Bruce slays Goliath's big gold-plated power plan
Readers may recall that Robertson - a critic of "gold-plating", or excess spending by the networks, which drives up our power bills - had been threatened with a lawsuit by Grid Australia.
The contretemps harks back to early last year when Transgrid unveiled plans to run a column of 330,000 volt coat-hangers up the valley near Robertson's farm. Robertson accused them of gold-plating. They muscled up and threatened to sue him.
But there was a slight hitch. Grid Australia is a peak body, a front for the state transmission giants. And governments should hardly be suing their own citizens.
Robertson declined to be muzzled anyway. That was the slight hitch. A more glamorous hitch was to come.
A search of the ASIC database showed the ABN number for Grid Australia Limited was registered to a Daniel Rosenberg of Caulfield South in Melbourne. Born Israel 1974, Rosenberg was sole shareholder of Grid Australia, and its sole director.
Vainly pining for a Mossad connection, we tracked him down. No, Danny, a graphic designer by trade, had never heard of Transgrid, nor SP-Ausnet, ElectraNet, Powerlink, Transend Networks or Western Power for that matter, or their lawyers Ashurst.
"I'm Grid Australia. That's my company," said the real chairman of Grid Australia, sporting his funky white-rimmed glasses. "You say that someone is using my actual ABN number?"
The Bruce and Goliath story had its denouement this week when the Australian Energy Regulator condemned Transgrid for its Stroud to Lansdowne transmission line. There was no justification for the $160 million project, said the AER.
It followed admissions in January in a NSW report that it was, "difficult to gain a complete understanding of the reasons for the promotion of a 330kV solution".
Gold-plating is no conspiracy theory. The question is: how many billions have been sunk around the country in these souped-up projects?
The structure of the business is the fatal flaw. Thanks to their "regulated-return" model, the more the networks build - and the more they spend - the higher their financial return. Like the investment adviser on a cut of a client's gross assets, the temptation to leverage is too high. Like liquidators and lawyers, these guys can set their own prices. For consumers, it's deadly.
Sensis-tive time at Telstra
TELSTRA, like the banking and supermarket cartels, may soon encounter the paradox of success. Such may be an exotic experience for the lumbering telco but Telstra is braining it right now at the expense of its rivals Optus and Vodafone.
It signed up 600,000 new mobile contracts in the last half year (it counts each SIM) and 80,000 internet customers. Tearing up his rivals' market share is a good look for Telstra chief David Thodey but the price of success may be heightened political sensitivity, even the spectre of further regulation.
Vodafone announced a new call centre in Tasmania yesterday, albeit spurred on by government handouts. While this will create 750 jobs on the Vodafone Isle, Telstra is busy "offshoring" 400-odd Sensis jobs to the Philippines or India.
Sensis originally proposed 200 jobs go and put this to the Telstra board in late November but Telstra rejected it and a subsequent proposal with a higher figure. Despite cries by Sensis executives that a move to offshore 391 jobs and cut the rest of staff might damage customer service, Telstra implored them to "do better". With a gun to their head they came back with the 648 job cuts that were announced late last week.
There is now a mutinous passion in senior sales ranks. The pressure has been on Sensis since the directories business came under attack from Google - yes, that's the Google Australia that paid a $74,176 tax last year on its $1 billion revenue, well in excess of the salary of a Filipino call centre operator.
Sensis still throws off $390 million in profits. In recognition that speaking to an Aussie has a value, Sensis is keeping its "account managers" for those customers who spend more than $40,000 a year with them in Australia.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Gold‑plating refers to excess spending by electricity transmission and distribution networks — building bigger or more expensive infrastructure than justified. The article explains that because networks operate under a regulated‑return model, higher capital spending can boost their financial returns. For consumers this pushes up power bills; for investors it raises questions about the sustainability of network profits and the potential for regulatory pushback if projects are seen as unnecessary.
Bruce Robertson criticised plans to install a 330,000‑volt transmission line near his farm, accusing Transgrid of gold‑plating. He was reportedly threatened with legal action by Grid Australia, a peak body, but pursued the complaint. The matter gained traction when the Australian Energy Regulator later condemned Transgrid’s Stroud to Lansdowne project as unjustified.
The AER found there was no justification for Transgrid’s Stroud to Lansdowne transmission project, which had been estimated at around $160 million. The regulator’s decision followed admissions that it was difficult to fully understand why a 330kV solution was being promoted, reinforcing concerns about over‑building and costly projects.
Under the regulated‑return model the amount networks can earn is linked to their regulated asset base. The article notes this creates an incentive to build more and spend more because higher asset values can lead to higher allowable returns. That dynamic can tempt networks to expand projects beyond what’s necessary, with higher costs ultimately borne by consumers and potential scrutiny from regulators.
A search of the ASIC database showed Grid Australia Limited’s ABN registered to a Daniel Rosenberg of Caulfield South, a graphic designer who said he was the sole shareholder and director of Grid Australia. The surprising find undercut the networks’ attempt to threaten a critic and drew attention to how the peak body was presented publicly versus its registration details.
Telstra signed up 600,000 new mobile contracts and 80,000 internet customers in the last half‑year (counting each SIM). While that growth is positive for revenue and market share, the article warns it could heighten political and regulatory sensitivity — success can attract scrutiny and the prospect of additional regulation, which investors should monitor.
Sensis — Telstra’s directories arm — proposed offshoring and job cuts. Telstra initially resisted smaller proposals but Sensis later announced 648 job cuts, including offshoring roles to the Philippines or India. Despite this, Sensis still generates about $390 million in profits and is keeping account managers for big customers (those spending more than $40,000 a year). For investors, these moves affect costs, public perception, and potential service outcomes in a business facing digital competition.
Vodafone opened a new call centre in Tasmania creating about 750 jobs (with government support), while Google’s attack on the directories business has pressured Sensis. The article highlights that Google’s digital disruption and rivals’ regional investments are reshaping market dynamics, putting pressure on traditional players like Sensis and potentially influencing future revenue and strategic choices for telecom investors.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
