“Better offer” reforms unlikely to fix energy bill confusion, consumer groups say

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has signed off on a new rule to make ‘better offer’ messages on electricity bills harder for consumers to miss.

From late next year – 30 December 2026 – energy retailers will be required to display these alerts not only inside bills, but also in the communications that accompany them, such as emails, bill summaries, and cover letters. 

The change is part of a broader consumer rule change package requested by Energy Ministers to boost engagement, strengthen protections, and increase transparency in energy retail.

The logic of the rule change seems straightforward – many customers never open or properly read their bills, largely because they’re so confusing, and so they never see the ‘better offer’ message. 

By moving the message into more visible billing communications, regulators claim more households will notice cheaper deals and switch plans, which they say will drive competition and lower costs.

But consumer groups aren’t convinced that tweaking these rules deals with Australia’s overly-complex energy market.

Dr Brendan French, CEO of Energy Consumers Australia, says the problem runs deeper than where the ‘better offer’ message is placed. 

“There’s no doubt that the regulatory system for energy is confusing and in need of significant overhaul, not least to fundamentally shift responsibility for ensuring good consumer outcomes from consumers to energy providers.  

“The core issue is that for most of us, energy contracts and tariffs are confusing, intimidating and hard to compare – and yet the obligation to hunt down the best deal rests entirely with the consumer.”

It’s not a new problem. ‘Better offer’ messages were first introduced in 2019 following an ACCC review into the ‘loyalty penalty’ — the hundreds of dollars extra each year paid by customers who stick with their retailer while new customers are enticed with artificially cheap ‘honeymoon’ deals. 

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) standardised the message in 2022, tweaked it again in 2024, and now the AEMC has strengthened it further in 2025.

Yet despite multiple iterations, the system continues to frustrate.

CHOICE recently included ‘better offer’ messaging in its recent “super complaint” to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), arguing the alerts have become confusing and even misleading. In a review of 400 household bills, CHOICE found customers were often told they could save money by switching to a ‘better offer’ which had the exact same name as their current plan.

“These messages are rife and consumers are confused by them,” Jordan Cornelius, Senior Campaigns & Policy Adviser at CHOICE, told the SwitchedOn Australia podcast. “Most people don’t switch. There’s so much data that shows that the majority of customers aren’t switching. If people are getting messages they think are a mistake, they’re just going to brush them off.”

Whilst the ACCC left the AER to review ‘better offer’ claims, it has agreed to investigate  another element of CHOICE’s super complaint — the so-called “savings” or “value” plans that retailers use to entice customers. 

“What we found when we looked at those bills was quite a few offers that were a ‘saver plan’ or had allusions to ‘value’ in the name or description that were more expensive than another plan available from that retailer that didn’t have savings in the name of the plan,” Cornelius says.

“In some cases, we even found ones that were more expensive than the retailer’s standing offer, which is meant to be the maximum or default price that they charge people.”

Both CHOICE and Energy Consumers Australia have welcomed the ACCC’s probe into ‘savings’ plans but say the system needs a reset. 

“People should be able to trust that words mean things. If something says ‘saver’, it should cost less,” Cornelius says. CHOICE is urging the ACCC to use its powers to secure fines for retailers and even refunds for misled customers.

“Equally important must be a rethink by regulators of the premise that only those consumers who have the skills and wherewithal to keep hunting down the best deals should be entitled to them,” argues French. 

“Consumers shouldn’t be penalised simply because they don’t have the language, cognitive or digital skills – or even the available time – to constantly be on the lookout for cheaper prices. All too often we see that those with the lowest means are paying the highest prices, and that just shouldn’t happen for an essential service.”

Meanwhile, consumer advocates warn that confusing and opaque retail practices risk undermining public trust at a critical moment in the clean energy transition. High prices and misleading bills erode confidence just as households are being asked to electrify, install solar and batteries, and participate in flexible demand schemes.

“Even if specific tactics are banned, the market’s fundamental structure still works against consumers,” Cornelius says. “We need bigger, systemic changes to address how entrenched this unfairness is in our energy retail market.”

In the meantime, as difficult as it is, households are urged to review and switch electricity plans regularly — as often as every six months — using independent comparison tools such as the federal Energy Made Easy website or Victoria’s Energy Compare.

You can hear the full interview with Jordan Cornelius on the SwitchedOn Australia podcast.

If you wish to support independent media, and accurate information, please consider making a one off donation or becoming a regular supporter of Renew Economy. Your support is invaluable.