Transgrid owns and operates the high-voltage backbone of the NSW grid, and it is the business building the Hunter Transmission Project, which received its NSW planning approval on 29 July. Every five years it has to ask the AER how much it is allowed to recover from customers. That determination is the single largest lever on the network component of a NSW power bill, and the Framework and Approach paper is where the method gets fixed.
The AER states the obligation plainly: Transgrid is due to
submit its next revenue proposal by 29 January 2027
, for the period 1 July 2028 to
30 June 2033.
The timeline, and where a member of the public actually fits
The paper sets out an indicative timeline. It is worth reading as a list of doors, most of which are still open.
| Milestone | Indicative date |
|---|---|
| Framework and Approach published | 31 July 2026 |
| Transgrid submits revenue proposal | 29 January 2027 |
| AER publishes issues paper and holds public forum | March/April 2027 |
| Submissions on revenue proposal close | May 2027 |
| AER publishes draft determination | September 2027 |
| AER holds predetermination conference | October 2027 |
| Transgrid submits revised proposal | December 2027 |
| Submissions on revised proposal and draft decision close | January 2028 |
| AER publishes final determination | April 2028 |
The public forum in March or April 2027 and the two submission windows are the points at which anyone, including a household or a local business, can put something on the record. The AER says these dates are subject to change.
How few people are in the room
Transgrid asked the AER in October 2025 to amend its framework. The AER put that request out
for consultation in November 2025 and, in its own words,
Having received no submissions
, went ahead and reviewed the framework anyway.
The AER then published a preliminary position paper in April 2026.
We received three submissions in response to our preliminary positions
, it records: one
from the Centre for Smart Power and Energy Research, one from the Justice and Equity Centre,
and one from Transgrid itself. So on the rules that will govern billions of dollars of
regulated revenue, the consumer side of the table was two organisations.
What the one consumer advocate actually said
The Justice and Equity Centre did not support our proposed adoption of the CESS
, the
Capital Expenditure Sharing Scheme, in the version set out in the AER’s 2025 capital
expenditure incentive guidelines. Its concern, as the AER summarises it, is that the changes
could result in material cost impacts for NSW consumers
.
It named two risks. The first is that infrastructure could be deferred for reasons unrelated to efficiency, leaving Transgrid able to seek revenue for the same item in a later revenue period. The second is reduced cost accountability if Transgrid overspends inefficiently.
The AER’s answer is not a rebuttal. It notes the updated scheme came out of a targeted
review in 2025, and says it would welcome JEC to provide a submission to the AER at the
issues paper stage
or the draft decision stage if it has specific issues with applying the
scheme in 2028–33. Transgrid, for its part, supported keeping the scheme.
On a separate question the same advocate took the regulator’s side. Transgrid had
proposed excluding AEMO participant fees from the Efficiency Benefit Sharing Scheme; the AER
rejected that, and the Justice and Equity Centre
supported our preliminary position to reject Transgrid
’s proposal.
The technical choice that matters most, and nobody contested
The paper also settles how the opening regulatory asset base will be established for the period after this one. The AER proposes to keep using depreciation based on forecast capital expenditure rather than actual, consistent with Transgrid’s 2023–28 determination. Transgrid indicated it will not seek to depart from that, and the Centre for Smart Power and Energy Research raised no objection.
That is a genuinely consequential choice. The regulatory asset base is the pile on which Transgrid earns a return, so whether it is rolled forward on what a network said it would spend or on what it actually spent changes who carries the risk of a forecast being wrong. Every party in the process agreed to leave it as it is.
Our view
The Hunter is about to have a very large piece of transmission built through it. EnergyCo expects Hunter Transmission Project construction to run from late 2026 to late 2029, subject to Commonwealth approval, which means it straddles the start of the very period this determination covers. The rules chosen now for how capital spending is assessed and shared are the rules that will be applied to that spending.
We do not think the low submission count reflects apathy so much as timing. This stage is abstract: no dollar figure exists yet, and the documents are written for specialists. The numbers arrive in January 2027, by which point the method is largely settled. That ordering is not anyone’s fault, but it does mean the moment with the most leverage is the moment with the least public attention, and the AER twice inviting one advocate to come back later is a reasonable process answer that still leaves the same two organisations doing the work.
The practical point for a reader is narrow and real: the next open door is the issues paper and public forum in March or April 2027, and the one after that is submissions in May 2027. Those are the dates to hold, and we will be reading the revenue proposal when it lands in January.
How we sourced this
Everything above is from the AER’s Framework and Approach paper for the Transgrid transmission determination 2028–33, published 31 July 2026, which we downloaded and read in full rather than working from the AER’s news item about it. The timeline table is transcribed from Table 1 of that paper. The submission counts, the stakeholder positions and the depreciation approach are all the AER’s own characterisations in that document.
What we have not done. We have not read the underlying submissions from the Justice and Equity Centre, the Centre for Smart Power and Energy Research or Transgrid, which are published separately on the AER’s website; what we report is how the AER summarised them, and a submitter may frame their own position differently. We have not seen any revenue figure, because none exists at this stage. We make no claim about what Transgrid will propose or what the AER will allow. The paragraphs under “Our view” are opinion built on the sourced facts above them. The Hunter Transmission Project construction window is from EnergyCo’s own release as reported in our earlier piece, linked above, and the observation that it overlaps this determination period is our own reading of two dated documents, not a statement by either body.
Sources
- Australian Energy Regulator, Framework and Approach paper, Transgrid transmission determination 2028–33 (PDF, 17 pages, AER reference AER25011103, published 31 July 2026, downloaded and read 4 August 2026): the 1 July 2028 to 30 June 2033 period, the 29 January 2027 revenue proposal deadline, the full indicative timeline in Table 1, the November 2025 consultation receiving no submissions, the three submissions on the April 2026 preliminary position paper and who made them, the Justice and Equity Centre’s position on the Capital Expenditure Sharing Scheme and the two risks it named, the AER’s invitation to submit at the issues paper or draft decision stage, the Efficiency Benefit Sharing Scheme AEMO fees question, and the forecast-depreciation approach to the opening regulatory asset base.
- The Connection Point, The Hunter Transmission Project has one of its two approvals: the 29 July NSW planning approval and the late 2026 to late 2029 construction window from EnergyCo’s release.
Updated 5 August 2026. The original was
written from the Framework and Approach paper, which summarises the three
submissions. We have since read all three, and the April preliminary position paper, in
full, and they carry things the summary does not. The AEMO fees dispute has a
number in it. Transgrid’s own submission puts its AEMO participant fees at
$10.7 million in FY24 to $17.7 million proposed for FY27, which it
describes as annual growth of approximately 18 per cent, and argues
these costs are outside of Transgrid
’s control while saying it
supports the continued operation of the EBSS in principle
. The regulator’s
own words in April were that our position is to maintain the current practice applying
the EBSS to total opex, including AEMO fees
. The consumer advocate went
further than the summary shows. Beyond backing the regulator on AEMO fees, the
Justice and Equity Centre wrote that we do not support the proposal to apply changes in
approach to the Capital Expenditure Sharing Scheme
, and set out its reasons for
engaging at all, contending among other things that Transgrid shows
an apparent pattern of testing the limits and intent of regulatory frameworks
.
That is the Centre’s contention in a public submission, not our finding, and
Transgrid’s own submission is published alongside it. The third submission
is technical: the Centre for Smart Power and Energy Research at Deakin University
addressed inverter-based system behaviour and made recommendations it describes as
proportionate, covering the Transgrid, ElectraNet and Murraylink papers together rather
than Transgrid alone. One date moved. The April paper says Transgrid must
submit its revenue proposal by 31 January 2027; the July Framework and
Approach says 29 January 2027, twice. 31 January 2027 is a Sunday and
29 January is the Friday before it. Nothing else in this story changed.
Spotted an error, or take part in these processes? Tell us and we will check it against the sources and log the outcome here.