomass crops to supply 70% of feedstock is not credible, and the proposal must explicitly rule out using logging residues in future. Even without those residues, the station will emit over 1.3 million tonnes of CO₂ each year—more than from coal—making a mockery of clean energy claims. Instead of repeating the US and Europe’s mistakes, NSW should invest in genuine low-emission energy like solar and wind. These truly reduce carbon emissions without destroying native forests or harming biodiversity. For the sake of our forests, climate, and communities, I urge you to reject the Redbank biomass proposal outright. Respectfully yours, Jimmy Malecki

Jimmy_Malecki_Redbank_Submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 6.8 MB)

3871

13/08/2025

Object

Email

To whom it may concern, I am writing a submission in firm opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). My submission is below: For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). It is ridiculous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change if projects such as this are considered. Further to the above, the project is in contravention of government commitments for the environment. The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. References: Mackey, B.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Keith, H. and de Bie, J., 2025. Burning Forest Biomass Is Not an Effective Climate Mitigation Response and Conflicts With Biodiversity Adaptation. Climate Resilience and Sustainability, 4(2), p.e70015. Booth, M.S., 2014. Trees, trash, and toxics: How biomass energy has become the new coal. Partnership for Policy Integrity. https://biomassmurder.org/docs/2014-04-02-pfpi-how-biomass-energy-has-become-the-new-coal-english.pdf

3911

New South Wales 2540

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Liza, Please oppose the Redbank power station. This project’s approval would directly contradict policy commitments made by the NSW and Federal Governments. NSW is already considered a ‘deforestation hotspot’. New figures show that rates of tree clearing skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. We do not need another driver of forest clearing, habitat loss and greenhouse gas emissions. Your South Coast community marches against at native forest logging . We are on the frontline of the consequences of global heating. Please represent us by opposing this project. Sincerely Kaye Gartner

3886

13/08/2025

Object

Email

This serves to express my very grave concern regarding the above proposal. It is anathema to anyone with the slightest sense of care and consideration for the natural environment. The toxic poisons that humankind has quite selfishly emitted on this planet over centuries has been considerable. To think that it can be allowed to continue in this day and age (seemingly by an elected government's approval) without further repercussions beggars belief. The burning of our precious trees MUST END. The NATURAL WORLD IS EVERYTHING'S AND EVERYONE'S HOME. To treat it with contempt by ongoing plunder and general ill-use is both mindless and unnecessary. It is an fine example of contempt for Life Itself. There is no good argument for this proposal - other than the self-interest of a few. I request that the matter be reviewed with a great deal more thoughtful and intelligent consideration than currently appears to be the case. There is a price to pay for the ongoing felling of our native forests. It is a national disgrace for which we should collectively hang our heads in shame. sincerely Susanne Dion

3926

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir We are witnessing our coral reefs bleaching, our forests burning, our country towns flooding, a crisis of biodiversity in our native animals Surely no further evidence of the profound effects of climate change is required. We need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere not add more. Logging of native forests is climate destroying and should be stopped immediately. The plan to use native forest to fuel this proposed power plant is a betrayal of the next generation. We should be ashamed of our profligate squandering of our grand children's future. This plan is a potential disaster and I object strongly to the proposal. Yours sincerely

3966

13/08/2025

Object

Email

I strongly oppose the re-opening of the Redbank Power Station to burn biomass sourced from native vegetation for the following reasons: • This project will have detrimental biodiversity and climate impacts; and • Burning biomass sourced from native forests is in direct conflict with both State and Federal Government commitments. Specifically: Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. This project, painted as ‘ecologically sustainable’ and ‘near net-zero’ by those who would make money from it, would be a biodiversity and ecological disaster through fragmentation of woodland and actually increase carbon emissions. With the climate in SE Australia expected to become hotter and drier, and consequently more prone to bushfire, accelerating the loss of native forest and contributing to CO2 in the atmosphere through deliberate (and unnecessary) destruction and burning, defies logic. We do not need another driver of forest clearing, habitat loss and greenhouse gas emissions. The planning process has fallen far short of best practice and community expectations. Further consideration of the project must cease until a thorough and complete assessment has been made of all climate and biodiversity impacts, at the source of the biomass fuel and through the burning of that biomass and publicly provided in a clear and transparent manner. Yours sincerely Helen Templeton

3901

13/08/2025

Object

Email

It is insane in a country with one of the worst records for native land clearing and species extinction to allow such a ecological disaster. When carbon offsets are sacrificed to produce biofuels the insanity becomes even more obvious. This is nothing more than justification of previous dumb decision making and to proport the notion that the energy produced would even come close to that of renewables must rely heavily on creative accounting. Dumb idea scrap it before you get some serious egg on your face Sincerely Ian Hodgson

3876

13/08/2025

Object

Email

To whom it may concern, I strongly oppose the Redbank Power Station Biomass proposal for the following reasons: This proposal will provide financial incentives for land clearing, and land clearing and associated habitat fragmentation is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity in NSW. The proposal relies heavily on the clearing of “Invasive Native Species” (INS), which is poorly regulated and overseen. Providing a market for dead native vegetation will drive increases in land clearing. The demand creates the risk that “INS” is managed in an ecologically unsustainable way. The claim of “near-net zero” emissions, due to the regrowth of feedstock, is not supported. Trees cleared for land clearing will not grow back, future growth and carbon storage is lost and other emissions from soils and processing are not counted. The emissions from biomass burning is compared to high emitting coal plants rather than wind and solar, significantly overestimating the emissions benefits. Although excluded from the current proposal, the loophole that allows the use of native forest trees for biomass energy production still exists. There is no guarantee that native forests won’t be allowed for use under future governments. Thank you, Hendrik Grundling

3996

New South Wales 2289

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Hi, I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). I actually can't believe it has got this far as it is quite bizarre that anyone could try to justify this as a green initiative. NSW has a horrific environmental record with land clearing and the destruction of native forests and to open up another nature destroying industry and then try to disguise it as a green initiative is deceptive and clearly not in the public's interest. It is time to put a true value on our environment and in particular our trees which are their most valuable to us, our environment, the states diversity, our water quality, our air quality, our protection from bush fires, our mental health, the other native species of plants, insects, animals and birds we have a responsibility to protect, when they (the trees) are left standing. They offer ongoing value through all those things and more and to continue to recklessly endorse and enable the destruction of our native forests is a crime which is called ecocide. And there is growing momentum for decision makers to be made accountable for decisions they made/make when they clearly did not prevent destruction of the environment and natural assets (committed ecocide). This can't come soon enough in my opinion as too many governments, political parties and politicians have shown themselves repeatedly to be clearly conflicted and and unable to make good decisions based on fact and science where our environment, our world or future generations are valued above industry lobbyists and short sighted, short term and often extremely flawed financial assumptions. I trust this project will not be approved to proceed based on environmental grounds as it is destroying nature, it will release vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the logging activities and then the burning of the material and it will also be removing carbon banks (forests) which would otherwise be continuing to work for us to remove CO2 from the atmosphere on an hourly, daily, yearly ongoing basis. These forests also provide habitat to other native species, contribute to water quality, reduce bushfire and erosion risk. Thank you for considering my submission and please do not approve this project. Regard Melissa Musicka

3891

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Hello, Please don't allow this proposal to go ahead . The last thing we need now is more land clearing of native vegetation and it's burning to add to our carbon emissions. The negative effects of climate change are very obvious to us all RIGHT NOW, and will only get worse with each passing year. We must avoid doing anything that makes our situation even worse. The burning of native vegetation, with loss of habitat and more carbon emissions would be another disaster that we can, and should avoid. A decision to allow this proposal to go ahead would just add to the many climate related problems that my grandchildren will have to cope with. Young people don't need even more climate disasters caused by short sighted, profit driven , cynical projects like this one. Calling such a business " Verdant Earth " is insulting and deceptive. A classic example of greenwashing. It's insulting and would be laughable, if it wasn't so potentially damaging. I know my views are held by many older people who fear for the world that young people will inherit. Please don't approve this project. Sincerely, Jennifer Bailey

3931

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960) Dear Independent Planning Commission I oppose the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960) on the following grounds: Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Please, can we think of those who have no voice and stop devaluing our children's future, one where natural values are protected. Kind Regards

3866

2070

13/08/2025

Object

Email

I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). It is patently absurd to even consider burning timber to feed a power station. It will mean destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation. Tree clearing laws in NSW are a joke. They should be reformed to save our native forests and habitat for native species. 66498 hectares were cleared in 2023, a 40% increase from 2022! What a disgrace. If this is allowed to continue we will have no native forest left in a few years. With over 85% of woodlands already cleared in southern Australia for agriculture we need to conserve what is left, not chop it down for a dubious power station to gobble up. The effects of CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing should be carefully assessed. Claiming this project is carbon neutral is a mistake. What will be the CO2 emissions? In 2022 the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Climate change is real and not a figment of imagination. Stop this madness now and save native forests for all to enjoy for many years to come. -- LINDSAY SOMERVILLE

3946

13/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Planning Commission, I oppose the reintroduction of this old world technology. NSW the Premier State should be a leader in environmental protection and accelerating renewable energy and combating global warming. I am currently visiting Iceland and seeing first hand the unprecedented and accelerating glacial retreat in only the last few decades. Any proposal to use timber or fossil fuels that increasing land clearing should be rejected. This is old world 19th Century technology. We should be planning for the next generation. If we can pull down perfectly good football stadiums only 30 years old and build new ones because they are not State of the Art then surely we can take the same approach to a more important issue being climate change and our children’s future world. Let’s be strategic, forward thinking and show leadership. NSW we can do better. Yours faithfully Robert Greenwood

4121

12/08/2025

Object

Email

I am sending this in opposition to the reopening of the Redbank power station in NSW (SSD-56284960) iodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016- NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promiseto ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Emma Henderson

4161

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear sir / madam, I do not support the current Redbank Power Station Biomass proposal. Below are my objections. Unacceptable environmental and biodiversity impacts According to the Australia Institute the environmental impact statement for this project has vastly underplayed the greenhouse gas emissions and other potential environmental impacts that the project could have, not least what a large new customer for woodchips would mean for logging operations. The Fuel Supply and Characterisation Study - Restart of Redbank Power Station claims “It is proposed that Redbank will be fuelled with ecologically sustainable biomass”. The clearing and burning of tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation cannot be described as ecologically sustainable. • The proposal relies heavily on the clearing of “Invasive Native Species” (INS), which is poorly regulated and overseen. ‘Invasive native species’ is a term that’s been used to let farmers clear abundant native vegetation on their property with little oversight, for the purposes of increasing agricultural productivity. • Land clearing and "INS” will provide 71% of fuel in the first year and 64% in the second year. Based on information provided by Verdant, at least 20,000 hectares of “INS” will need to be cleared to provide the required fuel levels during the projects first year. • The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review by the Natural Resources Commission. • Providing a market for dead native vegetation will drive increases in land clearing. The demand creates the risk that “INS” is managed in an ecologically unsustainable way. • The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to assess off-site impacts – The EIS only considers impacts on the 18ha of land the power station sits on, ignoring the potential biodiversity impacts from the thousands of hectares of land clearing required off-site. • The project says they would establish biomass fuel crops to sustain the project long term. Verdent state ‘in order to meet the total required biomass demand, a total planted area of 72,000 hectares would be required’ and seeks to convert grasslands to crops. The project plan specifies it will target marginal agricultural lands. The project should only use degraded agricultural lands. It does not specify how native vegetation, like biodiverse grasslands, will be protected. • Land clearing and associated habitat fragmentation is already one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in NSW, threatening endangered species and ecosystems. Carbon accounting under-represents emissions from land clearing • The claim of “near-net zero” emissions, due to the regrowth of feedstock, is not supported. Trees cleared for land clearing will not grow back, future growth and carbon storage is lost and other emissions from soils and processing are not counted. • Verdent claim that burning vegetation bulldozed from agricultural lands will have a neutral effect on greenhouse gas levels; this is false. Burning vegetation will release instantaneous bursts of carbon dioxide in the air. There is no plan to replace the woody vegetation that has been cleared – resulting in a net loss. Burning vegetation is very different to the slow carbon release that occurs when vegetation falls to the ground and rots slowly over time. • The emissions from biomass burning is compared to high emitting coal plants rather than wind and solar, significantly overestimating the emissions benefits. • The lifecycle analysis of the project shows that the release of ‘CFCs’ which contribute to ozone depletion are more than four times higher than burning coal. • True net-zero projects should be prioritised over projects that add increased carbon to the atmosphere. Local impacts will worsen air quality and increase road traffic • Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing deadly air pollution. • Burning biomass can have even more significant public health impacts than burning coal. • The proponent's plans for sourcing fuel assumes that 42 tonne capacity B-double trucks move to and from the power station 112 times PER DAY to haul the required biomass feedstock in and the resulting ash out. That is more than one truck in and out every half hour on average and equates to 20,238 trips per year. Future burning of native forests not ruled out • Although excluded from the current proposal, the loophole that allows the use of native forest trees for biomass energy production still exists. There is no guarantee that native forests won’t be allowed for use under future governments. The banning of any native vegetation for electricity is a commitment from the NSW Government • NSW Labor has had a longstanding commitment to close the loophole that allows the burning of any native vegetation for electricity “Labor recognises that burning timber an cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean or renewable energy” Better alternatives • To reach our renewable energy goals NSW should focus on high value cleaner energy solutions like solar and wind power. • While biomass energy may have potential in NSW in the future, further scoping is needed to determine the best opportunities in NSW that will not have unnecessary impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. • In ‘Appendix L: Life Cycle Submission’ Verdent mention that ‘if biogenic carbon emissions are captured before being released to the atmosphere, e.g. through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) this could result in an overall greenhouse gas removal’ yet it is unclear from their proposal whether this technology will be used. For any biomass project – carbon capture should be a requirement. Regards, Jen Barling

4136

Victoria 3185

12/08/2025

Object

Email

To the Independent Planning Commission of NSW, I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). All the statements below are the issues that must be considered before the ridiculous proposal by Verdant Earth Technologies should even be contemplated. However, the number one issue is this: The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. Biodiversity & Climate Impacts For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Thank you for your time. Best regards Rupert Veitch

4176

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sirs……there is no way that burning timber of any kind to create fuel can be justified. Ecological issues at risk abound, and their case has been expertly put by scientific knowledge far superior to my own, but apart from the absolute fact that such a practice would actually add to pollution rather than reduce it, there is the basic truth that generating timber is not an overnight or short-term event……. rather its product is the result of many years of generation and hence it provides us with so much more than simple fuel. Timber….from its origin - trees - provides so many living things, including humans, with oxygen, soil conservation, moisture, and many forms of wildlife which contribute to the spreading of seed and fertilisation of all growing things. This State labor government has been a great disappointment in its ignorance or lack of care for the future environment and ongoing welfare of our State. The Coalition, with its strong National Party links, was expected to ignore the environment in its support of large scale agriculture and mining without concern for the ongoing devastation that such support was causing, although that party, when in government, did actually produce a number of champions of the environment! We labor voters, mistakenly it seems, expected a Labor government to take a long term view of our future as had happened when in office in past years. It seems that this is not to be. Labor has lost my vote! Robyne Maria Tracy

4151

New South Wales 2780

12/08/2025

Object

Email

I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). I make the following comments: Biodiversity & Climate Impacts I understand that for the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. I strongly oppose this. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. Also, claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). It is outrageous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. The NSW Government also made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Regards     Andrew Solomon

4126

12/08/2025

Object

Email

To Whom it May Concern I oppose the re-opening of the Redbank Power Station because it is harmful for the ecosystem and the species that live in the area. Tree Clearing has increased in the area and over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. This has to stop now, we are not the only species living on this planet, why do we insist on extraction at all costs. We need to start thinking differently about how to live in harmony with the earth. You cannot see if from a reductionist point of view when it is a complex interacting harmonious system of balance. For example birds need food and nesting places and resources to survive. The Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. Don't break your promises. Cheers Dale Shaddick

4166

New South Wales 2287

12/08/2025

Object

Email

RE: Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960) Dear Independent Planning Commission Below is my submission opposing the re-opening of the Redbank Power Station. • Australia has lost nearly 40% of its original forests and woodlands. • Since the arrival of Europeans in 1788, Australia has recorded the extinction of at least 100 animal and plant species. Australia is ranked among the worst in the world for species extinction. "The applicant proposes to restart the power station by using up to 700,000 dry tonnes per year of biomass as fuel. The power station has a capacity of up to 151 MW of dispatchable energy and would operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week. The application is expected to create approximately 330 construction jobs and up to 60 operational jobs." • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. "invasive native species (INS) control on agricultural land" • For the first few years of its (Redbank Power Station) operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. Australia is so behind the rest of the world with it's environmental and conservational laws. We have a country that contains the most unique species of plants and animals living in difficult and extreme conditions. The way Australia treats its own environment is criminal and very short sighted. Humans are not autonomous from the environment, we are part of it, so why destroy it? - no amount of money will fix the obliteration of a forest and its inhabitants, it will just all disappear. "Offsite biodiversity impacts - associated with clearing invasive native species and residues, including incentivising over-clearing, removal of potential foraging habitat for native fauna, and reduced biodiversity at purpose grown biomass locations (see Section 6.3)" • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change This project is far from sustainable, it is destructive to all environments (land, water and air). Our environment is not for sale, do not approve this nature devouring incinerator - it is past the time for a change, we are already on a down-hill slope - stop living in the past, use new technology and ideas to supply energy to homes (PS: Australian are very inventive and clever if their government actually supports them). Australia is iconic due to it's diversity, uniqueness and basically the entirety of it's environment - protect it at all costs. Regards Geoff Harborne

4141

12/08/2025

Object

Email

I am writing to oppose the proposed re-opening of the Redbank coal-fired power station to burn trees cleared from farm lands under weak land clearing laws. This project will cause significant and permanent damage to native vegetation, which is critical habitat for many threatened species. The current NSW Government’s failure to reform land clearing laws means tree clearing rates have surged, worsening biodiversity loss. The misleading use of the ‘Invasive Native Species’ label justifies unnecessary clearing of native woodlands that are vital for wildlife and ecosystem health. Claims that burning wood is carbon neutral are contradicted by recent science. Wood combustion emits significantly more CO₂ than coal, undermining NSW’s and Australia’s commitments to climate action. It is unacceptable that no comprehensive assessment of landscape-scale biodiversity impacts or carbon emissions from biomass burning and clearing has been required. The NSW Government has previously promised to end excessive land clearing and prohibit burning native forests for electricity—commitments this project directly contradicts. This proposal conflicts with state and federal targets to halt forest loss and reduce emissions by 2030. For these reasons, I urge the Independent Planning Commission to reject this project and prioritise genuine climate and biodiversity protection. Thank you for considering my submission.

4156

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Submission Opposing the Proposed Project: Biodiversity and Climate Concerns I write to formally oppose the proposed project due to its significant and unacceptable impacts on biodiversity, climate, and its direct conflict with existing government commitments at both state and federal levels. The proposed project threatens biodiversity and climate by relying on the destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation, which serves as critical habitat for threatened species. Despite recommendations from an independent review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act to tighten tree-clearing laws and close loopholes (like those allowing clearing under the label of "Invasive Native Species"), clearing rates have increased by 40% in 2023. Native vegetation regeneration, often misrepresented as invasive growth, plays a vital ecological role. Yet, the project disregards these values and undermines efforts to restore connectivity across landscapes—essential for bird and wildlife survival. Claims that the project is carbon neutral are disputed by scientific research showing that burning wood emits more CO₂ than coal. The NSW Government has not required a full biodiversity or emissions assessment for the biomass operations feeding the Redbank Power Station, highlighting serious gaps in the state's planning framework. The project also contradicts multiple government commitments: • NSW’s promise to end excessive land clearing and strengthen controls on invasive native species misuse. • An election pledge to ban the burning of forests for electricity. • Australia's international pledges to halt deforestation and biodiversity loss by 2030. • A 2022 federal decision excluding native forest wood from being classified as renewable energy. Conclusion The environmental, ecological, and climate-related consequences of this project are unacceptable. It represents a step backward in efforts to protect NSW's biodiversity and mitigate climate change. I strongly urge the NSW Government and all relevant authorities to reject the proposal and implement the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act without further delay. Yours Sincerely Andrew Horsfall

4131

12/08/2025

Object

Email

• I oppose this idea, it is completely unsustainable and environmentally devastating. • • • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. -- Jenn King

4171

New South Wales 2290

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Hello Independent Planning Commission. The best plan for the Redbank Power Station is a big battery, large solar panel arrays and more wind turbines. As is happening elsewhere. According to the Australia Institute the environmental impact statement for this project has vastly underplayed the greenhouse gas emissions and other potential environmental impacts that the project could have, not least what a large new customer for woodchips would mean for logging operations The Fuel Supply and Characterisation Study - Restart of Redbank Power Station claims “It is proposed that Redbank will be fuelled with ecologically sustainable biomass”. The clearing and burning of tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation cannot be described as ecologically sustainable. There is no way burning wood chips from living trees is ecologically sustainable. This would have to be the worst form of electricity production, with coal, oil and gas , to increase global warming, increasing air and ocean temperatures, melting glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. • The proposal relies heavily on the clearing of “Invasive Native Species” (INS), which is poorly regulated and overseen. ‘Invasive native species’ is a term that’s been used to let farmers clear abundant native vegetation on their property with little oversight, for the purposes of increasing agricultural productivity. • Land clearing and "INS” will provide 71% of fuel in the first year and 64% in the second year. Based on information provided by Verdant, at least 20,000 hectares of “INS” will need to be cleared to provide the required fuel levels during the projects first year. • This is quite disgraceful. The terms ‘Invasive Native Species’ is a lie in that regeneration of Native Species is not ‘Invasive’. It is land returning to the bushland it once was. If NSW is serious about containing global warming, while it still approves more coal mining, as much tree cover, new and growing must be saved. Certainly not burnt. • • The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review by the Natural Resources Commission. • Providing a market for dead native vegetation will drive increases in land clearing. The demand creates the risk that “INS” is managed in an ecologically unsustainable way. • The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to assess off-site impacts – The EIS only considers impacts on the 18ha of land the power station sits on, ignoring the potential biodiversity impacts from the thousands of hectares of land clearing required off-site. • Again this project requires trees sourced offsite of the Power Station. To not consider the effect on native habitats and the native animals, birds, other species living in these sourced areas is criminal. • The project says they would establish biomass fuel crops to sustain the project long term. Verdent state ‘in order to meet the total required biomass demand, a total planted area of 72,000 hectares would be required’ and seeks to convert grasslands to crops. The project plan specifies it will target marginal agricultural lands. The project should only use degraded agricultural lands. It does not specify how native vegetation, like biodiverse grasslands, will be protected. • Maybe they should start planting the 72,000 hectares in marginal land first, wait till it grows, and then harvest for their ovens. If Verdant were a responsible renewable energy company. Which they aren’t. There is no place for this greenhouse gas creating project in NSW. • Land clearing and associated habitat fragmentation is already one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in NSW, threatening endangered species and habitats. And increasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere increasing global warming. • The claim of “near-net zero” emissions, due to the regrowth of feedstock, is not supported. Trees cleared for land clearing will not grow back, future growth and carbon storage is lost and other emissions from soils and processing are not counted. • Verdent claim that burning vegetation bulldozed from agricultural lands will have a neutral effect on greenhouse gas levels; this is false. Burning vegetation will release instantaneous bursts of carbon dioxide in the air. There is no plan to replace the woody vegetation that has been cleared – resulting in a net loss. Burning vegetation is very different to the slow carbon release that occurs when vegetation falls to the ground and rots slowly over time. • The emissions from biomass burning is compared to high emitting coal plants rather than wind and solar, significantly overestimating the emissions benefits. • The lifecycle analysis of the project shows that the release of ‘CFCs’ which contribute to ozone depletion are more than four times higher than burning coal. • True net-zero projects should be prioritised over projects that add increased carbon to the atmosphere. • It seems many of Verdants claims are just not correct. Designed to mislead. • Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing deadly air pollution. • Just like coal mining. Doctors have shown respiratory illness increase in towns near coal mining sites such as Singleton and Muswellbrook, in the Hunter Valley. Why add another one to increase bad health outcomes for residents. • Burning biomass can have even more significant public health impacts than burning coal. Why more southerly towns in the colder months have increased respiratory illnesses when they start up their wood fires. • The proponent's plans for sourcing fuel assumes that 42 tonne capacity B-double trucks move to and from the power station 112 times PER DAY to haul the required biomass feedstock in and the resulting ash out. That is more than one truck in and out every half hour on average and equates to 20,238 trips per year. • Again totally unsuitable increased truck use on often poorly maintained roads. Verdant would need to contribute significant money to road maintenance all over the state. And the extra diesel burnt adds to air pollution, heating the atmosphere, increasing global warming. • Would they be asked to contribute to road repairs by the Minns government? There is nothing good about this project. Prefer a big battery at Redbank and more solar panels and wind turbines for the need for more renewable energy. • Although excluded from the current proposal, the loophole that allows the use of native forest trees for biomass energy production still exists. There is no guarantee that native forests won’t be allowed for use under future governments. • This loophole needs to be closed. Where is NSW Premier Minns ‘Great Koala National Park’, a 2023 election promise? It is steadily being bulldozed. I don’t think Premier Minns has any interest in natural bushland, habitats or Koalas and other native animals and birds. • Either does Verdant Energy. The banning of any native vegetation for electricity is a commitment from the NSW Government • NSW Labor has had a longstanding commitment to close the loophole that allows the burning of any native vegetation for electricity “Labor recognises that burning timber an cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean or renewable energy” • Let’s support this policy of NSW Labor and not approve this Verdant Energy proposal. If Verdant suggests carbon capture and storage, nowhere has this ‘technology’ been found to work. More money wasted. • The best plan is to abandon Verdant’s poorly thought out scheme, which will do nothing to halt and will increase global warming/rapid climate change and add to increased native species lost. Surely those in NSW leadership roles, Labor MPs should stop this destructive proposal. Effecting our environment on many levels. • Thanks for reading my opposition to Verdant Energy proposal for the Redbank Power Station, Warkworth, Hunter Valley, NSW. • Regards • Ilona Renwick

4146

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Please don't approve Verdant's proposal to re-open Redbank Power station using native trees. It is NOT near net-zero because it will actually increase carbon emissions. Climate change is REAL . So, for future generations, we must stand up to these polluters NOW. NSW is already considered a ‘deforestation hotspot’. New figures show that rates of tree clearing skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. We do not need another driver of forest clearing, habitat loss and greenhouse gas emissions. Your sincerely, Yvonne Lollback

3601

12/08/2025

Object

Email

My message is simple.. Burning tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation from dubious “approved” land clearing for power (to run data centres ???) is the most stupid and self-defeating power generating proposal I have ever heard. I am 75, and a retired professional academic and research biologist - so I am informed and remain informed. Just do not do it. Cut the project immediately and don't put it in the filing cabinet to resurface in 5, 10 years time. Pete Cranston Honorary Professor ANU

3641

2453

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners If we must fell native vegetation, it should remain on site as habitat, or to break down into humus. Using fossil fuel to transport wood to burn as 'green' energy is ridiculous given our solar and wind and tidal and geothermal capacity. Please reject SSD-56284960 and protect NSW from becoming the first jurisdiction in Australia to power its grid by clearing and burning native vegetation. Yours sincerely, Jason John

3681

Griffith Climate Action Beacon

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Please find attached our submission on the proposed restart of the Redbank Power Station.

Brendan McKay for Griffith Climate Action Beacon submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 171.87 KB)

3721

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Our natural environment is under increasing threat of total annihilation. Verdant Earth Technologies’ disgraceful proposal to re-open the Redbank Power Station near Singleton NSW will burn up to 850,000 tonnes of biomass - most of which will come from native tree clearing in the west of NSW. The project, painted as ‘ecologically sustainable’ and ‘near net-zero’, would be a biodiversity disaster and actually increase carbon emissions!! Many leading scientists, environmental groups and community leaders have voiced extremely serious concerns. This outrageous project directly contradicts the trusted policy commitments made by the NSW and Federal Governments. NSW is now shamefully known as a DEFORESTATION HOTSPOT. New figures show that rates of tree clearing skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before!! We do not need any more forest clearing, habitat destruction, massive loss of wildlife, or greenhouse gas emissions. Please come to your senses & stop this appalling mindless destruction of nature. Your legacy will last forever. Thank you. Peter Murray

3761

New South Wales 2800

12/08/2025

Object

Email

I am making a submission in opposition to the proposed re-opening of the Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960). Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. I am 100% opposed to anything that impacts native Flora & Fauna to the point where their homes & food sources are decimated for decades and even centuries. I am totally opposed to reopening Redbank Power Station. Sincerely Susan E Hands

3801

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to restart Redbank Power Station (SSD-56284960) and to burn up to 850,000 tonnes of native vegetation each year for electricity generation. If permitted, it would negatively impact NSW’s wildlife, natural heritage, biodiversity and create pollution and environmental degradation impacts, exacerbating fire risks, soil erosion and other impacts which we expand on below. It could also damage Australia’s international reputation and export markets. We urge you to reject SSD-56284960. • Burning 850,000 tones of vegetation will release over 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually • Additional emissions will occur from the clearing process, soil disturbance, transport, and processing • The vegetation being cleared will not regrow causing long-term environmental damage. These are permanent land use changes, and the lost carbon will stay in the atmosphere for decades. This proposal is not renewable energy. It is an industrial-scale deforestation project that will lock in rising emissions, destroy native habitat, and worsen both the biodiversity and climate crises in NSW. We are concerned that this project is under consideration. The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. We thought that this widely advertised promise had been kept and were surprised to see that this proposal had been assessed and recommended for approval. No other jurisdiction in Australia has permitted such an environmentally destructive and impactful proposal to proceed. in 2022, soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • This proposal would make its business out of clearing native vegetation and should be refused. • Importantly, it could potentially damage our export markets for the long term (ie. the EU’s export bans on cattle raised on land that has been cleared will be imposed here shortly and such measures will likely be expanded going forward). This could undermine the value and use of this land for the long term. • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • To approve this proposal would be in contradiction to what the NSW Government has committed to in its policy to stop excess land clearing, • The NSW Government should act promptly to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on land clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, recent figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. There is widespread community concern at the government’s repeated failures to address these problems. • A landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of the tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station has not yet been required or assessed by the NSW Government. • The EIS only considers the power station site itself. There is no biodiversity assessment of the landscapes where the vegetation will be cleared. This means the impacts on threatened species, ecological communities, connectivity, and local ecosystems have not been evaluated. • There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Numerous bodies have expressed concern that the claimed sources of the vegetation for the project are based on expired approvals, outdated mapping, or reliance on partnerships with companies that no longer exist. There has been no on-ground assessment of whether the necessary volume of native vegetation can be legally, economically or ecologically sourced. • There has been no life cycle analysis of emissions from this proposal, and no accounting for the carbon stored in vegetation, soils, or habitat that would otherwise continue to function as a carbon sink. - Most of the vegetation clearing will occur on private land, outside any formal planning or development application process - No surveys are required to identify threatened species or ecological values before clearing occurs - The satellite processing facilities proposed for dying and chipping native vegetation have not been identified, assessed or approved. - The risk of project expansion or variation is high. Although the proponents currently state that they will not use logging residues, the project is clearly designed to allow for future variation to include them. The proposal itself states that if other fuel sources prove uneconomic, they may seek approval for alternatives. Given the unreliable nature of the INS resource, it is likely this will occur. - If approved, this proposal will damage public trust and set a dangerous precedent. Creating a commercial market for burning native vegetation will incentivise deforestation and land clearing across NSW. - It will increase pressure on ecosystems already in decline, particularly in the context of drought, land degradation, and invasive species. It also risks undermining genuine renewable energy by channelling public and private investment into high-emissions, low-efficiency technology. This project must be assessed on the full environmental ecological and climate consequences of its operations - including what it takes to supply the fuel. I request that the Commission reject this proposal. o Burning of native vegetation is not clean energy o Logging residues must not be approved in the future as feedstock o Environmental impacts must include all clearing locations, not just the power station site o Emissions must be properly accounted for and assessed under current climate goals. This proposal is not in the public interest, it does not have a social licence, and it contradicts the urgent need to reduce emissions and protect NSW’s natural heritage and biodiversity. Please reject SSD-56284960 and protect NSW from powering its grid by clearing and burning native vegetation instead of supporting renewable energy. As mentioned this does not appear to accord with federal policy either. Yours sincerely,

3576

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. Sincerely, Carol

3616

New South Wales 2479

12/08/2025

Object

Email

This submission is in regard to the Redbank Power Station. I am strongly opposed to Verdant Earth Technologies proposing to re-open the former Redbank coal fired power station (near Singleton, NSW) to burn trees cleared on farm lands under woefully weak land clearing laws. The proposal ignores greenhouse gas emissions from clearing trees and treats CO₂ emissions from burning wood as zero - despite the fact that burning wood is more emissive per unit of energy than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025). A deeply flawed NSW assessment process has recommended approval of this climate and biodiversity disaster. Now there is one last chance to put a stop to this project. Please make a submission before 5pm 18th August! There are very serious Biodiversity & Climate Impacts • For the first few years of its operation, the project will be reliant on the permanent destruction and fragmentation of native vegetation - core habitat for many threatened species. • The NSW Government must act immediately to reform tree clearing laws and reverse biodiversity loss in NSW, as recommended by the Independent Review of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act. These recommendations included much tighter controls on tree clearing and reforms to a major loophole that permits clearing of native trees under the guise of ‘Invasive Native Species’, a deeply misleading label. • Instead of acting to reform tree clearing laws, new figures show that rates of clearing have skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before. • The presence of 'Invasive Native Species' is actually the result of sheep and goat farming, whereby trees that are cleared to retain pastures consequently regenerate. In the absence of clearing, natural ecosystem processes would eventually allow these areas to recover. Over 85% of the woodlands in southern Australia have been cleared for agriculture. • At every stage of regeneration, woodland forests provide immense value to native plants, wildlife and birds, but this proposal gives no consideration to their ecological value - including the importance of restoring connectivity for wildlife across large distances. Ensuring food and nesting resources for birds that range widely across our landscapes is critically important for their survival. • Claims that this project is carbon neutral are contradicted by the latest science. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal (Mackey et. al, 2025) and in some cases emissions are reportedly double (Booth, 2014). • It is scandalous that a landscape scale assessment of the biodiversity impacts of tree clearing that will supply the Redbank Power Station was not required by the NSW Government. There has also been no requirement to assess or reveal the CO₂ emissions from the projects associated biomass burning and clearing. • Clearly the NSW planning framework is not fit for the purpose of preventing biodiversity loss and reversing our trajectory on climate change. Conflicts with Government Commitments • The recommendations of the Independent Review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - NSW’s environmental protection legislation - which found that the ‘Clearing of native vegetation’ was one of the key drivers of ‘destruction, alteration and fragmentation of habitat across the state’ and a primary risk to biodiversity. In response, the NSW Government made a commitment to ‘end excess land clearing’ which has not been delivered. • In response to the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the NSW Government committed to strengthening ‘the prescriptions for managing invasive native species’ to ‘reduce the risk of ‘misuse’ of this provision. • The NSW Government made an election promise to ‘introduce legislation prohibiting the burning of any forests and cleared vegetation for electricity’, and has long recognised that ‘burning timber and cleared vegetation for electricity is not carbon neutral and is neither clean nor renewable energy’. • Australia has made international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation and reverse the extinction crisis by 2030. The time taken for forests affected under this proposal to recover far exceeds 2030. • Importantly, in 2022, and soon after it came to power, the Federal Labor Government ruled out the use of native forest wood as an eligible source of renewable energy under the Renewable Energy Act. This matter is very important to me. Yours Sincerely, Brian Faithfull

3656

12/08/2025

Object

Email

NO MORE COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS PLEASE Our natural environment is under increasing threat of total annihilation. Verdant Earth Technologies’ proposal to re-open the Redbank Power Station near Singleton NSW will burn up to 850,000 tonnes of biomass - most of which will come from native tree clearing in the west of NSW. The project, painted as ‘ecologically sustainable’ and ‘near net-zero’, would be a biodiversity disaster and actually increase carbon emissions!! Many leading scientists, environmental groups and community leaders have voiced serious concerns. This outrageous project directly contradicts policy commitments made by the NSW and Federal Governments. NSW is now shamefully known as a DEFORESTATION HOTSPOT. New figures show that rates of tree clearing skyrocketed to 66,498 hectares in 2023, a 40% increase from the year before!! We do not need any more forest clearing, habitat destruction, massive loss of wildlife, or greenhouse gas emissions. Please come to your senses & stop all this mindless destruction of nature. Your legacy will not be forgotten. Thank you Jemma Meecham

3696

12/08/2025

Object

Email

Hello I think it's absolutely disgusting!!! Me and the rest if the population DO NOT WANT MORE LAND CLEARING FOR ANYTHING. NOT FOR POWER EITHER!! OUR WILDLIFE NEEDS US OUR EARTH NEEDS US AND WE NEED TREES. WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE TO THIS. kind regards, Marlaina Sole.

3816

12/08/2025