With the Australian federal election imminent, voters are being inundated by the usual flood of photos showcasing campaign stunts – smiling politicians holding babies and wearing high-vis vests – galvanising a certain amount of our collective focus. Whilst this pre-election drama fills the newscycle, the real world policy implications are always serious and could lead to dramatically different outcomes. On April 6, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese alongside Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, revealed Labor’s recent energy policy.
The policy
The program consists of a $2.3 billion subsidy for solar-powered home batteries to store more efficiently the country’s current solar capacity. Based on analysis by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, this rebate could save a household with existing rooftop solar $1,100 from their yearly power bill, and $2,300 for houses installing a new solar and battery system (ALP, 2025).
If Labor retains power, this rebate scheme will be introduced from July 1, 2025 and would be offered via the existing small-scale renewable energy scheme.
The case for
According to the Clean Energy Council’s General Manager, Con Hristodoulidis, this policy would help households overcome one of the principal limitations with home batteries, which is their cost.
‘The upfront cost of purchasing a battery averages around AU$14,000 and has been a barrier to entry for many homeowners who want to generate even further savings on their energy bills. Our data shows that less than five per cent of households with rooftop solar panels currently invest in battery storage,’ said Hristodoulidis (Heynes, 2025).
The opposition
The current critique and opposition to this policy is defining the program as essentially a ‘regressive tax’ that would, as the name suggests, disproportionately negatively impact lower income households.
National Director of Energy at St Vincent de Paul, Gavin Dufty, said this about Labor’s proposal: ‘Renters and people in apartments who won’t be able to get these assets might end up underwriting home owners or home purchasers who have got wealth.’
He then continued, ‘Most people without solar, you’re probably paying in green schemes and other stuff about ten percent of your bill.’ (Mercer, 2025).
Liberal party leader, Peter Dutton, also remarked : ‘I think you’re talking about higher income families being in a position to pay for that. I just don’t know that the next-door neighbour who can’t afford to pay for that battery is going to subsidise the battery for me, or for you, on higher incomes.’ (Heynes, 2025).
Result
The supply and demand model that is taught in every high school economic class defines certain clear things. One of them is that, if demand decreases and supply either stays the same or increases, prices fall.
Combining this with the ‘duck curve’, which tracks the energy consumption from households over a regular day, we can understand why a Labor spokeswoman can confidently claim ‘the scheme aims to bring down power prices across the board by reducing demand for electricity at peak times in the evening when power prices spike as solar leaves the system.’ (Mercer, 2025).
It is difficult to argue that allowing stored solar power, that has been accumulated across the day when demand for power is low, to be used in the evenings when the demand is high, would not, at least somewhat, decrease energy prices.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
