https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-24/plan-to-slug-consumer…
There you go.. 😊 another grand scheme at expense of tax payers.
The Australian Energy Market Commission has given preliminary approval to a plan to allow poles-and-wires companies to install EV chargers.
It follows a proposal by the federal government, which wants to fast-track the rollout of charging points partly by recovering the costs from all consumers.
That is quite bizarre they do a big song and dance about $1 a year for something that benefits everyone
It was never about the $1, it's about creating outrage. They gloss over or just downright omit the actual facts because people saying "oh, $1 a year… that isn't too bad" doesn't feed the algorithm… but saying "EvErYoNe WiLL PaY!11!!" gets people worked up and linking to their hit piece which drives views/engagement. OP did exactly what they wanted them to do,m and that is to post their link to their story and for it to cause outrage and drive clicks. Nothing more.
These "news" articles are about driving you into one camp or the other, so you are fighting with people instead of looking at the big picture. While people are outraged over a $1 yearly hike in power bills to cover something that will benefit a lot of people and help future proof Australia from the strangle hold oil has over us, no, no, the news wants you outraged at that $1 so you are not looking into some other mega-corp getting hundreds of millions of dollars in back handers from the tax payer that only benefits a few share holders, CEO's and a corporation…
But, yeah… my power bill going up $1~ish a year for a few years is outrage worthy.
Thanks, wanted to say similar.
You'd think an agency that 'slugs' everyone $45/year might understand the concept of societal benefit.
$1 a year for 5 years.
Sure. Anything the government touches and leave in the privatised hands… Very naive, I reckon at least 10 folds… Devil is in the detail… Just like the non stop daily supply charge increase that outstrips CPI to make up shortfall from electricity consumption after the solar boom.
The government should just run the infrastructure and pocket the revenue.
From google/AI:
The average Australian pays approximately $540 to $600 per year in government handouts and subsidies to fossil fuel, mining, and gas companies.
All this over $1/year!
The left eating itself and turning on the ABC LOL
The key to this news article isn't about a gold coin; it's about $40 million of federal funding. How about putting that $40 million towards lowering food prices? Oh wait, that would make you itchy. 😉
it's about $40 million of federal funding. How about putting that $40 million towards lowering food prices?
That works out to about 2.7cents per week per person in the country. You can get less than 100 mL of store brand full cream milk with that.
So that would benefits us $1.35 person, which more than -1$ per year? 😂😂
Government work, make it $40 billion
we need diesel bowsers installed on every corner please
Are you a part of society? There’s already plenty of those.
the common sense society
This assumes everyone is a taxpayer. This slugs everyone who pays power bills, which is a far bigger audience.
Personally, I'm all for it. Anyone in a city subsidises power poles for regional areas, that's just how things work. Might as well let it flow back the other way for a change and have a benefit for everyone, rather than the usual "I PERSONALLY DON'T BENEFIT, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!" bullshit that usually happens from people who don't understand these things.
Makes sense. It's nice to see government thinking ahead and investing in good infrastructure.
Annoying that people will only think short term and complain like OP instead of what's best long term for everyone.
I have a better idea: for every 20th car they sell, manufacturers need to fund one public EV charger and maintain it too. 😅
Because that will distribute the costs among the beneficiaries. It's much cheaper for the beneficiaries to socialise the costs across the entire population. In short, greed.
If they're so popular, Why not every 10rd?
If there was a 32a outlet on every power pole, petrol cars would disappear even quicker than they are now. It would be nice if they add a smarts (e.g register your evs identifier or just an app) to automatically charge back the power cost to your home power bill, like a "roaming" tarrif. The article is a bit biased, we already pay poles and wires costs that unequally shares benifits across business, consumers, big users etc.
If there was a 32a outlet on every power pole …
it would make life much easier for many people instead of having to walk to the BBQ in the park
petrol cars would disappear even quicker than they are now.
they aren’t disappearing though? there’s something called the used car market
you haven’t met EV buyers have you?
they replace perfectly fine and running cars with EVs to save on fuel but end up spending 50k on a disposable car
We can go on all day. Your point is moot. You do realise you have just described consumerism…
“Grand schemes at the expense of the taxpayer” is the entire point of government and living in a society you nong.
Mfw the idea of a commonwealth exists 😳😲
No, this is not what the regulator is allowing.
What it is allowing is for energy companies to pass on the cost to all electricity consumers everywhere of installing on-street chargers for EVs in inner-city areas where there aren't enough chargers for residents because lots of people have bought homes there that don't have off-street parking, or live in apartments that don't have chargers installed in their parking places.
So this is not an OK for electricity companies to pass on the cost of chargers across the country, or even just across the city, just chargers for well-off inner-city residents who bought homes there knowing they wouldn't be able to charge at home.
$5 over 5 years is hardly going to be noticed or missed by anyone. A bit like NBN you need the Govt to get involved to service areas of market failure, of which charging outside of metro areas is clearly one of them. By servicing regional areas you suddenly make range anxiety fears subside and, importantly, you could bridge the gap between charging points on the national highway network.
If these chargers can be used by heavy vehicles then the purchase of EV trucks becomes more attractive for operators. The upfront cost of EV trucks is still ahead of diesel powered rigs, but when you factor in energy costs over their life-cycle EVs start to stack up more favorably. Conversion will eventually drive down freight costs and boost productivity of the freight industry over time. Unlikely that we'll see a drop in freight costs, but they might not rise as quickly as they otherwise would have, and certainly not from things like the Trump/Iran induced oil shock. Would be interesting if there is any analysis on this, as it might more than cancel out that $5 rise to electricity prices if the cost of freight (which is built into everything) falls, or doesn't rise as quickly.
Also echoing the disappointment that the ABC is going down the tubes by hoping on the rage-bait and no critical thinking band-wagon. They're clearly team Teal now, and any sense of impartiality only lives on in our memories.
Why should the public bank roll private companies business project. The public doesn’t benefit from the charging revenue income. It benefits the power companies. Whats stopping them charging the public when they want to upgrade the infrastructure like upgrading poles and wires. A line has to be drawn some where.
NBN is based on the user pay system. They are not billing everyone house hold for NBN. You can go with wireless or starlink and completely bypass NBN.
Spot on.
any sense of impartiality only lives on in our memories.
FTFY
any sense of impartiality only lives on in our imaginations.
$1 per year spunds reasonabke to get more EVs on the roads. Less pollution in our cities, both noise and fumes. Less reliance on importing fuel which will mean less fossil fuel subsidies.
It's not $1 per year. It's another $1 per year per electricity customer… on top of all the many billions worth of taxpayer subsidies and other taxpayer funding (from purchase, novated leasing, to charging stations, at home electricity generation and storage, etc etc).
Fossil fuel fumes have fried your brain
From google:
The average Australian pays approximately $540 to $600 per year in government subsidies to fossil fuel, mining, and gas companies.
So $1/year is over the top?
"You're already being robbed, so you think being robbed further is wrong? Geeze it's 2026 already - go team hashtag #skub".
I think the point is if you're going to be outraged, it should be at the $600 per year robbery, not the $1 one.
But now it's $601!
/s
I consider EV's are having a dream run with the Labor Government and Blackout Bowen ….. what more do they expect ?, free tow trucks when they get a flat tyre or the doors don't open!!.
With free road charges, salary packaging I think it's about time they paid for road use and not expect more freebees.
EV's are having a dream run because they're the cheapest form of transport?
If you're mad about that… Just buy an EV and enjoy the spoils???
20k for a new atto 1. On finance over 5 years that's $400 bucks a month at 6% interest… Assuming $0 deposit…
If they are the cheapest it is because of years of heavy government funding and subsidies.
And? So?
It received government investment which is as legitimate as any other form of investment. And like any other investment, it's paying itself off many times over both financially and through things like increasing national security.
You're acting like investing is something only for billionaires…?
it's paying itself off many times over
Is it paying itself off? Can you quantify it?
How much do EVs cost, including all the so-called "investment" by the government?
And is that amount cheaper than other forms of transport, as you claimed?
@tenpercent: PT is the cheapest form of transport when doing a per capita comparison.
EVs are paying themselves many times over.
The onus is on you, 10%, to prove otherwise. Once you provide smth useful to the conversation, then I will provide my debate/retort.
@tenpercent: Nup.
You made original reply. You're the one saying it's expensive without anything to back your claim up.
You're essentially saying the sky is red and saying it's up to me to prove the sky is blue. Like, nuh uh, you're the one making a wild claim. The onus is on you.
How about you play pretend mathematician, and try to prove your latest theorem that counters long established theorems…
@Some Random Guy: Lol. You initially claimed they were the cheapest. I suggested if that's true it's because of government subsidies and incentives. There's no point proceeding to confirm or refute my suggestion if you haven't yet properly established your original claim is true. If your original claim is not true, there's no point even exploring mine.
No. You're essentially saying that the sky is red, and I'm saying if it is red then that would only be true because of X. No point exploring my X if you haven't yet shown that the sky is red.
@tenpercent: The sky is blue. That's what I'm saying.
You're the one saying the sky is red.
Seeing as you live in lahlah-land where the sky happens to be red, it is your job to explain why the sky is red.
The ball is in your court. You can't shift goal posts around.
Your job is to provide evidence for your, seemingly indefensible (from the way you're acting), statements. Everything else is just hot air.
Are you going to be surprised when all these EV subsidies and incentives and VC funding are gone, electricity for cars is more heavily taxed (like auto LPG)?
Surprised? No. Will it still be cheaper? Yes.
The dream run has much more to do with trump and his war than anything labor has done
I'm curious. For those who are outraged about EVs, why?
No one is stopping you from buying one, you seem to understand all the perks and incentives which are offered and they're very affordable these days. Instead of trying to fight it, join in and reap the benefits.
They love the smell of petrol.
who can I ask in govt to create govt funded petrol stations?
The Bonking Beetroot … so long as you’re prepared to ask on your knees
Good. There should be chargers everywhere so you don't need to queue for them or pay much to access them per user.
My lifestyle choices should be subsidised by everyone, including the majority who do not get any benefit themselves.
People like you said the same thing about the expense of removing lead from petrol.
Yeah, nah.
non-sequitur of the day award? was that just an insult shrouded as an ideological charge?
Subsidising a company's investment so that they can charge 2 or even 3x the retail rate for power? Nice.
What other great ideas can we bill the consumer for?
Seems the average consumer isn't being taxed and charged hard enough yet lol.
Im outraged that taxpayer have to help fund the strategic fuel stockpile
Sounds fair.
To save the environment everybody needs to chip in, just like how negative gearing and CGT changes will stop the rort by the elites, and help fund the NDIS and society needs.
Indeed. The government should run it instead of privatising it.
Can't tell if this is sarcasm.
negative gearing stopping rort by the elites.
Has to be sarcasm.
Everyone should fund ev charging ports just like everyone should fund roads through fuel taxes or the equivalent for EVs
Fuel taxes do not fund roads explicitly. They go to a general fund, not specifically for use on roads.
Clearly, given the state of the roads.
Agreed, but if the federal government is spending substantially on federal road projects the money has to come from somewhere and everyone should fund it, I find it amusing on one hand we all should pay for ev charging points, but not everyone that drives on roads should fund roads. It’s national infrastructure in my opinion and everyone should fund EV charging points and roads
Everyone does fund it. What makes you believe it can only be funded by everyone if it’s done via this one antiquated mechanism of revenue raising?
@segfaultowl: The federal government could always cancel excise and hand back all roads funding to the states. I’m not bothered either way as long as all road users pay for it
Nooooooo….. Not that kind of socialisation of costs!
/s
lol
Government subsidizes (pays for) EV's at every point of the product lifecycle, purchse, lease, charging stations etc, possibly even disposing of the batteries.
Turning the entire market on its head.
If the government decides on an RUT it will include a weight component to embrace all sizes.
Then they will turn us all back to light weight.
If the government stays out of markets, we may all be able to make wise decisions
Upload it before the 5 November 2026 closing window via the AEMC Online Portal.
Project Reference: Facilitating EV charging infrastructure rollout under Commonwealth grants
Rule Change ID: ERC0390
Date: September 2026
This submission is formally lodged in response to the Australian Energy Market Commission’s (AEMC) Consultation Paper regarding the rule change request titled "Facilitating EV charging infrastructure rollout under Commonwealth grants".
The submitter strongly objects to the proposed mechanism allowing Transmission Network Service Providers (TNSPs) and Distribution Network Service Providers (DNSPs) to recover the costs of public Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure from the general consumer base.
While the rollout of EV infrastructure aligns with broader government decarbonisation policy, the proposed regulatory mechanism fundamentally breaches the statutory boundaries of the National Electricity Law (NEL). Forcing non-EV-owning households to cross-subsidise public charging networks fails the legal tests required for rule-making in the National Electricity Market (NEM).
The AEMC is bound by strict legislative limitations under the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996. This submission contends that the proposed rule change cannot legally be made because it fails to satisfy the core statutory tests under the Act.
Under Section 7 of the National Electricity Law (NEL), the AEMC can only make a rule if it promotes efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, electricity services for the long-term interests of consumers of electricity with respect to price, quality, safety, and reliability.
Under Section 88 of the NEL, the AEMC is legally restricted from making a rule unless it is completely satisfied that the rule will contribute to the achievement of the NEO.
Chapter 6 of the National Electricity Rules (NER) strictly governs network service provider exemptions and ring-fencing. These provisions are designed to prevent regulated monopoly networks from abusing their guaranteed customer base to distort competitive markets.
To satisfy the statutory requirements of the NEL, the AEMC should reject the rule change request as currently drafted and instead recommend:
The AEMC must strictly uphold its statutory independence. A policy preference by the Executive Government cannot override the clear legislative wording of Section 7 and Section 88 of the National Electricity Law. Because the proposed rule change prioritizes rapid infrastructure rollout at the expense of equitable consumer pricing and market efficiency, it fails the National Electricity Objective and must be rejected.
God I hate it when people use AI and can't think up their own arguments
This is an outrage! Bloody Albo! Pooline will roll this back when she is president…
From the AEMC;
$1 a year for 5 years. FFS.
Don’t let the truth get in the way of a great outrage boomer trigger troll puff piece.
What ever happened to the ABC supposed to be being impartial and just reporting on events and not taking a side… Make a bullshit hit piece about cHiNa CaR spy!!1! cHiNa CaR nO sEcUrE!1!! And then this shit blown out of all proportions blaming EV’s and EV owners. I had to look twice to see if I had accidentally been directed to a SkyNews
news articleopinion piece.