Victorian Transmission Plan: An Avalanche of Costs Consumers Cannot Afford

The Headline Numbers

Over the weekend, VicGrid released the final Victorian Transmission Plan (VTP). From the draft, it enlarges several Renewable Energy Zones (REZs) and refreshes capital expenditure figures to around $8 billion over the next decade.

But here’s the catch: that $8 billion does not include some of the largest projects on the horizon. VicGrid treats them as part of the “base case”, already assumed in the system and therefore not costed within the VTP.

According to the VTP, the base case includes projects that AEMO’s 2024 Integrated System Plan (ISP) defines as Committed, Anticipated or Actionable. These are not minor add-ons, but a full suite of mega-projects: Marinus Link, VNI West, the Western Renewables Link, Gippsland offshore wind transmission (stage 1), and multiple REZ augmentations under the Renewable Energy Zone Development Plan (Stage 1).

So, when VicGrid talks about $8 billion, it’s only part of the story. Once the base case and AusNet’s system reliability and resilience cap-ex program, the only component subject to genuine Australian Energy Regulator (AER) scrutiny, are added, the real figure for Victoria is closer to $25–28 billion. Even the AER itself calls this looming burden a “wall of cap-ex.” I call it an avalanche of costs consumers cannot afford.

The False Promise

Consumers are told this vast new spend will eventually be offset by lower wholesale electricity prices. But the evidence is clear:

Wholesale prices are volatile and driven by multiple factors outside transmission.
Costs are front-loaded to consumers through Transmission Use of System (TUOS) charges, your bill goes up immediately, while the promise of lower prices is hypothetical and decades away.
History shows that promised “offsets” rarely materialise in any meaningful way.

And remember: the $8 billion VicGrid figure excludes Marinus, VNI West, WRL, and Gippsland OW. When those costs land on top, the gap between the sales pitch and consumer reality only widens.

The truth? Consumers will pay much more for transmission, with little chance of benefit.

The Real Drivers

Let’s be blunt: this build-out has nothing to do with lowest cost, climate, or the public interest. It has everything to do with:

Profits – transmission companies get guaranteed regulated returns.
Politics – governments chase ribbon-cutting opportunities.
Paydays – billions poured into projects, consumers left with the bill.

If this were genuinely about consumer outcomes, governments and market operators would be making better use of existing infrastructure, upgrading what we already have, and properly integrating distributed energy resources (DERs), not simply defaulting to building ever more “big network.” When you ask a national transmission planner for a solution, all you’re going to get is BIG. It’s like asking a boat builder for transport: you’ll get a boat, not the car you actually need.

The Risk of Getting it Wrong

All of this is unfolding just as consumer energy resources, rooftop solar, household batteries, local microgrids, are growing exponentially. More Australians are producing and consuming their own energy locally, reducing reliance on the very centralised assets governments are spending billions to expand.

If planning continues down this path, we risk being buried under the wrong system: centralised assets built just as the market shifts to decentralisation.

A Call for Plan B

Energy Grid Alliance has consistently argued for a better way, a Plan B. Released in 2023, Plan B set out a whole-of-state approach to transmission planning centred on:

Greater use of existing transmission corridors
Smaller, distributed Renewable Energy Zones rather than a single “super-highway”
Planning aligned to achieving Victoria’s Renewable Energy Targets (VRET)

At the time, these ideas were dismissed and even ridiculed. AEMO branded Plan B “reckless,” while Jacobs and the Victorian Government rejected it without properly engaging with its statewide rationale. Yet many of these same principles now quietly underpin the VTP: more use of existing corridors, more distributed REZs, and a planning frame tied directly to VRET delivery. Even AusNet, still championing the contested Western Renewables Link, has publicly praised VicGrid’s “clear emphasis on upgrading and strengthening the existing transmission network,” admitting it is “typically more cost-effective, faster to deliver, and less disruptive to communities.”

That is exactly why Plan B remains the right path:

De-risk for consumers now. Stop asking them to take a blind leap of faith.
Balance big and small. Optimise the mix of existing transmission corridors with local, consumer-led systems.
Hold proponents accountable. Ensure all cap-ex, not just AusNet’s reliability spend, is subject to full AER scrutiny.
Stop the incompetence. Admit mistakes, acknowledge the value of Plan B, and listen to the voices that have been warning of this folly for years.

In more than 30 years in business, I have learned the first rule of planning and development: make the most of what you already have before chasing something new. You begin by understanding your existing network, maximising its potential, upselling, and driving efficiencies. Only once you’ve fully leveraged your base do you expand.

AEMO and VicGrid have done the exact opposite. They ignored the capacity of existing transmission and distribution networks. They ignored consumer-side efficiencies. Instead, they leapt straight to tens of billions in new projects, before realising the potential of what was already there.

This isn’t just a business failure. It is a monumental planning failure that consumers will now pay for dearly. The hypocrisy is staggering: AEMO mocked the very principles of Plan B, principles VicGrid now appears to be adopting, while still claiming its own plan was “the best.” It never was, and it never will be.

The transmission strategy in Victoria is a disgrace: driven by politics, profits, and vested interests, not consumers, not climate, not the public interest. Unless governments radically change course, Victorians will be paying for decades of overpriced infrastructure that delivers little more than ribbon-cutting photo opportunities.