Independent peer reviews and additional information EES updates

Independent peer review reports

As part of the quality assurance process adopted by AusNet for preparing the EES technical assessments, AusNet sought independent peer reviews of their key technical assessments.

Independent reviewers were asked to review:

• the methodology, assumptions and limitations,
• the impact assessment’s findings,
• the suitability of any Environmental Performance Requirements, and
• if the report adequately addresses if the Project can meet the relevant evaluation objective in the EES scoping requirements.

The independent peer reviews were initially completed on earlier versions of the technical reports and where the experts agreed, technical reports have adopted the recommendations of the independent reviewers, which informed the final technical reports exhibited with the EES. The reports prepared by the independent peer reviewers identify their comments on the technical reports, including where there are differences of opinion.

Independent peer reviews were undertaken with respect to the following areas:

• Agriculture and forestry
• Aviation
• Biodiversity
• Bushfire
• EMI and EMF
• Historical heritage
• Landscape and visual
• Land use and planning

To give the reader the best understanding of the reviews, the independent peer review reports should be read in conjunction with the relevant technical reports exhibited with the EES.

Please note that some technical reports are large files and may be slow to download. For easier access, smaller versions of these documents are available on the Environment Effects Statement page.

Program change advice

In June 2025 it was identified that the construction and delivery timeframe for WRL may need to be revised, so as to be different from what was assessed in the EES. This change has been informed by early contractor engagement, and a changed approach to the method of construction.

As a consequence, EES technical specialists were asked to consider if a revised construction and delivery timeframe would change the outcomes of their technical assessments. The changes are as follows:

• The proposed change to the construction method is for there to be a single construction work front commencing at the western end and moving east along the Proposed Route to complete the Project. The EES has assumed two construction work fronts working in parallel from each end of the Project and meeting towards the centre.
• The EES was based on an overall construction program of two years, noting that the schedule is dependent on contractor engagement and receipt of project approvals (See EES Chapter 6 Project description). As a result of removing the concurrent construction at the eastern end, the Project construction end date is now Q4 of 2029, approximately 12 months later than considered in the EES. Rehabilitation will occur progressively and be completed in 2030. This change to overall duration is not expected to result in a change in the time of construction on any one property.
• The change in construction method would also change the program for energisation of the project to be 12 months later than what was assessed in the EES.
• The duration of construction activities on each property would, however, not change and rehabilitation works would still commence progressively as areas are no longer required to support construction.

Each EES technical specialist has considered the program change and their advice is provided below. Overall, the technical specialists found there would be no material change to the conclusions of their technical assessments or require any changes to the recommended Environmental Performance Requirements.

• Technical Specialist brief.

The technical specialists for the greenhouse gas and economic assessments did, however, note that the revised program would change some aspects of their assessments. The greenhouse gas specialist anticipates there would be changes to the calculated greenhouse gas emissions from the longer program but concludes it would not change their overall conclusions. The economic specialist confirmed that with respect to agricultural and local business impacts the change to program would not change their conclusions but were unable to comment in relation to the outcome of updated computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling.