TRANSMISSION PLANNING: ARE WE BUILDING TOMORROW’S GRID OR YESTERDAY’S MISTAKES?

Let’s talk about Australia’s transmission pipeline.

Not the one under construction.

Not the one facing delays.

Not even the one facing budget blowouts.

Let’s talk about the thinking that underpins all of it.

Because before a single tower is installed, we’ve already locked in years—sometimes decades—of assumptions. And we rarely revisit them.

So here’s a few contrarian questions I’ve been mulling over. They’re not rhetorical. And they’re not hostile. But if we want to get transmission right, we may need to question some very baked-in orthodoxy.

Spoiler alert - This is bloody complex stuff. It is highly political. It is emotive. It is engineers vs economists vs vested interests. It affects lives. It costs a lot of cash. I don't have the answers. However, I'm happy to have an adult conversation.

Q1: Why are transmission projects still treated as State infrastructure, when the grid is national, the energy mix is national, and the investment risk is...well, very national?

Each State has its own roadmap. NSW has Energy Co and REZ's. Victoria has now birthed VicGrid with its Victorian Transmission Plan. Queensland is building Supergrids. SA is just getting on with it. Tasmania is waiting for a cable.

But if electrons don’t respect borders, why do our planning frameworks?

We have a patchwork of bespoke planning regimes, with overlapping (and occasionally conflicting) objectives, timelines, and investment signals? AEMO's Intergrated System Plan was meant to help address this.....but is it?

Imagine trying to build a national mobile phone network where each State picks its own technology mix, rules and regulations, and construction timeline. You’d say it’s madness.

Yet in transmission planning, this is where we are.

Q2: Do our current planning regimes assume more certainty than actually exists?

When we greenlight major transmission investments, we’re assuming future generation will materialise in predictable places, that demand forecasts are reliable, and that policy won't shift midstream.

But the energy market is anything but predictable. Just in the last 3 years, we’ve seen:

– Delays in large-scale solar and wind projects – Shifting federal and state incentive schemes – Volatile interest rates – Escalating construction costs – Serious questions around social licence

If transmission investment is contingent on these variables aligning, why are our plans locked in like they’re as certain as a Bunnings sausage sizzle on a Saturday?

Is there enough flexibility built in? Or are we quietly crossing our fingers? How much is politics getting in the way?

Q3: Are we overestimating the role of mega-transmission, and underestimating the potential of distributed assets and demand-side smarts?

The narrative is clear: we need new long lines to connect REZs to load centres. Full stop.

But while we chase billion-dollar builds, how rigorously are we testing alternative pathways?

What role could localised storage play in avoiding or deferring upgrades? What about flexible loads, coordinated DER, and smarter forecasting?

Not every solution has a tower and a tag of $3 billion.

The Integrated System Plan (ISP) has made room for these, but how well are they weighted in State-based planning regimes that default to “build big, build now”?

If we’re going to spend tens of billions in public and consumer-backed funding, don’t we owe it to the market to put every assumption through a stress test?

Q4: Are we making it easier for people to engage—or just better at defending what’s already been decided?

To be fair, the way we communicate transmission planning has improved. Those leading the process are becoming more open, more responsive, and more willing to explain the rationale behind big decisions.

But despite that progress, it’s still incredibly difficult for most people—communities, smaller developers, even local councils—to meaningfully engage.

The material is complex. The modelling is technical. The process often moves faster than the public can respond. And even when consultation happens, it’s rarely clear how input will influence the outcome.

On top of that, decisions are often framed through a purely economic lens—least-cost pathways, marginal benefit, net market impact.

These are important tools. But they leave little space for other considerations: social equity, environmental impact, cultural values, or community trust.

So the question is: Are we really building consensus, or just refining the argument?

Because if the rationale for a project rests almost entirely on economics, and the only way to question it is through a 300-page submission—then let’s be honest: the debate is still closed to most.

Until engagement becomes as accessible as it is technical, and until decisions are framed in broader terms than just economics, we’re not really inviting the full conversation—we’re just managing its edges.

Q5: Have we struck the right balance between community impact and the national interest—or are we just hoping money will fix it?

Every major transmission project comes with a familiar tension.

On one hand, communities face real and often long-lasting disruption—on landscapes, on lifestyles, on livelihoods. They’re being asked to host infrastructure that benefits the entire country, often with little say and even less trust that their concerns will be taken seriously.

To address this, we’ve seen the rise of “community benefit-sharing” schemes—payments, grants, or localised investments tied to transmission development.

But here’s the uncomfortable question: Are these schemes becoming tokenism?

Too often, they can be interpreted as a box-ticking exercise—an assumption that a fund or a community grant can make up for years of disruption or the loss of control over land and place. There’s a risk we’re sending the message: "Here’s some money—now please don’t stand in the way."

That’s not social licence. That’s a transaction.

And it assumes a premise that may not hold true: that financial compensation can resolve all forms of resistance. But people don’t just care about money—they care about fairness, transparency, respect, and voice. Without those, no amount of dollars will buy genuine support.

At the same time, we also need to ask the other side of the question: At what point does a community’s right to resist meet the public’s right to progress?

If we’re serious about decarbonising our energy system, and more importantly, keeping the lights on, then some infrastructure will need to be built—and not every community will get to opt out.

So how do we hold both truths?

That some level of local disruption is unavoidable—and that the process for earning acceptance must go far beyond compensation?

That the national interest matters—and that it can’t be used to bulldoze community concerns?

Until we have a shared framework for answering those questions—not just in policy, but in practice—we risk building infrastructure that is technically sound and socially brittle.

FINAL THOUGHT

This isn’t a call to stop building transmission.

We need it—urgently.

But urgency should never become an excuse for inertia of thought. And it is clear many smart people across society are deeply engaged in thinking about these issues.

If you’re working in planning, policy, investment, networks, community engagement, or project delivery—I’m genuinely curious:

What’s one assumption in current transmission planning that you think we have to revisit?

Let’s raise the standard of conversation—not just the voltage.

👇 The comments are open. Challenge, correct, build, expand.

#energytransition #transmission #NEM #renewables #electricitynetwork #energyplanning #policy #infrastructure #australia