Policy & Planning

Our energy market was never fit for purpose, because it was obsessed only with price

Published by

The Energy Security Board and Australian Energy Market Operator are beginning to frame the design of our post-2025 electricity market.

This supposedly reflects the view that our present market design is “no longer” fit for purpose.

Let’s be clear: it was never ‘fit for purpose’ from the day the Victorian market began in the mid-1990s, followed by the National Electricity Market.

In 1992, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria published scenarios showing how iit could achieve a 20% reduction in emissions by 2005, using experience from its Demand Management Action Program and renewables: for example the SECV and Victorian Solar Council had installed our first ‘large’ grid- connected wind generator at Breamlea, near Geelong, in the mid-1980s.

Then the economic fundamentalists and ruthless asset sale experts took over when the Kennett government was elected in late 1992. Energy market design ignored demand-side action. Support for renewable energy was slashed.

The National Grid Management Council, tasked with design of the market, initially framed some reasonable objectives in 1992:

  • to encourage the most efficient, economical and environmentally sound development of the electricity industry consistent with key National and State policies and objectives;
  • to provide a framework for long-term;
    least cost solutions to meet future power supply demands including appropriate use of demand management;
  • to maintain and develop the technical, economic and environmental performance and/or utilisation of the power system.

But these were modified over time to exclude environment and focus on electricity prices not overall cost. They evolved into ‘economic’ objectives—actually short-term narrow financial objectives limited to energy supply.

The 2002 Parer Review identified problems with market design that have still not been fixed.

The Australian Energy Market Operator and Energy Security Board are doing some good work reframing future energy market design. But the barriers to fundamental change are challenging and deeply ingrained in energy culture.

    • Alan Pears is a senior industry fellow at RMIT University, advises a number of industry and community organisations and works as a consultant.Originally published on Renew Magazine. Reproduced with permission of the author.

Recent Posts

“Sick joke:” Beetaloo gas starts flowing as new UN report issues “deafening” climate wake-up call

As the NT marks first gas from the huge Beetaloo "carbon bomb," the Pacific Islands…

1 September 2026

From diesel shackles to solar sovereignty: How Australia can help unlock a renewable Pacific

Behind the Pacific’s reliance on fossil fuel imports lies an extraordinary economic opportunity. But tapping…

1 September 2026

Wind giant gets green light to plug batteries into turbines at 300 MW project, deliver an Australian first

Plans to add batteries to three-quarters of the turbines at a proposed 298 MW wind…

1 September 2026

Outgunned: Five fossil fuel lobbyists spent $553,000 on Meta ads in August, the renewables industry just $3,090

Fossil fuel lobbyists are flooding social media with ads, outgunning the minimal effort of the…

1 September 2026

How three hours of free solar power can cost you more | SwitchedOn Australia

Solar Sharer exposes a fundamental problem with our energy system – protecting retailer revenues can…

1 September 2026

“Retailer viability” trumped bill savings in Solar Sharer design, says energy veteran

A policy designed to give households access to abundant free solar power has been nobbled…

1 September 2026