In the March 9, 2026, edition of the excellent SwitchedOn podcast, Anne Delaney interviewed Gavin Dufty, the National Director of Energy Policy and Research at the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, on the question of whether solar households are shifting electricity costs onto others.
This is an important and timely discussion about whether Australia’s energy transition risks entrenching inequity, particularly for renters and low-income households, who lack access to rooftop solar, batteries, and smart technologies.
On this point, there is consensus among industry specialists and observers alike. However, the framework through which Dufty and others diagnose the problem, and the solutions they propose, are constrained by the very market logic that has produced these inequities.
At the core of the argument is the claim that households with rooftop solar and batteries are “not paying their way,” resulting in costs shifting onto those without such technologies.
This framing overstates the problem and misidentifies its cause. It ignores the system benefits solar provides, including reduced wholesale prices, lower peak demand, and decreased reliance on fossil fuel generation. Any assessment of fairness must account for these.
More fundamentally, this argument accepts the premise that electricity system costs must be recovered primarily through household bills. This assumption is rarely interrogated, yet it is precisely where the problem lies.
Electricity networks are natural monopolies and essential infrastructure. Recovering their costs through user charges produces regressive outcomes, as low-income households spend a higher proportion of their income on energy.
Dufty is right to highlight the disadvantages faced by renters and low-income households, but the suggested remedy – ensuring all users “pay their share” of network costs – misses a larger opportunity.
The most effective way to address energy inequity is not to rebalance tariffs within a flawed system, but to change how the system is funded and structured.
A more coherent approach would involve bringing key elements of the transmission network back into public ownership, treating the electricity grid as essential infrastructure funded through Federal fiscal policy rather than household bills.
This would remove the regressive burden of fixed network charges and allow retailers to focus on regulated low-cost electricity provision, while higher consumption is priced progressively, encouraging efficiency without penalising necessity.
At the same time, targeted public investment could address the root causes of inequity. Poor housing quality is a major driver of high energy bills, particularly for renters. Programs to improve insulation, electrify heating and cooking, and deploy efficient appliances would reduce both household costs and system demand.
Using a market-based framework limits the solutions to redistributing costs within the privatised electricity system, rather than questioning whether key components should be returned to public ownership.
From the macroeconomic perspective of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), this constraint is artificial.
MMT informs us that a currency-issuing federal government, like Australia’s, is not financially constrained in the way households or businesses are. It would not need to “raise” revenue from electricity users to fund infrastructure. Therefore, loading network costs onto bills would be a political choice, not an economic necessity.
A fair and efficient energy system will require more than adjustments to pricing mechanisms. It will require a shift in perspective from markets to service delivery, and from cost recovery to public provision. Until that shift occurs, debates about “who pays” will continue to obscure the more important question of how the system should be designed to serve everyone.
In my view, the shift toward privatising public infrastructure that began under the Hawke–Keating governments (1983–1996) has failed to deliver equitable outcomes. The tensions we see in today’s electricity market are a consequence of that policy direction.
Gregory John Olsen is a passionate environmentalist and devotee of sustainable living, energy equity and community advocacy.
