1 | P a g e

Brisbane Undergrounding Initiatives Paper July 2015

1 PRELIMINARY

1.1 Document About This paper is to set out the current unique but anomalous situation that exists in Brisbane

metropolitan streets regarding domestic service lines and street LV and MV reticulation being

overhead instead of underground, as in other first world cities.

There is some detail on similar cities which are undergrounding their network with a view to

improving their networks by reducing unplanned outages due to storms and vehicular collisions with

poles and discussions on systems of installation.

The relative merits/disadvantages of each system, overhead or underground will be discussed briefly

and comments and solutions offered. Pictures and links are offered before and after and comments

from consumers who have tried to initiate change in policy to no avail, even if willing to pay for the

change.

1.2 Abbreviations

HV High Voltage

MV Medium Voltage

LV Low Voltage

GOC Government Owned Corporation

SUPP (WA) State (WA) Underground Power Program

OIP Overhead Improvement Programme (Vector)

HFC Hybrid Fibre Cable

BCC Brisbane City Council

NSP Network service provider.(Energex & Ergon)

ADSL Asymmetric digital subscriber line

NEM National Electricity Market

EMF Electromotive force

NBN National Broadband Network

KPI Key Performance Indictor

AMEC

1.3 Written By

Author John Mackay

Reviewer

Date July 2015

2 | P a g e

2 ISSUE?

2.1 What do we have? Currently in metropolitan Brisbane, energy and telco’ services are delivered to many/most domestic

dwellings via poles and wires, with the poles owned by Energex, a QLD Government Owned

Corporation. These poles and wires are extremely unsightly, are a road hazard, an exposed source of

EMF’s and require a large expenditure of public money to protect and maintain.

Brisbane suffers from summer and winter storms that affect overhead power and Telco reticulation

and outages are and have been in the past very prolonged and widespread. Current thinking is trees

cause at least 20% of the unplanned network outages.

2.2 Why are Energex persisting with the overhead reticulation? To my knowledge Energex has no intention of replacing poles and wires and indeed is actively

replacing old poles and wires with new materials. Energex would argue that it cannot afford to the

extra cost of underground but it actively spends money ($70M/p.a.) on tree services to prevent

outages and leases pole space to the telco’s who deliver to households their services. All new

subdivisions are underground but some new houses in overhead areas have overhead service lines.

This last situation very much is at odds with other like cities.

Unfortunately Energex whilst it says it operates in the NEM and is administered by Qld Treasury and

has a board, it does lack a voice of the consumers it seems, and has never been challenged on their

performance with regards to where and how they spend their money maintaining their overhead

network, other than by the regulator.

2.3 What do other cities do? In like cities to Brisbane , such as Perth or Auckland the councils and NSP , Telco’s and consumers

have jointly or separately funded and initiated an undergrounding programme that is replacing

overhead street reticulation with underground services, area by area and on a regular and ongoing

basis. In some cases the local Council has taken the opportunity to beautify streets with new street

lights and footpaths jointly with the undergrounding initiatives. It is normal practice in cities other

than Brisbane for all new houses to have underground services lines to the service poles or street

reticulation.

2.4 What can we do in the future? Opportunities exist to “dig once” to install all street services underground including gas as has been

done elsewhere. In Brisbane this later concept is not discussed to my knowledge in councils or NSP’s

or at state level and should be.

In Australia the NBN system is being rolled out and the current intention is for the NBN to “take

over” the current HFC cables installed on Energex poles to deliver a “compromised” broadband

system to all households. How much better it would be if new fibre was laid underground in streets

that delivered NBN, and telephone and free or pay TV all via buried fibre.

3 | P a g e

Below is the current publically available thinking of Energex and others towards this issue obtained

from their web sites.

3 Energex

3.1 ENERGEX’s Community Powerline Enhancement Program (CPEP)

In past times Energex has co-operated with South East Queensland councils as part of its is part of

ENERGEX’s Community Powerline Enhancement Program (CPEP) by jointly funding the

undergrounding of existing overhead power lines. See

The program’s main focus is undergrounding or bundling existing powerlines in sensitive locations

such as major street shopping precincts, sensitive environmental and heritage areas, locations with

significant vegetation, high pedestrian or vehicular areas, and in communities abutting bays, rivers

and coastlines. In Rosewood, more than 300 m of overhead powerlines on will be replaced with

underground cables. Work was planned to commence in April 2012.

The CPEP is the first of five segments in a planned $100 million, five-year program aimed at reducing

the visual impact of existing overhead powerlines. Among the other five programs is a blackspots

program which will target electricity poles and powerlines consistently damaged during traffic

accidents.

It is unknown whether this this program continues or exists today and is not evident in their website.

3.2 Current Energex Policy on Undergrounding of LV networks The following information is from the Energex web site regarding why they chose to support

overhead reticulation.

Refer link https://www.energex.com.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0019/31618/Form-8121-Overhead-

powerlines-and-underground-cables.pdf

“Our distribution network is comprised of both overhead power lines and underground cables.

Energex operates in the National Electricity Market, so we are obliged to develop the most cost

effective network solution within the broader context of our environmental, technical and community

responsibilities. Due to the impact severe weather can have on our overhead network, underground

cables may appear to be the better alternative. However in most cases, overhead power lines deliver

the best value for customers due to the high construction costs of underground cables.” Notes: Here

Energex admit undergrounding is the best solution

“Overall, there are more benefits to building an overhead network. However, in some cases we will

examine the significant additional cost of underground cables in relation to the benefits it could

bring.”

“Energex maintains power lines to the first point of contact on your property – that is, to the house or

building or first property pole. Trees and palms that interfere with power lines are a safety risk and

can interrupt your electricity supply. We spend more than $70 million each year to maintain a safe

clearance between trees and power lines”

4 | P a g e

Notes:

How can you reconcile the spending of $70 million per annum just to protect your network when

you can renew and bury the network with an investment of say $20-$30M per annum over thirty

years, which maybe all that is required to place the majority of the LV and MV systems underground,

all the time reducing the spend on vegetation management?

3.3 Energex & Oversight From the state government website https://www.treasury.qld.gov.au/economy/government-

commercial-businesses/index.php

“The Queensland Government owns a number of commercial businesses in energy, water, rail and

ports. Queensland Treasury monitors the performance of all these Queensland Government-Owned

Corporations (GOCs) on behalf of the Treasurer, who is their shareholding minister. Treasury is

responsible for:

negotiating the annual performance contract and five-yearly plans for the businesses and

monitoring performance against targets throughout the year

assessing major investment proposals to ensure they fit the government’s objectives for the

community

advising responsible and shareholding Ministers of critical current and emerging issues that may

impact on government-owned businesses

administering the process for appointments to boards of government-owned businesses.

All GOCs are bound by a regulatory framework that includes the Queensland Government Owned

Corporations Act 1993, the federal Corporations Act 2001 and the Code of practice for government-

owned corporations’ financial arrangements. The code outlines approval requirements and

guidelines within which GOCs must operate in entering into financial arrangements. A number

of other guidance documents also guide how GOCs conduct business.

3.4 30 year power industry blueprint From the Energex website:

“In June, the Queensland Government released its 30-year strategy for the electricity sector, PowerQ.

The strategy is based on extensive consultation with residents and business operators, electricity

retailers and industry representatives. PowerQ includes strategies to encourage strong competition

and benefit consumers; use consumer data and feedback to create a more responsive market;

encourage a competitive and diverse market that attracts more innovation and investment; and

increase Queensland’s prosperity by ensuring our electricity market is more affordable and efficient.”

The strategy was about technology, costs and power pricing but not about appearance and safety

and customer satisfaction.

4 Performance Statistics For distribution networks, network reliability is generally measured in relation to supply disruptions,

ie, when customers experience an interruption to their electricity supply. Measures of supply

5 | P a g e

disruptions can relate to both the number of disruptions that customer’s experience, and the length

of those disruptions. The most commonly used measures of distribution network reliability are:

System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) and

System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI).

SAIDI measures the total length of time (in minutes) that, on average, a customer would have their

electricity supply cut over a given period. Again, SAIDI is typically measured over a year and may be

calculated across the whole network, or for particular areas or types of line.

SAIFI measures the number of times on average that customers have their electricity cut in a given

period, and is typically measured over a year. SAIFI may be calculated across all of a distribution

network, or may be calculated for particular areas of the network, or particular types of electricity

lines (called ‘feeders’), such as long lines in rural areas.

These two reliability measures capture two key sources of inconvenience to electricity customers

from supply disruptions, ie, how long their electricity supply is off for as well as how often their

electricity supply is off. Customers experience less inconvenience (ie, a better level of supply

reliability), the lower each of these measures. Reliability standards applied to distribution networks

typically set minimum requirements in relation to each of these two measures.

Historically Queensland (Ergon and Energex) has performed poorly against other states even when

extraordinary events are factored out. The report cites the efforts made in Queensland on

improvements to the networks performance however but warns against the overregulatory control

affecting future performance. An incentive scheme is in effect which incentives the networks to

improve performance.

From the Brattle group 2012 report to the AEMC ,

(http://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/The-Brattle-Group-paper---Australian-and-international-

approaches-to-electricity-distribution-reliability-e90c7c8f-c719-4aec-bd2d-43c669be8c2b-0.PDF)

, there are sections about reliability with statistics.

6 | P a g e

7 | P a g e

8 | P a g e

9 | P a g e

10 | P a g e

5 Telco’s The situation regarding the telco with respect to future development and potential undergrounding

is very fluid due to the ever changing scope of the NBN roll-out and the effects on the business of

each Telco.

5.1 Telstra Telstra, an ASX listed corporation, owns the copper telephone wire system connected to most

houses. This copper network provides home phone and ADSL broadband and will currently not be

relinquished under the NBN changes, again this is fluid however. Even if all customers did not opt for

home telephones due to the wide use of mobile, the copper network would/should remain for ADSL

for those who want this service I expect. The network is not overly aged nor in no major need of

upgrading and or maintenance and Telstra would be therefore be reluctant to pay for

undergrounding without getting paid.

Telstra has some commercial agreement with Energex to use the existing poles, where there is

overhead reticulation, and the details of this arrangement are not known.

Additionally Telstra owns a hybrid fibre cable (HFC) network also on the Energex poles to deliver its

broadband services such as Big Pond and Foxtel pay TV. This HFC network is not telephony capable

at present but could be made so. Telstra’s business is changing under the NBN and further changes

may occur whereby then HFC becomes owned/operated by NBN.

5.2 Optus Optus also owns and operates HFC reticulation on the Energex poles under some unknown

commercial arrangement. It is thought that this network also will also be used by NBN to deliver

home fast broadband under the NBN banner. Optus is a listed company overseas owned and

managed by SingTel in Singapore.

The Optus HFC network is telephony capable. According to an unnamed source Optus have an

unstated policy in Brisbane of overhead delivery of the HFC to the extent that currently in a

subdivision in the West of the city there is a un undergrounding project where the rest of the

services are underground the Optus system is on the redundant poles. I do not know of why the

reticulation was placed underground in the first instance.

5.3 NBN NBN, a Federal Government owned Corporation is seemingly planning to utilise the HFC that exists

on Energex’s poles to deliver it services in existing overhead areas. This fact is not widely known and

if consumers think that the new fast broadband will be delivered by unseen underground fibres to

their homes they are very much mistaken.

5.4 Comment on Telco’s The Telco’s then will be reluctant customers to any undergrounding initiative unless is paid for.

NBN is likely to become the main player in the future being Government owned and may ultimately

own the whole street delivery infrastructure using a combination of fibre to the nodes and overhead

HFC in existing overhead areas.

11 | P a g e

Interestingly as the world moves rapidly towards mobile broadband and is SingTel’s fastest

performing product we are converging towards retaining overhead telco wires connected to our

houses.

6 Other Cities

6.1 Perth In Perth and country environs the poles and wires are owned by Western Power, a SOE, and they

have been in the business of undergrounding their network since 1996 and last year some 86,000

households have been converted to date.

Western Power is regulated by the ERA (Economic Regulation Authority) who controls power pricing

and expenditure oversight.

When the State Government developed the underground power program in 1996, it aimed to supply

underground power to at least 50% of Perth homes by 2010, with a similar improvement program in

regional areas. This initiative came about after week lasting unplanned outages due to major storms

back in 1994. The target was achieved in January 2010 and by January 2013 more than 55% of Perth

homes were connected to underground systems.

The target was achieved by:

Converting older residential areas to underground power under the State Underground Power

Program.

Progressively introducing underground power in all new subdivisions since 1991.

Requiring new homes in overhead metro areas to have an underground connection from the

pole in the street (pole to pillar - P2P).

They claim underground power:

is safer

is more secure in severe weather conditions

removes the need for tree pruning

improves the appearance of the street

reduces personal safety hazards caused by fallen power lines, pruning near power lines and car

accidents involving power poles

The State Underground Power Program only converts the distribution system (which comes from the

substation) to underground power. Transmission lines that deliver power to the substations are

generally not placed underground due to:

the cost, which can be up to nine times that of distribution lines

the security and reliability of transmission lines, which is greater than distribution lines, negating

the need to put them underground.

Transmission lines are only placed underground if there is insufficient room to build them overhead

(e.g.: the City Centre), or if a developer covers the cost.

The SUPP Statistics boast

12 | P a g e

52 Major Residential Projects and 33 Local Enhancement Projects have been completed in the

SUPP, costing around $365 million

Around 86,000 households have been converted to underground

This represents around 19% per cent of the overhead distribution network that existed when the

program began in 1996

The combination of all of Western Power’s underground power initiatives means that around

55% of the Perth metropolitan area is now underground

The State Government and Western Power each contribute about $5 million to the annual SUPP

budget of $20 million

The balance of the budget is met by the Councils who generally pass through their share of costs to

the householders. Private communication with the Western Power reveals the cost per household is

low $4000’s to high $5000’s.

In WA the undergrounding of power involves:

Installing new underground power cables in the road reserve – usually under verges

Installation of green connection pillars, usually in the front corner of private property to serve

that property and the immediately adjacent property wherever possible.

Installation of transformers and switchgear units to manage the distribution of power

throughout the area. These are located in parks or public open space, or where required, on side

verges of residential property.

Installing an underground connection from the connection pillar to the meter box at each

property.

Changing each property over to the new underground system once the new underground

system in the street is complete and it has been made live, and removing the old overhead cable

to the house

Installation of a new street light system designed to meet the Australian Standard for residential

street lighting.

Removal of existing wooden poles and overhead power lines in the streets (excluding

Transmission lines and poles)

Western power does not have the issue of leased space on poles to Telco’s.

I do not have any evidence of customer resident group initiated undergrounding work done in WA.

The following is a report by Domain.com

http://news.domain.com.au/domain/blogs/talking-property/would-you-pay-for-underground-

power-cables-20110614-1g19i.html

Tony Moore, a spokesman from energy supplier Western Power, says putting existing cables

underground costs between $10,500 and $11,500 per home. In south-west Western Australia, local

councils foot 50 per cent of that cost, while the power company and the state government each

cough up one-quarter.

13 | P a g e

Western Power works on a per lot basis, but some of the lots are strata title, which means councils

can collect one, two or more rates for that "lot". By the time councils take that into account, and

sometimes inject a bit of extra funding, undergrounding existing wiring usually costs ratepayers

about $4500 per property, Moore says.

Because the maintenance costs of underground power lines over their nominal 40-year life are about

20 per cent of their initial installation cost, that split makes it equitable for Western Power to support

the project. But if Western Power had to pay for all of the undergrounding costs, the return on

investment wouldn't make sense, Moore says.

"In Perth we've been able to build a program that has encouraged people to be accepting of the fact

they've got to pay $4000 - $4500 to get underground power. But I can tell you that when they get it,

they love it. They support it in droves," Moore says.

Surveys at the end of each project show satisfaction levels in the high 80s to low 90s, which means

people often change their attitude once they see what a difference the underground wires make.

"You might have done a survey during the project to see whether they're prepared to pay for it or not

and in some cases you don't even get 50 per cent, so we can't do a project," Moore notes. "It's never

forced on people, it's always given to them as an option but if they're not prepared to pay the money

then we won't go ahead and put Western Power and government money into areas that are not

prepared to support it."

6.2 Auckland In Auckland the poles and wires are owned by Vector, A NZSX listed company. The major

shareholder however is the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust (AECT) who are Vector customers and

the originals of whom receive dividends from the company. The regulator for power pricing in NZ

Commerce Commission.

Vector began their undergrounding programme in 2001, called the Overhead Improvement

Programme (OIP) and to date has seen an investment of more than $120 M

“Vectors programme has slowed in the last two years due to the environment created by the

government ultra- fast broadband project constraining Vector's ability to develop projects and to

achieve the targeted investment for this programme. In particular the award of the UFB project has

caused Chorus to withdraw from further investment in its copper network that has removed

opportunities to coordinate with Vector which is necessary to achieve successful undergrounding

outcome."

However partnering with Local Councils has seen beneficial outcomes and awards to and of the OIP:

http://www.generalcable.co.nz/getattachment/04fadaa2-2224-434b-af4e-900b0a631e9f/Howick-

Undergrounding-Project-(pdf,-153-KB).aspx

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0511/S00404.htm

14 | P a g e

No information is currently available on the amount of owner contribution if any in Auckland but the

programme is essentially the same as Perth but the undergrounding system used included both

above ground and totally underground pillars so no above ground projections are visible.

There is evidence of some customer resident group initiated undergrounding work done in

Auckland.

6.3 Wellington Wellington City has an extensive network of overhead electricity and telecommunications cabling in

addition to underground services. In order to prevent the intensification of overhead cabling,

Council approved District Plan changes in 2004 that prevent utility operators from installing any new

or additional overhead cabling. The Undergrounding Policy outlines the Council’s approach to

retrospective undergrounding i.e. putting existing overhead cabling underground:

SUMMARY OF THE COUNCIL’S POLICY

The Council encourages utility operators to underground their cable networks in all areas.

All new subdivisions are required to have underground cable networks

The Council will run a three-year Contestable Undergrounding Fund pilot programme from

2006/07. The Council will invite residents groups to submit proposals for funding and provide

partial subsidies to undergrounding projects that provide sufficient public benefits. The Fund will

allocate a maximum of $200,000 annually, prioritised according to the greatest level of public

benefit.

If requested, the Council will facilitate activities and communications between residents and

utility operators for resident-initiated undergrounding projects. Interested residents will be

provided with a set of guidelines to assist them with the planning process. Residents that meet

the criteria outlined in the guidelines will receive assistance from the Council with discussions

with utility operators, co-ordination of activities and imposing targeted rates in place of upfront

payments (if necessary). The Council and utility operators will have the option to contribute

additional funding if the proposed project corresponds to any planned work such as footpath

renewals for the Council or cable network replacement for utility operators

Ratepayers can pay the costs of the Council facilitated undergrounding projects in two ways:

o if 75% of ratepayers agree to fund project (minimum of 8 properties), the Council will

pay the entire up-front costs of project and charge all affected ratepayers a uniform

targeted rate (plus interest) over an agreed time period not exceeding 5 years.

Ratepayers can also pay costs up front.

o if the 75% target is not achieved, ratepayers in agreement can pay project costs through

upfront payment (payment will be in equal quantities or some other allocation

arrangement they may agree amongst themselves).

The Council will consider attaching an undergrounding component to other Council

infrastructure projects on main roads and other high-profile areas such as parks on a case-by-

case basis.

The Council will work with utility operators to establish reasonable conditions of appearance for

overhead cable networks. The Council will also continue discussions with utility operators on the

prospects of cost-sharing with undergrounding projects.

15 | P a g e

The Undergrounding Policy applies to the overhead electrical cable networks with capacity of

11,000 volts or less and to all overhead telecommunications cable networks. The Policy does not

apply to Transpower’s high voltage transmission cable network that makeup the National Grid or

to Vector’s high voltage sub transmission cable network, which have a capacity of 33,000 volts

and up.

The Council recognises that the ultimate decision on undergrounding existing overhead cables

lies with the utility operators that own the cable network and not with Council or residents

It seems Wellington Council have their policy in place and allow customer initiatives for

undergrounding outside their homes.

7 Customer Initiatives Some customers in Brisbane areas are interested in undergrounding their streets for asthetic

reasons and have approached Energex to offer a fully funded street undergrounding initiatives.

Unfortunately whilst Energex is not adverse to customer initiatives they apparently currently require

all 100% residences to be in accord and willing to fund and install their service mains via the new

network.

Wellington City Council has in the past invited residents groups to submit street undergrounding

proposals for funding and had provided partial subsidies to undergrounding projects that provide

sufficient public benefits.

It is common elsewhere for the authority to have as little as 75% of customers in accord elsewhere.

Those that do not want change can retain a service pole on their properties up to which their

overhead service mains can be installed. The street goes underground and those that are in accord

each pay for their own service main to be placed underground to a new point of entry box on their

barge board with a conduit carrying the service main down to the ground. This work is generally

done by the street undergrounding contractor.

8 Underground LV Power Systems

8.1 TUDS A system exists from a NZ supplier (See Author for details and pricing) whereby all the connections,

service fuses and links and neutral can be made in a pit which has no above ground connections. I

understand that Energex may be trialling this system in Brisbane but it is used by several NSP’s in NZ

already for some years without issues. A LV mains sector type aluminium cable is laid underground

along the street and breach joints are made to this cable without cutting it using clamping

techniques and resined water barriers. Tails are brought up the pillar where the service fuses are

located.

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e

9 Technical Considerations Like most NSP’s Energex’s network is aged and in need of major spending to allow it to be efficient in

the future. They are constrained by the regulator however on where and what they can spend. They

have, since the power crisis on the 80’s, improved the back bones of the network, with work done

on all their zone substations etc., but their urban network at the ≤11000 volt level is essentially the

same as it was previously, with only essential maintenance being done on pole and cross arm

replacement.

The Energex maximum demand has increased in Brisbane but it has shifted to the evening from the

daytime air-conditioning peak due to the reach of rooftop solar generation. At cooler night time

temperatures they can run there overhead network “harder” than during the hot days and this

somewhat obviates the need for conductor upgrading due to the increased loads.

If an undergrounding programme was initiated Energex would need to replace the transformers on

poles and switches/reclosers with new ones installed on Berms and of a different design. The poles

and wires themselves have little scrap value now unless recovered for some less fortunate nation.

Therefore whilst an underground initiative would give Energex a new network, which is perhaps the

only way they can achieve it at 11000 volt level and below, they will immediately howl down the

initiative based on maintenance, cost and operative issues. These arguments can all be engineered

satisfactorily and the benefits far outweigh the “do nothing” option.

If the upper limit the voltage to which undergrounding applies is 11000volts and below, because of

the technical issues of changes to the network, this limits the streets and circuits that can be

undergrounded. Long or Medium length transmission cables introduce high charging currents which

limit power transfer and thus exclude their inclusion in the programme unless driven by main roads

or some other such reason.

Energex may require that LV circuits be duplicated or looped to provide for rapid transfer and thus

reduced outage times in event of faulted cable. NSP’s protect their KPI’s vigorously. This increases

cost of the installation significantly however. Vector nor Western Power does not duplicate circuits

to my knowledge.

Other NSP’s have recognised that when undergrounding projects are carried out there is the

opportunity to make the network “smarter”. A Smart Grid is an electricity network that can

intelligently integrate the actions of all users connected to it – generators, consumers and those that

do both – in order to efficiently deliver sustainable, economic and secure electricity supplies.

See the link to the Horizon Power Pilbara Project for smart grid initiatives:

http://ece.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/updated.pdf

Energex say flooding is an issue with underground conduits but this occurs everywhere and new

technologies make the reticulation waterproof.

New street lighting driven by customer/Council demand for upgrades to standard would be installed

which will improve safety and security in streets

In Auckland spare ducts are pulled in in some locations to allow for future street MV cable upgrades.

18 | P a g e

10 Opportunity The stakeholders involved in any future undergrounding initiating project in Brisbane to be

considered would be:

Brisbane City Council

Energex & Treasury

Telstra

Urban Utilities

Optus

NBN

Home Owners

Contractors

Engineers

Main Roads authorities

Gas suppliers

Media

The above list is significant and daunting when you consider most of the shareholders are

considering the overhead lines a “non-issue” and want to do nothing to resolve it.

So unless there is political pressure as there was in the brown outs in the 80’s then the NSP’s are

doing as little as possible and the Telco’s are handwringing about their future respective business

profits.

So is it not a good time to make some initiatives? I believe it is. I think customers do not consider the

overhead network unless the power is off, a car hits a pole in their street or they get in the way of a

good view, which Brisbane has many.

So the public must be made aware of the need to begin a programme and the benefits. We do this

by:

A web site and name of agent for fees who can achieve the outcomes and detail the potential

benefits( Myself)

Blogs, public forums about why Brisbane is behind the others

Industry publications & forums

Disclosing what the issues are to media

Lobbying in State Gov and Councils

Meet with the NSP,s and Telco’s

Select some typical local streets and do a engineering plan and budget

Contact other NSP’s for more details

Citing without disclosure of personalities local residents who want change and can pay for it

Advertising for interested parties

19 | P a g e

11 Photos

This is a picture of a Telco pit and TUDS pit, nothing above ground

Before

20 | P a g e

After