In 1995, Redland Shire paid $7.816 million for reticulated power to be provided to eligible Russell Island lots through to 2050. Residents say Energex is now charging assessment fees for network extensions that were already covered by that agreement.]Cr Shane Rendalls argues ratepayers should not be forced to pay twice for the same infrastructure.
A long-running dispute over electricity charges on Russell Island is raising serious questions about whether residents are being asked to pay twice for a service already funded by ratepayers. At the centre of the issue is a 1995 agreement under which Redland Shire paid SEQEB, now Energex, $7.816 million for reticulated power to be provided to eligible residential lots on the island through to the end of 2050.
The dispute is not about the usual cost of connecting a completed home to power where poles already exist in the street. Instead, it concerns charges being imposed on some residents when Energex extends the reticulated network itself by installing additional poles to reach approved residential lots. Cr Rendalls and residents argue those costs were already covered by the original agreement, while Energex says an assessment fee can still apply. The result is a growing conflict over who is responsible for paying for new street-level infrastructure on Russell Island, and whether the terms of the 1995 deal are now being reinterpreted in a way that disadvantages residents.
The agreement was signed on 22 December 1995 between South East Queensland Electricity Corporation (SEQEB) and the then Council of the Shire of Redland. A copy of this agreement is available on my website. Under that agreement, Redland Shire paid the corporation in ten annual instalments of $781,600 between 1996 and 2001. In return, SEQEB agreed to make electricity available to existing approved allotments on Russell Island in accordance with the terms of the contract. The key clause relied on by residents and supporters is this:
(Point 3, page 3) “… SEQEB will make overhead supply available to the remaining unreticulated existing allotments of land on Russell Island in accordance with this Agreement without seeking from the Council or from any applicant for normal 240 volt electricity supply to be provided at an appropriate prescribed tariff, any contribution towards SEQEB’s costs of providing such reticulation or seeking from any such applicant for such 240 volt supply as aforesaid that such applicant agree to use or pay for any minimum amount of electricity. Any minimum charges associated with normal domestic tariffs will apply.
Both Energex and Redland City Council acknowledge the agreement, which remains in force until 31 December 2050.
For residents challenging the current charges, that clause goes to the heart of the dispute. They argue the wording is direct and leaves little room for Energex to impose new categories of costs on applicants for ordinary 240 volt domestic supply. The agreement contains no reference to assessment fees, planning fees or any other charge of the type now being levied. Both Energex and Redland City Council acknowledge the agreement remains in force until 31 December 2050, which has strengthened calls for the original deal to be honoured in full.
Part of the complexity lies in the way electricity pricing has changed since the agreement was signed. The Australian Energy Regulator now sets the revenue framework for monopoly electricity networks, but that regime was introduced after the 1995 agreement between SEQEB and Redland Council. As a result, residents and their supporters argue the Russell Island arrangement should have been preserved as a pre-existing contractual commitment, rather than treated as though it could be overridden by later pricing practices. In their view, this is not simply a technical or regulatory matter. It is a question of whether a publicly funded agreement is still being delivered as promised.
That concern moved into sharper focus in 2025, when complaints from Russell Island residents prompted closer scrutiny of the agreement and the way Energex was charging for new connections requiring an extension of the street network.
Cr Shane Rendalls said he first became aware of the issue in August 2025 after being contacted by long-term residents who were concerned about charges for poles needed to extend reticulated supply along their street. According to Rendalls, those costs were being imposed on the first resident seeking connection in an unreticulated section of road, even though later properties could then benefit from the same infrastructure without incurring the same expense.
Rendalls said the issue was not the ordinary cost of connecting a dwelling to existing street power, but the charging of residents for the extension of the reticulated network itself. He said: “Once I was informed of this issue, I advised Council legal officers and proceeded to track down the original contract. A copy was located both in the community and Council records.” He said: “This was a clear case of Energex double dipping and charging residents for what ratepayers had already paid for. Following my Facebook post, I was contacted by numerous residents to whom this had happened. I referred all details to Council legal officers who entered discussions with Energex.” He added: “For me the issue is very simple. Energex should honour the contract moving forward and reimburse all residents who have been charged this fee.”
Nine months on, Rendalls said the matter remains unresolved, although he says Energex now acknowledges the existence of the agreement. One of the key points of dispute is Energex’s position that an assessment fee can still be charged even while other electricity supply costs are covered under the 1995 arrangement. In response to one resident seeking a waiver of the fee, the company wrote:
However, due to an existing agreement between Redlands Shire Council and Energex Ltd, I am unable to waive the assessment fee.
Our agreement with Redlands Shire has been in place since 1995 and will continue through until 2050. This agreement is specific to Russell Island and agrees that Energy Qld/Energex Ltd is responsible for the costs of all electricity supply to residents of Russell Island, with the exception of any required assessment fees. This assessment fee, for which you are responsible, will be the only fee that you will pay. All other associated costs for electricity supply will be covered by us. This ensures all residents of Russell Island are treated in a fair and consistent manner in accordance with supply establishment.
Rendalls rejected that interpretation. He said: “… the weasel words used by Energex to try and wriggle out of the Agreement are not contained within the Agreement. Other than limitations on the provision of power to drainage constrained lots, the agreement makes no exception and contains no reference to an assessment or planning fee whatsoever. Have a look at the Agreement yourself and you can see it is very clear.”
For residents, the dispute is more than a legal argument about contract wording. It has immediate financial consequences, especially for those trying to build on approved lots in streets where the network still needs to be extended. One resident who paid the fee described the experience this way:
I have just gone 12 months to have power supplied to my block on Russell Island. The network required a pole to be put in to facilitate supply. I was not charged for the pole however I was charged a $2656.50 network assessment fee. The remaining 4 blocks around me will now feed off this pole at no extra cost.
Not sure if this is just another way for charging for poles without exactly saying it as I can’t see it reasonably costing them $2656.50 to come out and say “yep, we need to put another pole in here”
Rendalls argues the logic behind the current assessment fee does not withstand scrutiny. He said: “How can Energex require a planning or assessment fee when the planning and assessment for the provision of electricity supply across Russell Island would have already been undertaken to inform pricing for the original Agreement? Energex would already know the placement and number of poles and location to cover each approved residential lot on a street by street basis.”
He added: “To add further insult, there are now significantly fewer residential lots than there were in 1995 due to Council buybacks over the subsequent years. Energex was overpaid then and they are wanting to under deliver now.”
The dispute has also expanded beyond the fee itself to the contracts residents are being asked to sign before power is provided. Rendalls said Energex is waiving the connection fee in those contracts, but he argues the broader terms impose obligations that should never sit with individual residents seeking standard domestic supply under an existing council agreement. He said:
-
- I fail to understand why Energex are seeking agreement with the resident when the 1995 Agreement requiring Energex to provide reticulated power (which in this case, Energex is honouring) is with Council not the resident. Who the resident or the developer is, is immaterial to the requirement of Energex to provide the reticulated power supply to approved residential non drainage affected lots with an approved DA, see below.
- The agreement for the supply of domestic power is between the retail electrical provider and the resident, as per any new connection. No new domestic connections are direct with Energex. I assume Energex is not offering the resident electricity at the wholesale prices they charge retail providers.
- At 20 pages, the contract the resident is being demanded to sign in order to obtain a connection, is not “Plain English”. It appears to be based on the contract used with new estate developers or subdivisions.
- The contract imposes conditions on the resident in respect to securing easement approvals and landowners consent from council and insurance for works that is neither the resident’s responsibility, nor are they able to satisfy, see for example sections 2.5 (a), 2.5 (b), 6.1, 11.9 in the attached contract.
- I suspect the contract may be in breach of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Unfair contract terms (see Unfair Contract Terms reforms commence | ASIC) in that
- it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations; it is unreasonable to expect a resident to have $20m public liability insurance and be responsible for negotiating council approval to allow the placement of Energex poles on council property
- is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by such a term; As said in 1 above, the contract to provide the power is between Energex and Council, not the resident
With population growth continuing across the islands, Rendalls believes the problem is likely to affect many more households unless it is resolved quickly. He pointed to likely future demand in areas including Maybrook Avenue, Poinsettia Court and Basket Beach Road, saying the issue is no longer confined to a handful of isolated properties. In that context, he argues, the question is whether Energex will continue to treat each case as an individual fee dispute or recognise the broader contractual obligation that has existed for three decades.
Rendalls said the solution is straightforward and has called for the following action to resolve the matter and prevent further residents from being charged in the future:
-
- Energex installs reticulated power at the request of residents who have approved development plans. This should be at no cost to residents as per the Agreement.
- Energex should link with council development applications and approvals data. Russell Island is currently averaging around 11 development applications per week. Linking data would facilitate forward planning for the provision of reticulated power, create efficiencies in the installation of reticulated power, reduce wait times, lower the cost of the build and lower cost to residents of temporary accommodation pending housing approval.
- If an indication of intent to connect to power is required, this should be in a very ‘plain English” format.
- Energex should reimburse residents who have been unfairly charged a connection fee.